Official Report 797KB pdf
Welcome back. Agenda item 4 is consideration of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome Maurice Golden, the member in charge of the bill, who is supported by officials from the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit, and Siobhian Brown, Minister for Victims and Community Safety, who is supported by Scottish Government officials. We will shortly be joined by Rachael Hamilton, who has lodged amendments on the bill. Parliament officials who are seated at the table are here to support the member in charge but are not permitted to speak in the debate on amendments.
I will briefly explain the stage 2 procedures for members of the public—and to bring myself up to speed, to be honest. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in that group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all the other amendments in the group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If the member in charge has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite him to contribute to the debate.
The debate on each group will be concluded by my inviting the member who moved the first amendment in that group to wind up, and I will then check whether they wish to press that amendment to a vote or withdraw it. If they press it, I will put the question on that amendment. If they wish to withdraw the amendment after it has been moved, they must seek the agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee will immediately move to a vote on the amendment.
If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say, “Not moved.” Please note that any other member present may then move such an amendment. If no one moves the amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.
Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands. It is important that each member keeps their hand clearly raised until the clerk has recorded the vote.
The committee is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.
No members are participating remotely. We move to the marshalled list for stage 2 amendments.
Section 1—Dog Theft
Group 1 is on sentencing consideration and victim statements. Amendment 19, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendment 9.
Amendment 19 would require courts, when sentencing for the theft of a working gun dog, to consider both the emotional and the operational impact of that theft. The amendment seeks to ensure that the court takes into account the operational loss that is suffered by the lawful owner and the emotional impact of the theft on not only the owner but others who are affected by the loss.
Gun dogs are trained working animals that often have a high financial and operational value, and their theft disrupts land management, shooting days and livelihoods, and it causes acute welfare and owner trauma. That was evident in a case in which dogs were taken from my constituency in the Borders, which got a lot of coverage in the media. Current common-law theft can treat dogs like property. If we had a specific offence, that would recognise the sentient and working status of gun dogs. Amendment 19 seeks to recognise the unique role that working dogs play and the serious consequences that their theft can have.
With regard to my colleague Maurice Golden’s amendment 9, which seeks to remove section 3, I am aware that that reflects the Government’s commitment to expand the range of offences in relation to which victim statements would be permitted. The committee recommended that that issue should be considered in its wider context, rather than in the context of the bill. I therefore add my support for amendment 9, and I hope that the Government’s commitment to expand the range of offences on which victim statements would be permitted will cover dog theft, too.
I move amendment 19.
I will start by speaking to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 19. The emotional impact of the theft of a dog should be recognised in law. That is the main purpose of the bill. I also recognise that there are situations in which there will be an operational loss or loss of earnings for a person who owns a working dog.
Although I do not want to jump ahead to the debate on a future group, I point out that amendments 1 to 8, in my name, open up the possibility of the aggravation in section 2 being widened by regulations to include working dogs and, potentially, working gun dogs, although that would be a matter for the Scottish ministers.
Amendment 19 would place a specific type of dog—a working gun dog—at the heart of the section 1 offence. I understand Rachael Hamilton’s policy intention in seeking to ensure that the impact on owners of working gun dogs is fully taken into account in the criminal justice system when such a dog is stolen. However, in my view, singling out working gun dogs over other dogs in section 1 would give a pre-eminence in statute to the theft of those dogs over the theft of other dogs. It would also single out the theft of such dogs for special treatment in sentencing. I am not sure where that would sit alongside the aggravations in section 2, although I note that Ms Hamilton has lodged amendments to that section as well.
The theft of an assistance dog is not singled out in section 1 in the same way that amendment 19 seeks to single out the theft of a working gun dog. The particular issue in relation to working gun dogs did not explicitly come up during the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and, before changing the law on the issue, I would want there to be consultation on and scrutiny of such matters.
All the amendments that I have lodged have been developed following discussions with the Scottish Government, and I thank the minister for her engagement with that. At the outset, I want to express my appreciation for the support that I have received in developing the amendments that are before the committee today in a very short period.
