Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2025 [Draft]
I had the opportunity back in October to speak in support of the bill and in recognition of the hard work of my colleague Maurice Golden and others at stage 1. As Christine Grahame rightly says, Maurice Golden will be missed in this place, although his humour—judging by the start of his speech—might not be missed quite so much.
I am pleased that the bill has reached this stage, and I sincerely hope that, at the end of the day, it will complete its progress through the Parliament, as it sounds like it will. A key component in the bill advancing is the Scottish Government’s support for the creation of a distinct dog theft offence. That is welcome, and I largely commend the minister for the way in which the Government has engaged with the process and helped to create a level of cross-party consensus.
As others have mentioned, the bill is different from the one that we were faced with at stage 1. In the stage 1 debate, I argued, alongside others, for the positive role that victim statements could play in relation to the proposed offence, as highlighted by Richard Leonard. At that point, it was already clear that there was no obvious route to the provision gaining Scottish Government support, and it has been removed from the bill that is before us today.
That is disappointing, because the inclusion of victim statements was a positive measure that seemed to earn widespread support in the chamber. It now appears to have fallen victim to expediency—specifically, the Scottish Government’s view that, in the words of the minister, “at this point”, it did not wish to address the introduction of victim statements in summary cases. I acknowledge the position that summary offences that are equally serious would not have provision for victim statements to be used. Although I accept that that is the cost of securing the Scottish Government’s support, that provision could have been a powerful tool to emphasise the deeply personal and emotional elements of the offence, as highlighted by other members, and to inform sentencing decisions.
There are a number of other worthy elements that members may wish to have seen added to the bill rather than subtracted from it. Protection for other animals was high on the list. Cats were most obviously mentioned, although, given the freedom to wander, for practical purposes, they are quite different from dogs. Christine Grahame put it best when she said:
“Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.”—[Official Report, 2 October 2025; c 87.]
At stage 1, Richard Leonard made an impassioned plea on behalf of his constituent about dog attacks on other dogs, and he pointed to the public position on the subject. Such attacks can be devastating for dogs and owners alike and can leave owners with enormous costs for treatment. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of people not taking proper precautions to prevent dog attacks, and a considerable gap exists in how the law addresses those.
Elena Whitham made some very insightful, powerful and concerning points about the role that pets can play as a tool of domestic abuse and coercive control.
One of the most pressing remaining issues with the bill, should it be passed and receive royal assent, is that of what resources will be available to publicise and enforce the new law. I hope that the Scottish Government and relevant agencies will make that part of their work once the new offence is in place.
I commend Maurice Golden, his staff and all those who have been involved in bringing the bill to this stage. Any dog owner will attest to the fact that it has been an important issue to champion and, as any victim of dog theft will know, Maurice Golden is tackling a terrible evil. It seems that the Parliament accepts and recognises the main issue that dog theft is different from normal theft in category rather than just degree, and that such a difference ought to be recognised consistently.
We all appreciate that the bill can go only so far and achieve only so much, and the bill’s critics are by no means entirely wrong or misguided. Much more is needed than legislative change, and the direct gain from the bill might be smaller than we might like. However, I hope that it can help to drive a shift in our institutions’ culture towards treating dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. The Parliament, in its role not only as a legislative body but as a forum for the nation, will also be sending a strong message that this sort of crime should not and will not be tolerated.
15:53