Hansard

I am grateful to all those who have assisted with the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill to get it to the point at which the Parliament will vote on it at decision time tonight. However, as a former business manager, I will not be counting my chickens, or indeed my chihuahuas—I had to get that in—until the moment the Presiding Officer announces the result of the vote.

First, I thank my team, as well as everyone in the Scottish Parliament legislation team, including Neil Stewart and Ezgi Denli, who are in the chamber. I am also particularly grateful to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, expertly chaired by my colleague Finlay Carson, for its excellent scrutiny. The committee’s stage 1 report contained a number of recommendations that resulted in stage 2 amendments to refine the bill. The committee’s scrutiny resulted in an improved bill, which I hope will soon become the Dog Theft (Scotland) Act 2026, so I again thank the committee.

I also want to thank the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, and her officials. Over the course of the bill’s development, we have formed a very positive and constructive working relationship to deliver a bill that achieves the policy intent and the vision of those stakeholders who campaigned for a dog theft law and that remains practical for the Scottish Government and partner organisations to implement.

I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1, who came from organisations that have campaigned for a change in the law in this area, such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Guide Dogs for the Blind, and those that are involved in implementation and enforcement, such as the Law Society for Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland. The evidence from all those bodies and many others who gave written evidence to the committee or my consultation shaped the bill that we are debating today.

There has been much consideration and scrutiny of the bill, in response to my consultation, in committee and in the chamber at stage 1, and back in committee at stage 2. However, I would like to update members on some of the changes that have been made to my bill since the Parliament agreed to its general principles at stage 1. Members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will be very familiar with these changes, but others might not be.

First, the aggravation in the bill for the theft of an assistance dog is now an aggravation for the theft of a helper dog. That still includes assistance dogs, but it gives the Scottish Government the flexibility to extend the provision to include other categories of dog by regulations. That could include working dogs, which was a recommendation of the lead committee at stage 1. It could also include working gun dogs, should the Government choose to add them, the possibility of which my colleague Rachael Hamilton raised at stage 2.

Secondly, after discussing the matter with the minister, and following stage 1 recommendations from the lead committee, I removed what was section 3 of the bill on victim impact statements. During the bill’s passage, the law on victim impact statements more generally was changed to provide for such statements in solemn cases. I was persuaded by the argument that creating a unique situation for victim impact statements in summary cases through my bill would have been disproportionate. Therefore, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to remove section 3, which was agreed to.

Following discussions with the minister, I lodged amendments to remove the requirement for the act to be reviewed and to make changes to the reporting mechanisms, creating a one-off reporting mechanism after three years, rather than making it an annual requirement. As well as ensuring that the act does not place overly onerous duties on those who will be required to implement its provisions, that will provide for the collection of good data and reporting mechanisms, with consequential scrutiny. I think that the amendments struck the appropriate balance in that regard.

As regards reviewing the legislation itself, the Parliament could do that at a future date. As I have said previously, post-legislative scrutiny is vitally important, and this Parliament can carry out such scrutiny regardless of whether a requirement to do so is included in an act.

What we have before us is a bill that has been developed following parliamentary scrutiny, stakeholder engagement and constructive working with the Scottish Government. It is a good example, if I may say so, of our legislative procedures and, in particular, the member’s bill process, working effectively, and of parliamentarians, stakeholders and Government shaping a law that will make a positive difference to the lives of dog owners and dogs themselves. It is a law that will help to prevent cruel acts of stealing family pets from taking place, that will punish appropriately when such acts take place, and that will create an aggravation for the particularly egregious theft of helper dogs, be they assistance dogs or other dogs prescribed by the Scottish Government.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill be passed.