Amendment 9 was lodged following careful discussion and feedback from the committee’s stage 1 report. I believe that the emotional and welfare impact on the owner and, indeed, on the dog itself should be taken into account when a sentence is handed down. However, the Parliament has recently legislated to provide for victim impact statements in solemn cases. I accept that, if we were to make provision through the bill for such statements in summary cases of dog theft, that would create a precedent that the Government and stakeholders such as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might not welcome. Therefore, having tested the issue, I am prepared to accept that there is no appetite to include victim statements in the bill. That is why I have lodged amendment 9 to that effect. Nevertheless, I believe that the emotional impact of a dog being stolen should be taken seriously.
11:15
I can confirm that Mr Golden and I have had constructive discussions since stage 1, and I am pleased to say that the Government will support all the amendments that he has lodged at stage 2.
Unfortunately, I cannot support any of the amendments in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Although I understand the sentiment behind amendment 19, it is the wrong approach. Sentencing in criminal cases is for the independent courts and is subject to certain parameters that are set out in law. Amendment 19 would require the court to consider two specific matters when sentencing for the dog theft offence, but only if the dog in question was a working gun dog. No definition of the expression “working gun dog” is included in amendment 19.
The court will already take into account the two matters that are specified in the amendment—operational loss and emotional impact—in its consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances in a case. Specifying those two matters is unnecessary and risks skewing the sentencing process by giving undue prominence to the specified matters.
Would the minister be open to considering the impact of the theft of working dogs? We know that there were about 1,800 thefts of dogs in the UK last year, but we do not know how many of those were working dogs. There is also an issue with operational loss through loss of income, training time and all the rest of it. If the court was not aware of those situations, it would be going in blind, so how could it determine the emotional and financial loss?
I do not know whether Ms Hamilton is aware that, last year, Jim Fairlie and I held a summit on dog legislation and dog welfare, as a result of which an expert advisory group was set up. The group has made quite a lot of progress, and I updated the committee on that at stage 1. Given some of the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about working dogs in general, not just gun dogs, one of Mr Golden’s amendments is for the Government to get the experts in the advisory group work to define “working dog”. That is why I cannot support amendment 19 at this stage.
The expert advisory group is also looking at welfare and a range of other issues. I could go into them, but perhaps it would be better if I wrote to advise Ms Hamilton of all the work that is being done in the background, which she might not be aware of.
That is generous of the minister. I feel quite positive about that, because something could be brought back at stage 3 not only to recognise the work that the expert advisory group is doing, but to understand the necessity of recognising working dogs in the bill.
Absolutely. That is a main part of Mr Golden’s amendments.
Amendment 19 would also risk creating doubt about whether the courts should take account of the two specified matters when the dog that has been stolen is not a working gun dog. That goes back to the definition of a working dog: we want them all to be covered, not just the working gun dogs.
The theft of other types of working dog can also cause operational loss, and, whether the theft of any dog causes operational loss or not, it is likely to have an emotional impact. It would be unhelpful to frame the law in a way that signals that the courts need to consider those matters in sentencing only when the dog that has been stolen is of a particular kind. I therefore urge the committee to reject amendment 19.
I encourage members to support amendment 9, which will remove section 3 from the bill and ensure that the treatment of the dog theft offence is consistent with the treatment of all other offences that are prosecuted under solemn procedure.
As Mr Golden said in his opening remarks, the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 includes provision to extend victim impact statements to all solemn cases, which will include cases of dog theft that are prosecuted under solemn procedure. That is the right approach.
I urge members to support amendment 9.
I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 19.
I appreciate the comments made by Maurice Golden and the minister about my amendments. As I said to the minister, I feel that there is a chink of light in that there could be some solace for those who have experienced the theft of a working dog and more particularly of a gun dog, which we know are a recognised target. They are from specific—and valuable—breeds that can only be working dogs, and, because of the rurality of their accommodation, they can be targets for theft.
I will not press amendment 19, but I will meet the minister to discuss it further.
Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2—Theft of assistance dogs
Group 2 is on aggravations. Amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5, 20, 6 to 8, 21 and 22.
My suite of amendments—amendments 1 to 8—seeks to ensure that the aggravation can be extended by regulations to apply to the theft of dogs that would not ordinarily be considered to be assistance dogs. The amendments would replace the label “assistance dog” with the broader expression “helper dog”. The broader term would enable Scottish ministers to extend the definition of “helper dog” through regulations. In practice, it would allow the Scottish ministers to extend the definition to include, for example, service dogs and other working dogs, should they choose to do so.
The amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
I would like some clarification, which I think that you are providing, on the amendments to change the term from “assistance dog” to “helper dog”. I have heard concerns that using a different term from the one that is established in law could create operational issues for law enforcement, which might undermine what section 2 intends to achieve. Will you go into that more fully, to allay the concerns that have been brought to me? That would be welcome.
I am happy to do so. Ultimately, the amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs. Amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 would replace the references to “assistance dog” with “helper dog”. Amendments 3 and 4 would slightly reword section 2 to make it clear what a helper dog is—namely, an assistance dog as defined under the Equality Act 2010 and
“a dog of a category prescribed by”
ministers in regulations.
The suite of amendments is about providing an opportunity for flexibility to broaden the definition and allow, perhaps in due course through the work of experts and ultimately with the decision of Scottish ministers, for the broadening of that definition. That speaks to many of Rachael Hamilton’s amendments.
You are saying that your amendments would allow “assistance dog” to be defined in the bill and the provisions to be expanded to working dogs or other dogs that are used for different purposes. The definition will be much wider if the Government decides to do that.
Yes. Assistance dogs would be treated the same; the change is that other categories could, potentially, be included in that definition. That is what amendments 1 to 8 seek to achieve.
Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 20 would require regulations that were made under section 2(2)(b) of the bill to
“include working gundogs and other working dogs as a category of helper dog.”
Although I recognise the policy intention behind that amendment, it is my view that, if Parliament provides ministers with a regulation-making power, ministers should have an element of discretion in exercising it, albeit that the exercise of that power is subject to parliamentary procedure at a future juncture.
If you are happy that the Scottish ministers will have the ability to make a further definition by regulation, does that mean that you support amendment 20?
I think that, in the fullness of time, and after the expert working group has been consulted, working dogs and working gun dogs should be defined as helper dogs if the expert advisory group and Scottish ministers choose to go down that path. However, amendment 20 is, in my view, too restrictive and prescriptive. Amendments 1 to 8 would enable the policy intent behind amendment 20 to be achieved in any event. Ultimately, any regulations would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament—not by me.
Amendments 21 and 22 would create new sections after section 2. Their effect is similar, albeit that amendment 22 is specific to working gun dogs while amendment 21 relates to working dogs more generally. The amendments would provide for an aggravation in respect of those dogs. In relation to both amendments, I reiterate my earlier point that my amendments 1 to 8 would provide ministers with the regulation-making power to designate different categories of dogs, which could include working dogs or working gun dogs, as helper dogs.
I understand that ministers would develop regulations in concert with their expert working group. Therefore, it would be prudent to allow the working group and ministers the time to consider whether such aggravations should be applied to, for example, working dogs or working gun dogs.
I move amendment 1.
My amendments would establish that the theft of a working dog includes the theft of a working gun dog and that such thefts should be treated as a specific aggravated offence. Amendment 21 would introduce an aggravation for the theft of any working dog, using the definition that is found under section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Amendment 22 would apply the same principles specifically to working gun dogs.
The amendments define working dogs to include those that are used in sheep herding, policing, rescue operations, pest control and lawful shooting. Working gun dogs are defined as dogs that are used in shooting and land management work.
Amendment 20 would work alongside Maurice Golden’s amendments and expand the scope of the aggravation under section 2 of the bill. The amendment would require that any regulations to prescribe categories of helper dogs
“must include working gundogs and other working dogs.”
My amendments would also allow Scottish ministers to expand the definitions later by regulation.
Under the amendments, courts would have to
“state ... that the offence is aggravated”,
record it as such,
“take the aggravation into account”
when sentencing and explain why the sentence is or is not different because of it. As I have explained previously, the amendments would ensure that the law reflects the seriousness of stealing working dogs, which play an important role in rural and agricultural communities.
Maurice Golden has explained, in relation to his amendments 1 to 8, that the issue could be dealt with in guidelines from Scottish ministers. I recognise that, but I do not believe that describing the specific group of dogs as “helper dogs” recognises the full extent of my policy intent.
11:30
As I made clear during the stage 1 debate, the Scottish Government supports the creation of the aggravated offence for the theft of assistance dogs. Having listened to MSPs during the debate, the Scottish Government also supports extending the aggravated offence to cover other categories of dogs that might not naturally be called “assistance dogs”.
