Official Report 1072KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19121, in the name of Maurice Golden, on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Members who wish to participate in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons.
I call Maurice Golden, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
15:33
I thank my team, as well as the parliamentary clerks and the additional member in charge of the bill, Christine Grahame.
It is a privilege to stand here today on behalf of dog owners and dog lovers across Scotland, as well as for dogs themselves and for anyone who is passionate about animal welfare, the principles of justice and societal wellbeing.
The American naturalist and animal welfare campaigner Roger Caras said:
“Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole.”
As any dog lover will attest, they most certainly do.
A dog is not an item; it is man’s best friend, according to George Graham Vest. Dogs are valued and loved members of the family. They are loved by individuals, neighbourhoods and communities more widely. Losing a dog is heartbreaking and traumatic, whatever the circumstances. Losing a dog as a result of theft compounds that trauma. Stealing a family pet, whether for financial reward or any other reason, is a wicked act and should be treated accordingly by the law.
Currently, if a dog is stolen, the crime would be prosecuted under the common-law offence of theft, as with the theft of any other item, such as a bike, television or clock. That does not reflect the sentient nature of dogs, the emotional attachment between owner and dog, or the impact that the loss of a dog has on the wider family, nor does it reflect the pain and trauma that are experienced by the dog. That is why I and many others—including 97 per cent of respondents to my consultation—believe that the bill is both necessary and a priority.
There is precedent out there. At United Kingdom level, dog theft is now a stand-alone offence, as established by the Pet Abduction Act 2024. There are other cases of stand-alone statutory offences having been established in Scots law where an action is already illegal under common law. Most notable among those is the offence created by the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021, which was introduced as a member’s bill in the previous parliamentary session and was piloted through the Parliament by Daniel Johnson. That act created the new stand-alone offence of assaulting, threatening or abusing retail workers while they are on duty.
I will go through each part of my bill in turn. It makes dog theft a specific statutory offence, with penalties of up to 12 months in prison under summary proceedings and five years under solemn proceedings, and/or a fine that can be up to the statutory maximum in summary proceedings or unlimited in solemn proceedings.
The bill provides for the ability of dog-theft victims to make a statement to the court telling of the impact and trauma of the loss of the dog. That will mean that they can tell the court about the full impact of the theft on them and on the dog. There have been wider developments in relation to victim statements, which I will cover in closing.
The bill provides for a statutory aggravation for the theft of an assistance dog. That means that people who rely on assistance dogs to help them to perform day-to-day tasks will have an additional layer of protection under the law.
The bill requires the Scottish Government to collect data on incidents of dog theft and to publish and lay that data before the Parliament through an annual report. It was clear in stage 1 evidence that better data needs to be collected on incidents of dog theft. I was pleased to hear that Police Scotland is already taking steps to do that. Collecting reliable data and reporting to Parliament on that data represents good public sector governance and ensures transparency.
My bill also requires the Scottish Government to review the act after five years and to report to the Parliament on its operation. That will allow our legislative successors to decide whether the act is working effectively and, if it is, to consider whether it would be appropriate to extend its provisions to other animals. I have always considered that the Scottish Parliament needs to get better at post-legislative scrutiny—my bill will embed that in this area.
I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its excellent scrutiny and stage 1 report, all stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee and those who, earlier in the process, responded to the consultation on my bill proposal. I welcome the scrutiny that was provided by the lead committee, by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and by the Finance and Public Administration Committee. The lead committee’s report is balanced, rigorous and fair. I am pleased by its unanimous support for the general principles of the bill at stage 1, which shows that this is not a partisan issue.
I also welcome the committee’s conclusion that
“a stand-alone, statutory offence would recognise that dogs are sentient beings and reflect the impact on animal welfare associated with their theft.”
That affirms the case that stakeholders have been making for some years.
I also whole-heartedly welcome the committee’s recommendations on the general principles of the bill. Moreover, I am giving consideration to further recommendations from the committee. I extend an open invitation not only to members of the committee but to the Scottish Government and the minister—we have had a series of productive meetings thus far—and stakeholders to help us refine the bill at stage 2, should it pass at stage 1 tonight.
I look forward to the debate and to addressing members’ comments when I sum up.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill.
15:40
I thank Maurice Golden for his constructive engagement on the bill and the non-Government bills unit for all its continuing work on it. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its stage 1 report and its recommendations, the vast majority of which I agree with.
As a dog lover and a dog owner myself, I recognise and understand the emotional impact that dogs have on our lives. Our dogs are members of our family and to lose a much-loved pet to theft is a harrowing experience. We are all aware that dog theft is an emotive issue that can have serious consequences for dogs and their owners. The Scottish Government is well aware of the impact on any owner who has had their dog stolen and, of course, we are also concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of the dogs that have been stolen. I am therefore pleased to say that the Scottish Government is able to support the key component of the bill, which is to make dog theft a statutory offence, as I confirmed to Mr Golden and to the committee earlier this week.
However, like the committee, I cannot agree with all the proposals in the bill. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on Mr Golden making changes to the bill at stage 2, to reflect concerns that have also been raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. If those changes are made, the Scottish Government will be content to support the bill at stage 3; given that the changes are also recommended in the committee’s report, I am sure that Mr Golden will be responding to them anyway. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will be willing to provide support to help with amendments.
The bill also provides that the offence of dog theft will be aggravated if the dog that is taken is an assistance dog, regardless of whether the dog is working when it is stolen. The aggravation makes the charge more serious and ensures that the court is required to consider whether to make the sentence more severe. The report states:
“The Committee recognises that the theft of an assistance dog would have a serious, life-changing, impact on its owner, both in terms of the emotional distress it would bring and the impact on their independence and ability to perform everyday tasks.”
The Scottish Government supports the aggravation and will engage with Mr Golden on how best to ensure that all dogs that provide support and assistance are recognised in the aggravation, reflecting an ask that was made in the committee’s stage 1 report.
The bill provides for victim impact statements to be available for all dog-theft cases. We do not support that provision, and neither did the committee. Members will be aware that only two weeks ago we dealt with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, and we extended the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases. We remain of the view that that is appropriate but that it should not be expanded to summary cases at this point. Therefore, our support for the bill is predicated on that aspect of the bill being removed.
