Holyrood Committee agrees general principles of Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1

Publishing its Stage 1 report, the Committee says that it supports the general principles of the Bill. However, should the Bill progress to the next stage, the Committee sets out areas for reconsideration and development.

The Committee says that, although the creation of a specific statutory offence of dog theft would recognise that dogs are sentient beings and reflect the impact on animal welfare, there is no clear evidence to suggest that a statutory offence would be used more in practice than the existing common law.

In addition, without a dedicated budget for raising awareness of the statutory offence, and with similar penalties as are currently available for the existing offence, the Committee say it is unlikely to act as a strong deterrent.

The report also says that making the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated crime does not seem a ‘proportionate provision’. To date, no instances of dog theft have been reported, and the court system can already consider the impact of any theft, if a case does come to court.

The Committee recommends however that, if the proposed aggravation proceeds to Stage 2, a broader definition for dogs providing support and assistance, for example working farm dogs, should be included.

The Committee says that it does not support allowing victims of dog theft to make victim statements to the court. During scrutiny, stakeholders said that courts already consider the impact of crimes on victims and that providing this opportunity to victims of dog theft, would create an anomaly with other crimes which do not allow victim support statements. Instead, the Committee asks the Scottish Government to include dog theft within its broader commitment to expand the range of offences where victim statements are allowed.

Committee Convener, Finlay Carson MSP, said;

“This is a well-intentioned Bill which merits our support at this stage in the legislative process. We agree that dog theft is a terrible crime, and that appropriate legislation should be in place to reflect this.

“However, evidence provided to us during our scrutiny suggests that many of the Bill provisions are already available within the current court system and procedures. It’s important to ensure legislation and enforcement procedures do not create untended consequences or further bureaucratic burdens

“It’s now for the Scottish Parliament to consider the reservations we have set out in our report and to decide the best route forward.”