To go back to Ariane Burgess’s point, a research paper from the SSPCA that was given to the committee during stage 1 highlighted the complexities of the definition. That is why we will engage with the expert working group, as I will come on to explain, so that the experts can define what a working dog is. If the bill is passed at stage 3, the Scottish Government will engage with all its justice partners to ensure that implementation is straightforward.
Concerns have been raised with me that using a different term from the established legal one could create operational issues for law enforcement. Will you give me some certainty that you are aware of that and will address it?
Absolutely. Anybody may get in touch with Mr Golden before stage 3, and we will work with him if he wants to lodge anything at stage 3. We are aware of the complexity of the definition, and we are putting the expert working group in place to determine what it should be.
Would it be necessary to update sentencing guidelines to include some of the stated definitions that I have just read out, including that of working dogs?
I do not think that that is necessary at this stage, but it could be considered.
I will move on, because there are a few points that I want to touch on. As I said, we support extending the aggravated offence to cover categories of dog that might not naturally be called assistance dogs—for example, working dogs, such as farm dogs, gun dogs, service dogs with the police, and support dogs whose owners receive specific forms of support from them that go way beyond the support from just owning a pet. I am pleased that amendments 1 to 8 will adjust the enabling power in section 2 of the bill to ensure that the full range of helper dogs can be added to the aggravated offence in the future.
The Scottish Government established the responsible dog ownership expert advisory group following last year’s dog summit. The group includes key dog welfare stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust and the Scottish SPCA. I have commissioned that group to consider what further types of helper dogs could be added to the aggravation and, crucially, how best to define them. That is with a view to using the enabling power during implementation to add the further categories, so that the aggravation applies to them.
It is important that criminal law is clear. Therefore, definitions matter. That is why I do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. Properly identifying different types of dogs in legislation is challenging, and it is right that we listen to the experts in that area.
In the expert working group’s discussions on helper dogs, has the issue been raised of the ownership versus the handling of certain dogs? For example, although an expert sniffer dog that is used at airports might not necessarily be owned by the handler, the handler might take care of the dog and take it home every night. Has the clarity that is required regarding the owner versus the handler been part of the discussions?
The group met only last month for the first time. As the bill passes through the Parliament, the group will be taking all these issues on board. I am sure that it will listen to and take on board all the issues that are raised today.
Why is the minister not taking into account the amendments that I have lodged if the advisory group has met only once and she does not have a clear guideline as to its recommendations?
We do have that—I have a lot of information on that work. I will not go through all the detail, but I am happy to send it to Rachael Hamilton. A lot of work is going on, and the bill is just going through the Parliament now. Last month, there was a meeting with the expert advisory group, which felt that it needed to be involved in the bill. We have commissioned the group to be tasked with producing the definition, if the bill is passed.
As I said, it is important that criminal law is clear. Therefore, definitions matter. That is why we cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. It is important that we listen to experts in this area.
Amendments 20 to 22 would pre-empt the work of the expert advisory group by providing definitions of certain types of dogs—working dogs and gun dogs—in primary legislation. If such provisions were created in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation, any future change would require an amendment to the initial primary legislation, which would be disproportionate and not a good use of parliamentary time.
In addition, the definition of “working gundog” that is used in amendments 20 and 22 is especially problematic. It begins by talking about breeds but ends with the training and roles of individual dogs. The clear problems with that definition are enough on their own to mean that I cannot support either amendment 20 or amendment 22.
The major issue with amendment 21, which is also relevant to amendment 22, is that it cuts across section 2, as amended by Maurice Golden’s amendments 1 to 8. Creating separate bases for what is in effect the same aggravation risks causing confusion about which of the enabling powers in the legislation can be used to specify the type of dog. That is because of the presumption in law that a more specific rule in legislation will be seen as parliamentary intent, where a general rule in legislation also exists.
In due course, such provisions could lead to confusion among prosecutors about which aggravation to charge. The amended section 2 will create aggravations for the theft of any dogs that would be covered by the sections that amendments 21 and 22 would insert in the bill. It is better for the operation of the law to have one section that deals clearly with the aggravation of the offence. As I have said, criminal law needs to be clear.