I turn to the provision in the bill that would require Scottish ministers to prepare and publish annual reports on the operation of the act, covering extensive detail, including information that is unavailable or difficult to obtain, which makes it operationally impossible. More important, producing an annual report would present significant resourcing challenges that would be disproportionate to what such a report would provide. Although I am against the provision as it stands, I have offered Mr Golden support on developing a deliverable and appropriate reporting requirement, rather than a recurring annual statutory requirement.
There is also a provision requiring the Scottish Government to review the act. Committees of this Parliament are free to consider any post-legislative scrutiny. For a member’s bill, I consider it appropriate for Parliament to decide on a review, not Government. Therefore, I do not support that provision.
I congratulate Mr Golden on his bill. I know that dog theft is a topic close to his heart, and I know that members across the chamber recognise, just as wider society does, the importance of dogs in our families. As we know, there is fierce competition among MSPs to win the Kennel Club’s dog of the year competition every year. The bill recognises that it is not the monetary value of a stolen pet that matters to an owner, nor the breed or pedigree, but the loss of a family member to theft. By recognising the statutory offence that the bill will introduce, we all accept, as the committee does, that dogs are sentient beings, that their theft has an emotional impact on their owner and that there is also an impact on the welfare of the dog.
I look forward to continuing to work with Mr Golden to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the bill so that the Scottish Government’s support for its general principles can lead to continued support at stage 3.
15:46
I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee about our stage 1 scrutiny of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. Given the bill's focused scope and the 237 responses to Mr Golden’s consultation, the committee agreed to a shortened stage 1 inquiry, without issuing a general call for views. Between March and May, we took evidence from key organisations, the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and, finally, Maurice Golden himself.
The bill proposes a statutory offence of dog theft, which reflects Maurice Golden’s view that the common-law offence of theft does not adequately take into account the emotional significance of dogs as sentient beings. Organisations such as the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Dogs Trust and Scottish SPCA support that view, arguing that current law treats dogs as mere property. Further, Police Scotland agreed that the common law fails to reflect the emotional and welfare impacts on families and pets.
The committee supports the creation of a stand-alone offence that recognises dogs as sentient beings and acknowledges the emotional harm caused by their theft. Although Maurice Golden believes that a statutory offence would act as a deterrent, Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the minister do not believe that it would change how offences are investigated or prosecuted.
The committee also noted the absence of a dedicated awareness-raising budget, which we previously identified as crucial when considering Christine Grahame’s bill. Without such an awareness-raising campaign, the deterrent effect is likely to be limited. We welcome the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group on dog control and welfare, and have recommended that Maurice Golden explores awareness-raising opportunities if the bill progresses.
The committee is content with the three defences outlined in section 1(2) to 1(4). We also considered concerns about dog theft in the context of domestic abuse. Witnesses agreed that prosecutions under existing domestic abuse legislation are sufficient, and the committee concluded that further measures would fall outside the bill’s scope. The penalties proposed in the bill align with those available under common law in the sheriff court but are lower than those that are available in the High Court.
Section 2 proposes that the theft of an assistance dog be treated as an aggravated offence. The committee recognises the serious, life-changing impact that such a theft would have on the owner, and the provision was strongly supported by witnesses, including the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, which emphasised that such dogs are highly trained working animals that provide essential mobility support.
However, we noted that there have been no recorded cases of assistance dog theft in Scotland. Courts already consider the impact of crimes during sentencing, so it is unclear whether the provision is proportionate. If the bill progresses, we recommend reviewing the definition of an assistance dog to ensure that it includes all dogs that provide support and assistance, and we are content with the use of the negative procedure for any regulations related to that definition.
Although the theft of a working dog, such as a sheepdog, might not have the same life-changing impacts as the theft of an assistance dog, it can still cause emotional distress and disrupt livelihoods. Therefore, the committee recommends extending the aggravation to include other working dogs.
On victim statements, the committee notes that the court already considers the impact of crimes on victims during sentencing. Including victim statements specifically for dog thefts in summary courts could create inconsistencies, as they are not available for other offences. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to expanding victim statements more broadly, we recommend removing that provision at stage 2.
Sections 4 and 5 relate to reporting and data collection. Although the minister has stated that the provisions are unnecessary, stakeholders agree that current data on dog theft is inadequate and likely underrepresents the true scale of the issue. However, due to how crimes are currently recorded under the Scottish crime recording standard, a statutory offence alone would not improve data collection, and the committee recommends amending the crime recording standards to improve data accuracy, regardless of whether the bill passes.
In summary, the committee supports the general principles of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. We believe that it rightly recognises the emotional and welfare impacts of dog theft and supports the creation of a statutory offence. However, we have made several recommendations to improve the bill’s effectiveness and proportionality, particularly around awareness raising, the definitions of assistance and working dogs and the removal of the victim statement provision.
15:51
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my friend Maurice Golden on his dedication and commitment to highlighting this important issue, and on the work that he has done personally to advance it and keep it on the agenda. It is positive that the Scottish Government has given its qualified support to the bill and that it will hopefully find its place on the statute book before too long.
I am sure that we can all relate to the emotive issue of dog theft. With the Scottish Government estimating a dog population of between 800,000 and 1 million, it is safe to say that there will be many dog owners in this chamber. I regret to inform members that I am currently not one of them, but I hope that that might change soon.
I am always pleased to support events such as the Dogs Trust show here at Holyrood. Not only is it always a highlight of the parliamentary calendar, but it serves to promote the rehoming of dogs in its care. I am particularly proud to say that not only did my Dogs Trust dog, Buster, medal in that competition, but he was rehomed the very next week.
It is no great struggle to recognise the bond between people and their dogs. For many, they are part of the family. That was certainly the case with all our dogs, and I know the loss that I would have felt had any of them been stolen from us. I see that same bond in my friend’s rescue dog, Billy—or Bilbo Doggins, as he is affectionately known. He swapped the mean streets of Bulgaria for a more comfortable life beside the sea outside Edinburgh. Despite his penchant for eating whatever has died or been washed up—or, indeed, been washed up dead—on their local beach, despite his appalling record on recall and despite his occasional, or perhaps incessant, barking, he is a very much loved part of the family, especially by the children.
That is why dog abduction is such an abhorrent crime, which rightly sickens not only dog owners but wider society. Too often, it is combined with other sorts of criminality; abducted dogs can face horrifying cruelty and neglect. Maurice Golden’s bill proposes a significant change to how dog theft will be prosecuted.
