Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2025 [Draft]
As we close this debate, I want to return to the human impact. When a dog is stolen, it is not just a theft. A family member is taken, routines are shattered and owners are left with the awful uncertainty of not knowing where their animal is or whether it is safe. Again, I thank Maurice Golden for pursuing his member’s bill and for listening to stakeholders as it has progressed.
The bill sits within a wider pattern of legislation in this session of Parliament of members introducing practical reforms to improve dog and pet welfare. We saw that with Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which has strengthened responsible dog ownership by improving the information and safeguards that are in place for people buying a dog.
Although there has been progress, more needs to be done, some of which needs Government time and leadership. In particular, we need the Scottish Government to ensure that Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill is given ample opportunity to pass before the end of this session. Greyhound racing remains a glaring omission in Scotland’s animal welfare landscape. If we are serious about preventing suffering, we cannot keep leaving that gap unaddressed.
Beyond that, there are clear next steps that we should take. We need to ban shock collars for cats and dogs. Training and behaviour should not rely on pain or fear and Scotland should draw a clear ethical line. We need to crack down on puppy smuggling and on poor breeding practices that put profit before welfare, so that people who are trying to buy responsibly are not misled and animals are not traded as commodities. We need tighter regulation of fireworks, because we know the unnecessary suffering, which is predictable and preventable, that they cause to pets, livestock and wildlife.
We need to streamline and strengthen dog legislation. Responsible authorities currently work across multiple overlapping regimes—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and wider welfare law—and those often have different tests, thresholds and processes. That complexity makes enforcement harder than it needs to be and it can leave victims feeling as though no one is accountable. We should ensure that the police and local authorities have clear guidance and the resources to enforce the rules.
I believe that, as others have said, we should bring the framework together through a modern, breed-neutral dog control bill that simplifies welfare rules, makes it easier to intervene early, and supports consistent, effective enforcement, focusing on behaviour, responsibility and risk, not on the look of a dog.
Times have changed since some of our laws were written. We now have thriving dog grooming, boarding and walking sectors that remain largely unregulated. Most providers are responsible, but a lack of baseline standards means that not every dog gets the treatment that it should, which can lead to inadvertent harm.
Finally, it is worth remembering that Scotland already has strong foundations in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, places a duty of care on those responsible for animals and provides powers that can be used to regulate activities to protect welfare. We should use the powers that we have, and strengthen them where needed, to raise standards and prevent harm.
The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill will help. It recognises the harm of the crime, provides for tougher consequences and improves our ability to measure what is happening through reporting. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I hope that we will treat it not as the end of the journey but as part of a clear programme of work to protect animals, support responsible ownership and prevent suffering across Scotland.
15:43