Meeting of the Parliament 16 December 2025 [Draft]
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, I have welcomed the constructive and helpful meetings that I have had with Mr Golden since stage 1 to discuss the bill. Although the Scottish Government had concerns about aspects of the bill when it was introduced, Mr Golden lodged stage 2 amendments on those aspects to ensure that the Scottish Government could support it.
I will come to some of the points that have been raised throughout the debate.
A few members mentioned consolidation of legislation in the next parliamentary session. I have responsibility for dangerous dogs, and animal welfare is under Minister Fairlie. With that in mind, last September, we hosted a responsible dog ownership summit, because we believe that more can be done to improve public safety by ensuring that dogs are responsibly acquired, owned and looked after. The Scottish Government is always open to considering carefully any evidence-based suggestions to help to improve people’s safety. The summit was an opportunity to bring together attendees from a wide range of organisations, including Police Scotland, local authorities and veterinary bodies as well as public health and third sector organisations, to consider how dog control and public safety can be improved. My colleague Christine Grahame was also in attendance.
The summit’s key outcome was the Scottish Government’s establishment of an expert advisory group to look at the various issues that were raised and to help to determine what can be progressed in the short, medium and long term. A number of sub-groups of the expert advisory group have now been set up to look at specific areas of work, such as enforcement and resources; dog welfare; prevention, education and communication; data to inform and support dog control policy; and health service data.
The expert advisory group is now also considering the helper dog definition issue. Although we are not progressing with legislation in this parliamentary session, work has started on that for the next session.
I will touch on victim statements, which have been raised. The bill as drafted would have allowed people who are victims of a dog theft to give a victim impact statement to the court, and that would have applied to any court. Although the Scottish Government is sympathetic on the issue, victim impact statements are currently available for certain solemn offences only. The bill, as drafted, would have specifically included the new offence of dog theft in summary cases so that, in order to inform sentencing, a victim could express to the court the impact that the crime had on them physically, emotionally and financially.
When I met Maurice Golden ahead of stage 1, I made it clear that the Scottish Government required the removal of that provision in order to support the bill, which he acted on at stage 2. That also reflected the committee’s recommendation in the stage 1 report that the provision be removed—a recommendation that was made in light of general concerns about the appropriateness of the approach.