The chief objection to the bill appears to relate to the merit of creating distinct offences to cover conduct that is already criminal. When making that objection, we should keep in mind that overlapping offences are far from uncommon and form an essential and long-standing part of our justice system. We use them to draw distinctions between action and intent, to indicate that a different punishment is intended and to lay down a marker to criminals that the focus of the law is on them.
As has been set out in much of the evidence presented on the bill, dogs are living, sentient beings. What is being done to them when they are stolen is categorically different from what is being done when a £20 note is stolen from somebody’s purse or a watch is stolen from a wrist. The impact on the human is quite different, too. The gap that the dog leaves in someone’s home and the not knowing where they are or how they are being treated should be reflected in how we address those offences.
The relatively new sentencing process guidelines from the Scottish Sentencing Council recognise a range of criteria for judges in choosing appropriate sentences. Harm is the most applicable, but also the most general. The Law Society of Scotland has taken a neutral view on the question, but points to sentimental value being part of the existing assessment of harm. That, too, is insufficient in recognising the true extent of harm in this case. Just as a dog is different from a stolen £20 note or a wristwatch, it is different from an old photograph or a piece of your grandmother’s jewellery. Ultimately, it is for the Parliament, rather than the courts, to answer questions of value and the finer boundaries of criminal law and to reflect the views of society in doing so.
I note the Scottish Government’s position on adding dog theft to the category of offences for which a victim statement could be made by the affected parties to the court under section 3 of the bill. Although I do not take issue with the Minister for Victims and Community Safety’s explanation in her letter of 29 September to the committee convener, it is disappointing that the Scottish Government has not found a clear path to allowing this innovation. I have no doubt that, for offences of this type, victim statements would be a positive step in highlighting and representing the harm that has been caused, ahead of sentencing decisions.
The bill is well deserving of support. In the best traditions of members’ bills, it highlights an overlooked issue that is important to people beyond the walls of the Parliament and proposes action to deal with it. I am pleased that the Scottish Government has recognised that and has offered qualified support, and I hope that members will look to endorse the bill’s general principles.
15:55
I acknowledge the work that Maurice Golden has put into the bill. Dog theft causes heartbreak for owners. Not only that, but it can be expensive to buy a dog—more so if the breed is fashionable, which makes the trade in dogs lucrative. Some might take a dog in the hope that a reward will be offered for its return or, more overtly, they might hold it for ransom. That causes real distress for owners and families. Pets are part of a household and their loss can be heartbreaking.
The Parliament has considered several bills about dogs and their welfare, and all have been lodged by members, which shows the level of our constituents’ concern about the welfare of dogs. A comprehensive Government bill that looks at all aspects of dog ownership and related crime is required, and it should cover other family pets such as cats, which can also be bred in atrocious conditions to meet demand. Pets are often legally imported, leading to animals becoming unwell and requiring treatment. Again, that is a welfare concern. The trade in pets is so lucrative that it often attracts organised crime, so it needs to be taken seriously.
Members’ bills are, by their very nature, restrictive, and can deal only with single issues; hence, we are getting a patchwork approach to dog welfare. Although I commend those who have lodged bills, I think that we need a better approach to the issues that they seek to tackle. I know that the Scottish Government is setting up an advisory group on dog control and dog welfare, and I hope that that means that there will be better and more comprehensive legislation in the future and that the group does not become a talking shop.
Something that needs further scrutiny and clarity is one of the defences under the bill, because it does not cover dog theft within a relationship that has broken down. That is understandable, because, like any joint property in a relationship, ownership needs to be negotiated. However, concerns were expressed about a pet dog being used to further perpetrate domestic abuse. The theft of a dog by an abusive partner can cause distress, which can also be used to exercise control over the victim. Although we all agree that the bill cannot—and should not—deal with domestic abuse, it would be helpful if the minister could confirm that nothing in the bill would interfere with existing domestic abuse law and that coercive control is already covered in existing legislation.
The bill introduces the aggravation of the theft of an assistance dog. That is extremely rare, but it is right that the bill recognises the impact of such a crime. However, the Government, in its response, refuses to consider other situations where such an aggravation might also be useful. That is unfortunate, because dogs are used to provide assistance in other ways. For example, the police use dogs, as do search and rescue services.?Additionally, sheepdogs can be very expensive to buy and train and are essential to farmers and crofters and the welfare of their animals. Decisions on adding aggravations need further consideration, and we welcome the ability to add them under the bill.
This bill is limited, as are all member’s bills, but we believe that, accompanied by awareness-raising work, it can shine a light on the heartbreak caused by the theft of a dog.? It will also give the police another tool in their armoury to deal with organised crime. Therefore, we will support the bill at stage 1.
16:00
I acknowledge the hard work and effort that Maurice Golden, his team and stakeholders have put into getting the bill to this stage. It is not to be underestimated.
Animal charities have spent many years calling for dog theft to be a specific offence in Scotland, because the current legal framework is felt to be inadequate. As we have heard, the current framework classes pets merely as property, which means that the theft of a pet has the same legal standing as the theft of personal property, such as a phone or a television. However, the theft of a pet is a fundamentally different crime, because pets are members of our families. Although the theft of a TV is distressing, it does not come with the same feelings of anxiety or grief that are felt with the theft of a beloved pet.
There is an even more significant impact if assistance dogs are stolen, as that can have a life-altering impact on those who rely on them, and that potential for heightened harm is not accounted for in the current law. We therefore support the proposal in the bill to make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence, which will reflect the more serious impact that that has on the owner. To ensure that that specific principle covers all dogs who provide assistance and support, we agree that a relevant amendment should be lodged at stage 2, as outlined by the minister in her most recent correspondence with the committee. I look forward to that amendment being lodged and to other amendments that would widen the definition further to other working dogs.
As the Dogs Trust highlights, the current legal framework disregards the sentience of dogs and the importance of the human-canine bond. It puts a greater emphasis on financial value than on the emotional value of dogs—it treats them merely as commodities. With only one in five dogs reported stolen being returned to their families, and a chronic underreporting of dog thefts, it is clear that there is a case for change through legislation.
Although the bill is rooted in good intentions, and the Greens are content to support its general principles at stage 1, some areas should be addressed as it progresses. In particular, we note that, currently, dog theft is covered in common law. Although we know that it is not a perfect system, we need to be absolutely clear that the bill will make a tangible difference. In the committee, witnesses repeatedly expressed the view that a stand-alone statutory offence would not necessarily be an effective deterrent to dog theft in Scotland, as the proposed penalties are similar to those that are already outlined in common law.