I therefore ask members to support Maurice Golden’s amendments and reject those of Rachael Hamilton. I offer to discuss the subject with Ms Hamilton prior to stage 3 if she would like to not move her amendments. We can also discuss it with officials or perhaps even the expert advisory group. I would be happy to enable that.
This has been a helpful debate on group 2. I have nothing to add.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Does Rachael Hamilton wish to move amendment 20?
On the basis of what the minister said, I will not move amendment 20.
Amendment 20 not moved.
Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
After section 2
Amendments 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 3—Victim Statements
Amendment 9 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
After section 3
Amendment 23, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is in a group on its own.
Amendment 23 would require ministers to undertake research into areas where working gun dogs are most at risk of being stolen or unlawfully kept. Within one year following the completion of that research, ministers would have to establish a grant or loan scheme to support owners to improve kennel security in high-risk areas.
As I have indicated, data shows that, in the United Kingdom and Scotland, dog theft remains an issue for working dog owners. Industry analysts estimate that 1,800 thefts are carried out each year—that figure was from 2024. That means that about five thefts happen per day. Often, recovery rates are low. Reports suggest that about 50 per cent of dog thefts each year relate to dogs in the working dog category, with the most commonly stolen gun dogs being cocker spaniels, springer spaniels and Labradors.
Working gun dogs are vulnerable to theft because, as I have already indicated, they have a very high market value and undergo specialist training. If they are in a kennel, they are exposed to theft. A properly trained gun dog might be worth several thousand pounds and could have taken up to two years to train, which means that not only is the theft of the working dog financially rewarding to a criminal, but, as we have talked about, it disrupts land management and shooting days and causes significant emotional trauma.
The proposed kennel grant scheme would support professional gun dog keepers and those who shoot in high-risk areas to upgrade security. It could cover measures such as CCTV, flood lighting and alarmed padlocks. By ensuring that the areas that are most at risk are identified and financial support offered, the amendment aims to reduce the incidence of theft and better protect those animals, particularly in rural areas.
I move amendment 23.
I do not support amendment 23, which would commit the Scottish Government to providing, on the basis of geographical area, direct financial assistance to improve the security of kennels where working gun dogs are kept.
The targeting of financial assistance would be informed by research carried out by the Scottish Government into areas where working gun dogs are at greatest risk of being stolen. In my view, that is an entirely inappropriate use of public funds. It is for those who own working dogs—and all of us who own dogs—to ensure that the security for their resources is adequate, in the same way as any other organisation does.
There is also a significant risk that funding such a scheme or, indeed, even the research could become a perverse incentive not to ensure adequate security if it is seen as a way of having security paid for by the taxpayer, particularly if it is supposed to be based on where risk is greatest, because the risk would be greatest where there is least security.
For those reasons, I ask members to reject the amendment.
I have a number of concerns with the amendment. First, I am not entirely clear why a specific fund would be created to upgrade the security of kennels housing gun dogs and not other dogs. It would seem to create an inequity between those dogs and other working dogs, assistance dogs or, indeed, dogs generally. I am not clear why those dogs should receive protection that is not afforded to other dogs.
Secondly, the amendment appears to carry with it significant cost, and that causes me concern. Currently, the bill is relatively inexpensive. If agreed, amendment 23 would potentially change that and the benefit would be experienced by only a small proportion of dogs and owners. My bill already creates an offence for the theft of all dogs, including working gun dogs. Furthermore, the amendments in my name that the committee has agreed to mean that the Government could create an aggravation for the theft of working gun dogs via regulations, should it choose to do that. Amendment 23 goes significantly beyond that. Ultimately, the proposal is potentially expensive, it is too specific to a particular type of dog, and it is fraught with unintended consequences.
I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 23.
I have no further comments to make, and I will not press the amendment.
Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.
11:45Section 4—Annual reports by Scottish Ministers
Amendment 10, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 11 to 14, 24 to 26, 15, 16, 27 and 28. I point out that, if amendment 14 is agreed to, it will pre-empt amendment 24.
This suite of amendments has been lodged following discussions with the minister and in response to the committee’s stage 1 report. Concerns were raised at stage 1 about the burden that the reporting requirement would place on bodies, and some considered that an annual reporting requirement would be overly onerous.