South of the border, since the introduction of the Pet Abduction Act 2024, the number of dogs reported stolen has dropped by 21 per cent, although whether that is a direct result of the bill is unclear, especially when we factor in the data collection issues around dog theft.
If the intention of the Parliament is to align with the 2024 act, the bill needs to be broadened to include cats and other animals that are typically kept as pets. Charities including Cats Protection and Blue Cross have called for that. The bonds between owners and their pet cats and the feelings of anxiety and distress if they are stolen are not different from those of dog owners, and they also deserve access to justice if they are victims of theft.
I am aware that a number of other members’ bills in this session of Parliament relate to dogs. With hindsight, it might have been better if, as Rhoda Grant outlined, the Government had introduced a consolidating bill to bring together different aspects of animal law. However, we are where we are.
In the months to come, I hope that a shared legacy of members in this session will be a significant improvement in the lives of dogs in Scotland, and I hope that the bill can play a part in that.
16:04
I congratulate my colleague on his persistence in bringing forward the bill—I know what it takes.
We have come a long way from when we, as the highest animal species, failed to recognise that animals are sentient beings, although dogs throughout the centuries could attest to the fact that the similarity between the words “dog” and “friend” is by no means an accident.
My late Irish setter, Roostie, was my best comfort when times were tough. She taught my sons much about being respectful to animals and, as she toasted herself by the fire, she let them use her as a pillow. I miss her to this day.
I note that the bill has been introduced in the context of a rise in the levels of dog theft since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, when demand far outstretched supply and there was growing evidence of systematic dog theft through organised crime. I thoroughly agree with dog theft being a stand-alone offence and, indeed, with there being a statutory aggravation if the theft is of an assistance dog, although I would include working dogs in that, and I note that the committee was of the same view.
I met the issue about the definition of working dogs during the passage of the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, but I am certain that that issue is not insurmountable, because we all know a working dog when we see one. I notice that the purpose of the bill is, inter alia,
“to create an offence of dog theft”
and
“to provide for a statutory aggravation of that offence”.
There is nothing to prohibit the inclusion of working dogs in that purpose. I was minded to propose that at stage 2, but I think that other members will do so before I get to the starting gate. I remind members that, if that requires additional evidence, that can be taken at stage 2. It would mean adding a new section, but, as I have said, it would be competent within the purpose of the bill.
We know what a pet dog is, we know what an assistance dog is and we should know what a working dog is. Those are dogs that are bred and trained for a specific purpose and that perform tasks to assist humans in various roles. They possess key traits, such as intelligence, loyalty and alertness. They require consistent training and care to thrive in their roles. They include sheep dogs, sniffer dogs for drugs and explosives, cadaver dogs to detect buried corpses, and dogs that are trained to locate the living. Although they have an added value, for reasons that members will understand, I suspect that stealing a police dog might be a bit of a challenge for a thief.
Given Ms Grahame’s experience of dog legislation, why does she believe that the Government is reluctant for working dogs to be included in the bill?
I can give you the time back, Ms Grahame.
It is up to us to persuade the Government. I am sure that, between us and the member in charge of the bill, we might make progress. I just put that down as a marker. I have no problems with that, because I am retiring next year—I am free.
However, like the committee, I do not support the requirement for a victim statement about the effect of the crime on the victim. Such statements are not mandatory in other theft offences, but the court has the flexibility and discretion to permit a victim statement. I like the word “discretion” in relation to court.
I do not support annual reporting. It is the province of parliamentary committees to make space for post-legislative scrutiny. There has been an argument for a long time that we should have a committee that simply does post-legislative scrutiny.
I support the theft of a dog or puppy being recorded by the police as a specific category of offence. Facts give us power.
Again, I congratulate Mr Golden and wish him well as the bill moves—as I am sure it will—to stage 2, where I might well meet him and some others. It appears that there will be a crowded field.
I support the bill’s general principles. I note other comments that have been made. We need a consolidating bill that takes in all the dog welfare legislation that we have made. There is nothing worse for a lawyer—I am a former lawyer—than having to pick our way through separate little bits of legislation. Let us have a consolidation bill in the next session of Parliament.
16:08
What strange conversations we have when we are discussing a bill involving furry creatures—Jamie Halcro Johnston has just shown me a picture of his black cat, Squeaky Biscuit.
My brother’s dog is a rescue dog from Ukraine. It is much loved but paranoid and very anxious. I have two dogs: Pippa and Alfie. In fact, Alfie is dead, and I have Olly now. [Interruption.] I know—it is horrible when you lose a dog. My two dogs are pretty unruly. We live in the countryside and, when I take them on an urban walk and they misbehave, I say that they are rescue dogs, like my brother’s dog from Ukraine, but I am working on their behaviour.
I want to bring members back to the concept of returning home to find that your dogs are no longer there. When I arrive home, I know that my dogs are there, because, when I drive around the corner of the house, they are barking. To me, that is reassuring. When I turn the key, they are there and they are excited. They give me a warm, unfettered welcome, and it is lovely.
That was not the case for my constituents Georgie and Eddie Bell and their two daughters. In 2018, their dogs were stolen. They were two lovely Border terriers, who, if I remember rightly, were called Beetle and Ruby. Georgie and Eddie launched a campaign with lots of posters around the Borders, offering a reward, and Georgie posted daily blogs. They were totally beloved dogs. The family had a bit of a setback because, a couple of months after the disappearance of Ruby and Beetle, they had a mystery call from a gentleman from Galway in Ireland, who said that he had the dogs. Sadly, it was a hoax and an attempt at extortion. That was desperately upsetting, because the family were left heartbroken once again. Many years on, the family still hold on to the belief that their dogs will be returned. Ruby and Beetle would now be 12 and nine.
Why does Maurice Golden’s bill matter? Stealing a dog is treated in the same way as stealing a handbag or, as Jamie Halcro Johnston said, stealing £20. However, a dog is not like other material possessions; it is not an inanimate object. Although a handbag might bring joy to some people, a dog brings loyalty, companionship and, for many, independence, security and safety. Working dogs also bring an income.
Pet theft is on the rise—we have talked about that in the past. During the pandemic, there was a rise in demand for puppies. The law fails to consider the emotional value of a dog and does not do enough to collect accurate data, support owners, deter thieves or put victims at the heart of things by dealing with the trauma that they go through.
Gathering accurate data will absolutely—100 per cent—give a clearer picture of the problem. Proper reporting is also very important, as is a review of how the law is working. Furthermore, the bill makes dog theft a specific criminal offence, with penalties of up to five years in prison, as we have heard, which will send a clear message to criminals, even though some people have said that we already have a stand-alone offence. The bill has overwhelming support from the majority of animal charities and the police. The Law Society of Scotland was slightly sceptical about it, but it remained neutral on it.
The bill is about protection, victims and justice. It is about love, family and protecting our loved ones. I urge everyone to support it.
Finally, we should amend the bill so that it explicitly refers to working gun dogs, as requested by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, because it is important that we strengthen that part of the bill.
Thank you, Ms Hamilton. I feel confident that Jamie Halcro Johnston will not be sharing any further pet details with you in the future.
16:13
First, I congratulate Maurice Golden on getting his member’s bill this far. I know the hard work that it takes for a member and their team—dinnae forget the team—to research, create and implement new legislation and to work with the attentive and supportive non-Government bills unit team. In the previous parliamentary session, I lodged a member’s bill to update the 73-year-old livestock-worrying legislation, to increase the penalties and protections on behalf of farmers whose livestock are chased, attacked or killed by out-of-control dogs. Again, well done, Mr Golden.
I am a member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, and I took part in the scrutiny of the bill at stage 1. I will be brief and will focus my comments on working dogs and data. There is an argument that dogs need statutory and separate recognition under the law. Stealing someone’s guide dog is not the same as stealing a television, and I agree with members about the emotional distress caused by theft and about the sentience of their animals. I have two border collies, Meg and Maya. Both are now 13 years old and still amazing and great company. Maya won the first Holyrood dog of the year competition, in 2017, when she was just four.
Working dogs are highly trained dogs, and these animals are also part of the emotional attachments of their owners and families. If members picked any farmer or crofter out of the tens of thousands and asked how important their dog is to their day-to-day work on the farm, they would hear why the proposals should, at the very least, be considered. Farm dogs have a unique dual role: they are there to help farmers with their livestock, but they are also part of the family and a source of companionship in a job that often involves long periods of solitude and remoteness.
I note that the Scottish Government has indicated scepticism about the provisions on working dogs in the bill, but I am keen to hear feedback from the member in charge or the Government on whether the issue is the complexity of the ownership of working dogs or something else. If the general principles of the bill are agreed to today, I would like to engage in more discussions about that during stage 2.
I would also like more clarity on the resource implications for the police and judicial services. There will be an increase in the burdens of record keeping, data analysis and storage, reporting, and training for those who are involved in implementing the new law, and we should see an estimate of the bottom line before we commit to the legislation. If we are to have a specific offence of dog theft in statute, I want our public services to have the time and resources that they will need to investigate and prosecute offenders.
It was interesting to hear about the current data collection practices, which are reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report. Paragraph 96 of the report notes that the policy memorandum highlights that
“there is currently no requirement for incidences, charges, prosecutions and convictions to be recorded specifically as ‘dog theft’”,
with the result that
“there is no reliable data on the extent of dog theft.”
The general view that was expressed by stakeholders is that it would be helpful if provisions in the bill improved the type of data that is collected, including data relating to any trends regarding specific breeds that are stolen.
In its submission to the committee, Police Scotland stated:
“The introduction of a standalone statutory offence of Dog Theft would not enhance accuracy of crime recording as the theft may be committed in commission of another crime”,
such as housebreaking. In that case, it would be
“recorded as Robbery or Theft by Housebreaking as opposed to dog theft.”
If the member’s bill is passed, the Scottish crime recording standard will need to be amended. However, the committee recommends that, even if the bill does not proceed, amending the crime recording standard would enable better collection of data on dog theft.
I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude. I will support the general principles of the bill at decision time this evening.
16:17
I am pleased to speak in support of the principles contained in the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill, and I commend Maurice Golden for bringing it to this stage. This is a bill that I view not as a matter of crime and punishment, but as a matter of compassion and decency.
I have come to dog sharing and companionship quite late in life, and it has come about as a result of sadness and loss rather than by design. But, through it, I have learned much of joy and of hope, of humility and responsibility, and I have gained an understanding of our interdependency and have shared the blessing of unconditional loyalty and love, as well as being required to find out what the world looks like on a dog walk at half past 5 every morning.
For me, this bill is about human rights and our physical and mental wellbeing, but it is also about animal rights and animal welfare. It is about encouraging the better side of human nature, which is precisely what this Parliament should always be about.
So today, we are being asked to make a political decision, and in due course we may be asked to pass a law based not on expediency or short-term popularity but on values and principles. We know that this bill will not end dog theft—it will not solve every problem—but the people who elect us need to be heard, and they need to be listened to, and they are telling us that they want us to act. The creation of the statutory offences is backed by the Dogs Trust, the Scottish SPCA, Guide Dogs for the Blind and Blue Cross, which is in Parliament this week. We need to be clear, as well, that we are not pioneers here—that we are in the slipstream of others—and that means that we need to have the grace to learn lessons from those who have gone before us.
So, I remain open minded about whether or not the terms of the legislation should be limited to dogs. Dogs are sentient beings. They are not kept property, as the existing common law covering dog theft would have it.
Unfortunately for Richard Leonard, we have to look at the purpose of the bill. It is about dogs, so I am afraid that he cannot introduce another lot of animals—that would not be competent.
Well, I have just said that we also need to listen to our constituents and what they are telling us. We can deal with that matter at stage 2, perhaps.
The point that I am trying to make is that dogs are not kept property; they are sentient beings. They know when their routines are disrupted, when their lives are turned upside down and when they are no longer with the people who love and care for them, but I am open to persuasion that that might be applied to other animals, too.
I hope that the bill will also give consideration to something that I have raised in Parliament before, and that is the stress, anxiety, injury and cost when there is an attack on one dog by another, as is raised in petition PE1892 by my constituent Evelyn Baginski.
It is already an aggravating factor if any dog theft is part of organised crime, so I can also see the case that has been made in this bill by Maurice Golden for making it an aggravated offence if an assistance dog is deliberately targeted.
I also believe that a victim impact statement would undoubtedly assist those in our justice system charged with determining how to respond proportionately to the real effect—not least emotionally, physically and mentally—of dog abduction or theft.
But I do remain to be convinced about some of the lengthy custodial sentences that are floated as options in this bill. A change in the law will require to be resourced if it is to be enforceable. We will need good data—so, proper reporting and recording as well—and we will need to keep the bill’s effectiveness under review, but these, in my opinion, should all be a routine part of what this Parliament does with all the legislation that it passes.
The loss of a dog under any circumstances is unconscionable and unbearable. The loss of a dog through a deliberate act of theft is unconscionable and unacceptable, and we should simply not tolerate it. That is why today I will be voting in favour of this bill at stage 1.
16:22
I am speaking in support of the general principles of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. In doing so, I will focus my remarks on whether to include an aggravator when a dog is weaponised as part of a broader pattern of coercive control in cases of domestic abuse.
Having worked for Scottish Women’s Aid, supporting survivors of domestic abuse, I have long advocated for a trauma-informed approach to justice and policy making. It is through that lens that I urge us to consider the lived experience of survivors—in particular, women and children—who have been subjected to domestic abuse in which the family pet has become another tool of manipulation, fear and control.
We know from survivor testimony and from research that has been conducted by organisations such as the Dogs Trust, through its freedom project, that pets are often used by abusers to exert power and control. In my previous work, I saw harrowing examples of beloved animals being stolen or harmed, with abusers threatening to kill or get rid of a pet unless a woman returned home, or even using the custody of a dog as leverage in post-separation abuse. One survivor described to me how her partner would remove her dog from the house for days at a time when she tried to leave, only returning it when she complied. That is not just theft or cruelty but a continuation of abuse, and it must be recognised as such in law.
Thankfully, the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 recognised the pernicious nature of coercive control and set it out as an aggravator in domestic abuse prosecutions. However, there is currently no specific data available in Scotland for the number of prosecutions combining domestic abuse coercive control with actions against a pet. Although coercive control is now finally a crime under the 2018 act and animal welfare laws can address cruelty, there is no specific legal offence or statistical category that links the two aspects together, making it difficult to track such prosecutions. The legal system does not currently collect data that cross-references domestic abuse charges with instances of animal abuse. Perpetrators can be prosecuted for separate offences, but we have no understanding of how many perpetrators have been prosecuted specifically for harming a pet to further their abuse of the survivor and of any children involved.
Please believe me when I say that I have witnessed far too many occasions on which a woman has had to leave the safety of refuge to return to her abuser, with her children, due to his treatment of the family dog and the desperate pleas from her children. I urge the bill’s proposer and the Scottish Government to consider an aggravation for offences committed in the context of domestic abuse or the explicit linking up of those two offences, which are currently separate. That would signal that our legal system recognises the full range of abusive behaviours and that it will not ignore the suffering that is caused to the animal’s owner and the pet itself by the theft, harm or manipulation of a companion animal.
I take on board what my colleague Christine Grahame said about the purpose of the bill, but I also want to raise a concern, voiced clearly and compassionately by Cats Protection, which rightly pointed out that cats must not be forgotten in our legislative response. Cats, like dogs, are deeply loved members of households, and they, too, are used in coercive contexts. They, too, are stolen, harmed or used to manipulate. Although the bill focuses on dogs, it is important that any aggravator related to domestic abuse must be species neutral. Abuse does not discriminate, and neither should the law.
Let this bill, through careful scrutiny and amendment, reflect the lived realities of those facing abuse. Let it say clearly that you cannot use someone’s animal against them and expect the law to look away. I would be devastated if someone stole my wee black and tan Jack Russell, Mojo—or Mr Mojo Risin’, to give him his full title. I love it when I get home on a Thursday night and he is waiting in the hallway for me—more than any other members of my family, it is the dog who is waiting for me.
I support the general principles of the bill and I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that it offers real protection not only to the animals but to the people who love them.
16:26
It has been an interesting debate. It is good to see so much agreement around the chamber about how the bill is viewed. Richard Leonard said that it is about compassion and decency. I think that that is right: it is not only about the welfare of the animal but about the welfare of the owner. Others have referred to the pleasure and company that dogs give us. Jamie Halcro Johnston and Mark Ruskell said that dogs are members of the family—for those who own dogs, that is so true.
If it is to achieve anything, the bill will need to raise awareness of such crime. Members do not often have resources to do that, so it would be good if the Government were to explore how we could do so. I understand that it is setting up an advisory group, so perhaps that group could consider how we might raise such awareness.
Mark Ruskell said that the introduction of the UK legislation saw a fall in the number of thefts, but that it is difficult to say whether that was an effect of the legislation. We will need to have an eye to that, especially if we are to undertake post-legislative scrutiny.
Richard Leonard and Emma Harper talked about other aspects that we should consider in relation to animal welfare. Emma Harper introduced her own bill on sheep worrying, which became the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021. Richard Leonard talked about dog fighting and organised crime. There is agreement around the chamber that there is a need for more comprehensive legislation.
I join Richard Leonard and Elena Whitham in making a plea for similar provision for cats. I am owned by a cat—that is the difference between cats and dogs—and cats need protection as well, although I think that they would probably make their own way home if someone decided to take them.
Given Rhoda Grant’s position on the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee since the start of this parliamentary session, she will recognise that there were discussions there about a committee bill to look at bringing all the pet legislation together. The opportunity to do that was not available because of the already heavy burden of legislation to consider. It should be down to the Government to introduce a consolidation bill that would include cats and other pet animals.
Yes, I think that that is a really good idea. Committee time is heavily constrained, so it is difficult to see how that could otherwise be done. The lack of committee time is also the reason for the lack of post-legislative scrutiny that is undertaken.
As a cat lover, I want to correct what Rhoda Grant said. The saying is, “Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.”
That is indeed true. My cat tells me what I should do, not the other way round. I try to tell her what to do, but she does not listen.
To be serious, and to return to the bill, many members have talked about data collection. We need to get that right, because we need to know what the scale of the problem is and how prevalent dog theft is.
Elena Whitham talked about the scale of the animal cruelty that is perpetrated in the context of domestic abuse. Although that might not be an issue for the bill, we need to record the fact that it happens. It forces people back into abusive relationships. We have all heard of animals being harmed or killed by an abuser in retaliation for someone leaving home. We need to ensure that it is known that that can happen. The fact that someone can abuse an animal is an indicator that they could be abusive to people as well. There is a read-across there.
It is true that post-legislative scrutiny is required, but I am not sure that committees have the capacity to do that.
The bill has a lot of support—it is supported by Dogs Trust, the Scottish SPCA, Blue Cross, Guide Dogs and many other organisations. We are obliged to get the bill right and to introduce better legislation in the next session of Parliament that will bring together all the legislation that we have in this area, so that it is comprehensive and covers all aspects.
16:31
As a dog owner, I am pleased to close the debate for the Conservatives. Alfie makes my life complete. Since we brought him home in February three years ago, I have become a bit of a convert. However, I am gutted that, as yet, he has only been second in the Holyrood dog of the year competition—my partner Alasdair nearly sent him back home.
The theft of a dog is one of the most traumatic things that can happen to an owner. However, the law currently considers it in the same way as it would the theft of an inanimate object, which, given what we have heard today, is not fair.
Maurice Golden’s bill seeks to take into account the welfare impact of a dog theft on both the owner and the dog, to act as a deterrent by introducing much harsher penalties for those who are found guilty of an offence, and to enable more accurate data recording to take place to help to identify areas for further interventions. As we have heard, the bill also seeks to bring Scotland into line with England and Northern Ireland, where the UK Pet Abduction Act 2024 provides for the emotional impact on owners to be considered as part of sentencing. In our general election manifesto, we committed to better protecting dogs against theft, and we highlighted how much we are committed to animal welfare.
Maurice Golden spoke about how interested he is in the principles of justice and about how losing a dog to theft compounds the sense of trauma. It was good to hear from the convener of the lead committee for consideration of the bill that the stage 1 report was balanced, rigorous and fair, and that there was unanimous support for its recommendations. We also heard how open Maurice Golden is to working with everyone to refine the bill further at stage 2.
It was disappointing to hear that the Scottish Government has offered only conditional support for the bill, in that it wants to remove the provisions on victim statements and the requirement for the Government to publish an annual report on the operation of the legislation. That was related to resource issues. However, the Government is committed to delivering a reporting component in whatever way that might be possible.
We also heard about the significance of providing for an aggravation in relation to the theft of an assistance dog, given the impact on the lives of people who rely on assistance dogs.
It was good to hear from the convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee that dogs are more than property and how important it is to have a stand-alone offence of dog theft.
I turn to Jamie Halcro Johnston’s comments. I am delighted to hear that Buster was rehomed after his award-winning appearance at Holyrood dog of the year. He also spoke about something that is not often mentioned in Parliament, which is how often abducted dogs can go on to face really horrific cruelty.
Rhoda Grant wants the Government to provide a more comprehensive piece of legislation, and Mark Ruskell spoke about how inadequate the current legal framework is.
I was not quite sure what was coming next from Mr Leonard. I thought that we were going to be in floods of tears as he was building up to his comments about the unconditional love that has come to him in his later life, now that he knows about the benefits of dog ownership and the importance of compassion and decency. I was getting my tissues out over here.
We have had some great stories, including the one about Beetle and Ruby. The social media content and news of the campaign to find those two Border terriers made it up to Edinburgh, so I am very aware of that.
We know that the bill has overwhelming support from the public and from all the organisations concerned, and it has been great to hear cross-party support from across the chamber this afternoon. I am delighted. We need to accept that the current law fails to consider the emotional value that a dog brings, and that we need to support owners and deter thieves. My colleague Maurice Golden’s bill addresses those issues by introducing a statutory offence.
Scottish Conservatives will be delighted to support the bill as it moves forward from stage 1.
16:35
We are a nation of animal lovers, and many of our households have or look after animals. Whether it is a goldfish or a horse, animals play a major role in our lives. Many of us do not even stop to think about patting a dog or a cat as they walk past us.
However, it is dogs that go back the longest in our history. They are thought to be among the first animals that humans domesticated and brought into our lives and our homes. It is estimated that early domestication took place between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago. Dogs are now members of just under 30 per cent of households in Scotland.
I think that, given the content of members’ speeches today, we can all agree that dogs play a major role in the lives of our families and households, as well as in wider society, and that they are very much loved. We can also agree that there is much support for the bill.
However, as the debate has also indicated, there are still important matters to be considered and I have to be clear about the Scottish Government’s position. I have listened carefully to members’ speeches and the issues that they have raised, and I am sure that Mr Golden will reflect on them ahead of stage 2, as will the Scottish Government.
I will comment on some of the issues that have been raised. Rhoda Grant asked about awareness raising. The Scottish Government will work with the member to publicise and raise awareness of the dog theft offence, should it become law. As I made clear to Mr Golden when I met him recently, the Scottish Government already has links with a wide range of stakeholders that have a strong interest in dog control and dog welfare policy matters. When I appeared before the committee, I spoke about the expert advisory group; it is now up and running and doing some great work. I hope to update the Parliament about that shortly, and I would be happy to get the group involved with awareness raising.
I come to Elena Whitham’s comments about domestic abuse, and my response will also cover a bit of what Rhoda Grant mentioned. The issue was raised when I was before the committee. We know that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created the offence of engaging in a course of abusive behaviour against a partner or ex-partner, including behaviour that is directed towards pets or the removal of a pet from the partner or ex-partner when it is likely to cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. Those provisions do not rely on the need for a specific offence of dog theft.
Looking at the relationship defence, I note that the views were offered in the absence of a specific recommendation in the committee report. Given that common-law theft will continue to apply and can be used where necessary in situations in which the relationship defence might arise, we do not have a view on whether the relationship defence is appropriate. Prosecutors could still continue to ensure that dog theft can be addressed using common-law powers or theft in any given relevant case.
It is unfortunate that I did not remark on section 1(2) in my speech. That is a tricky section. As a former divorce lawyer, I assure members that parties would agree on the division of household assets and bank accounts, but the biggest fight would be about the family pet. I agree with many of the things that Elena Whitham said, but I am just putting it into the pot that somebody might use the defence that somebody has been abusive so that they can keep the dog; sometimes, people will try anything to get what they want.
I am totally sympathetic to the concerns raised by Elena Whitham. I am unsure whether this is the right bill to deal with that, but the issue could, perhaps, be considered.
I understand the narrow nature of a member’s bill, which, as the committee also suggested, might not be the right vehicle. However, although there are provisions in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 to allow for the prosecution of coercive control when an animal is used in that way, there is no data to tell us how often that happens or how it is linked to dog theft. My question is about how those two things can ever possibly be linked.
I am happy to take that away and meet the member to discuss the issue further. It might be something that the expert advisory group could look at; perhaps we could raise the issue with the group and take it from there. I am happy to take that idea away and consider it.
As I appreciate that all of our pets are loved, I now move on to the topic of cat theft. The common-law offence of theft offers robust protection, including for pets, with a maximum penalty that goes all the way up to a life sentence for cases that are tried in the High Court. I listened to what Finlay Carson said about the evidence that the committee took regarding opening the bill up to other pets. A number of members have made valid points about the consolidation of legislation. We are all aware that we do not have any time in this session of Parliament due to the amount of legislation that we are trying to pass during the next several months, but I definitely think that that should be dealt with in the next session.
I turn to the request for the definition of “assistance dog” to be widened. I understand that the SSPCA previously provided the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee with a research paper on defining the terms that are used for animals working in support roles. I am aware that the committee had concerns about the definition of assistance dogs. In particular, the issue might be that not all dogs that provide assistance and support for their owners would be covered.
Although the bill includes an enabling power that allows for changes to the definition, that would create an issue for the Scottish Government to address further down the line. I had a conversation with Maurice Golden last week and welcome his commitment to lodge amendments at stage 2 to ensure that appropriate coverage is achieved for the aggravation so that it includes dogs that provide assistance to support their owners. That is a necessary part of the Scottish Government’s support for the bill and I ask Maurice Golden when closing the debate to provide confirmation that he will take that action.
Dogs are vital and much-loved members of our families. If they are lost in any way, including as a result of theft, that brings grief to their owners and leaves a hole in those families. I hope that, by supporting the new dog theft offence, I am showing that the Scottish Government takes the issue seriously. If Parliament agrees today to the general principles of the bill, I look forward to working with Mr Golden at stage 2 to ensure that amendments are made so that the Scottish Government can continue its support for the bill to stage 3.
16:43
I thank all members for their speeches. It has been a good debate. I welcome the level of engagement on the issue, and with the bill, from members across the chamber. I also welcome the positive tone of the debate and the fact that many members have indicated their support for the general principles of the bill.
I recognise that members, including the committee convener and the minister, have highlighted particular areas where they consider that the bill should be amended. As I indicated in my opening speech, there are areas that I am happy to look at and where I will lodge amendments, for example to remove the requirement for a victim statement. I have also agreed to work with the minister to look at the particular definition of assistance dogs and at the provisions for annual reporting and reviews. Furthermore, I commit to on-going discussions to ensure that the bill is in the best possible position to become an act.
I look forward to doing that in advance of stage 2 proceedings. I will draw together a set of amendments that the entire committee, ideally, will be able to agree on. In addition to working with the Scottish Government, including with the minister, with whom I have worked very productively, I am very willing to meet other members who might have ideas for amendments.
I will cover some of the ideas that have been raised in the excellent speeches that were made during the debate. I am pleased that members are taking the bill so seriously and are coming up with constructive suggestions to improve it.
The minister, who is a dog lover, recognises the seriousness of the crime and highlighted concerns around victim statements and annual reporting. I am pleased that we have agreed a path forward on those points, which is now on the record, in the Official Report.
The lead committee and its convener, Finlay Carson, mentioned two issues that I will highlight. The first is on awareness raising. I agree with his point, but I would suggest that the issue be covered in something that is linked to the bill rather than codified in primary legislation. Secondly, I also agree with the substantive point about publicising the bill, if it becomes law. I am sure that lots of members in the new session of Parliament will be willing to pose with their prized pooches for that purpose.
I hear and have looked at the argument about working dogs, but I am not convinced that there is a clear case for extending the bill to cover them. The existing aggravation in the bill is there to ensure that people who are unable to carry out day-to-day tasks—including reporting a crime, potentially—without the support of an assistance dog should receive additional protection in law.
I understand Maurice Golden’s point about assistance dogs. In a way, a working dog is an assistance dog, for example, to a country keeper on a working shoot. Country keepers employ many people. We know how important countryside sports—which rely on working dogs—are to the economy. It would be foolhardy not to include them in the bill.
We can have that debate at stage 2. I think that there is a difference between a working dog and an assistance dog, but I hear Rachael Hamilton’s case.
Jamie Halcro Johnston, whose dog was a medallist in the Holyrood dog of the year competition, described dog theft as “an abhorrent crime”, highlighting the horrifying cruelty facing dogs that are stolen. Rhoda Grant described the lucrative trade of stolen dogs and outlined the heartbreak that families experience. She also suggested—I agree with her—that a comprehensive bill should be introduced that covers dog ownership and wider animal welfare. Although such a bill will not be for this parliamentary session, it should, in my view, be a Government bill in the next session.
Mark Ruskell pointed out that the current legal framework is inadequate. Christine Grahame thoroughly agrees with making dog theft a statutory offence and agrees with my colleague Rachael Hamilton’s view on working dogs. Rachael Hamilton highlighted the case of Border terriers Beetle and Ruby, which were stolen and whose families are still holding out for their return.
Emma Harper highlighted the importance of data collection. Richard Leonard supported the bill on the basis of compassion and decency. Elena Whitham brought something new to the debate that I am very sympathetic to, which was about dogs being weaponised as part of a coercive relationship. However, I am less convinced about whether the bill is the appropriate place to deal with that issue.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am happy to.
Please make it brief, as Maurice Golden must begin to conclude.
On the point that we are dealing with, which is covered in section 1(2), I ask the member to reflect on what to do when there is a dispute of ownership between those in a cohabiting or a married couple, which is probably one of the most difficult issues to deal with when considering the bill.
Yes, but that strays into an area that is perhaps beyond a member’s bill on dog theft, which has a very tight scope. However, the point that Elena Whitham made should be addressed urgently.
In conclusion, I hope that members will support the general principles of the bill at decision time, that we can leave with a spring in our step and our tails up, and that dog owners, dog lovers and other stakeholders can be reassured that the Parliament recognises that the theft of a dog is a horrific crime that leads to emotional trauma and heartbreak, and that it must be treated accordingly by the law.
That concludes the debate on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.
Previous
Prison PopulationNext
Urgent Question