I have listened to those concerns, and I am seeking to amend section 4 to provide for a one-off reporting requirement after three years and to allow the level of information that is required to be reported to be reduced to the numbers of cases, prosecutions and convictions. There is nothing preventing the report from including information that was previously set out in section 4, however.
Under section 4(3), the Scottish ministers may add “other information” that they “consider appropriate.” However, ministers are now not required, for example, to report on the number of cases that are prosecuted under common law or the number of cases that are prosecuted under summary or solemn procedure.
I will turn to my individual amendments in the group. Amendment 11 clarifies that the information that the report is to contain is to relate to things that have happened over the course of the three-year reporting period. Amendment 12 amends the information that is required to be reported on. Amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that the bill is clear that the reference to “length of sentence” in section 4(2)(g)(ii) is to a custodial sentence as opposed to, for example, the period of a work requirement imposed under a community payback order. Amendment 14 removes the requirement to report on cases of dog theft prosecuted under the existing common-law offence of theft. Amendment 16 is a consequential amendment and amendment 15 is a minor and technical amendment.
Although I strongly believe that good data collection and reporting to the Parliament are important, I want to balance that with proportionality, allowing bodies such as Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to get on with their jobs. I have listened to concerns that were raised at stage 1.
I was therefore happy to lodge my amendments in this group, which I believe strike an appropriate balance, and I thank the minister and her officials for their constructive engagement in helping me to develop them.
I thank Rachael Hamilton for lodging her amendments 24 to 28. As with her other amendments in relation to working gun dogs, I remain to be persuaded of the need to include them in the bill. I would have no objections to the report that is required under section 4 providing information on working gun dogs. However, I am not sure that specifying that in the bill is necessarily helpful, as it would mean making a separate case for working gun dogs.
I have just spoken about amendments 10 to 16, which would reduce the amount of information that was required to be reported on. I lodged those amendments following discussions with the Scottish Government, in which there was recognition of the need to balance good data collection and reporting mechanisms with proportionality. My fear with amendments 24 to 26 is that they go against that approach and would place overly burdensome duties on bodies in relation to a very specific type of dog.
Amendments 27 and 28 define a working gun dog in two alternative ways. As mentioned earlier, I have a concern about amendment 27 in respect of the way it conflates breeds and training.
More broadly, I am encouraged by the fact that Rachael Hamilton will engage with the minister following stage 2, and I believe that they will be able to reach a consensus that will allow the issues in Ms Hamilton’s amendments to be addressed.
I move amendment 10.
It seems as though my amendments will not be successful today, given the comments of the minister and Maurice Golden. However, I would say that, without those working dogs, country sports such as shooting, which are worth millions to the economy, would not be possible. Therefore, I do not want the role of working dogs to be devalued.
I know that the minister and Maurice Golden respect the intention behind my amendments, which aim to strengthen and expand the reporting and monitoring duties in the bill.
Amendment 24 provides that each of the reporting requirements under section 4(2)(a) to 4(2)(g) should also be reported on in relation to working gun dogs.
Amendment 25 adds that the ministers’ annual report in section 4 must also include information on the number of dogs that are returned to their owners.
Amendment 29 adds a reporting requirement to include in the annual report the areas where cases of dog theft have taken place. That is important and it is perhaps something that the working group could commit to looking at.
Amendment 27 provides a definition of working gun dog for the purposes of sections 4 and 5.
Amendment 28 allows the definition to be set entirely by regulations, offering flexibility to adapt to future needs.
I have lodged all my amendments in good faith. I know that, when a member brings forward a bill, they must work with the Government and listen to the concerns of the committee and the Government, which means that there must be some compromise and negotiation.
Having listened to Maurice Golden and the minister, I hope that they will take all those amendments in good faith. However, I am not planning to move them.
Thank you. I call the minister.
I could go through my spiel, but I will not do so, given that the member is not going to move the amendments.
I call Maurice Golden to wind up.
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 10 agreed to.
Amendments 11 to 13 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
I call Maurice Golden to move amendment 14 and remind members that, if it is agreed to, amendment 24 will be pre-empted.
Amendment 14 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Amendments 25 and 26 not moved.
Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Amendments 27 and 28 not moved.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5—Review of operation of the act
Group 5 is on the review of the act. Amendment 29, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is grouped with amendments 30, 31, 17 and 18.
Amendment 29 would add a reporting requirement to section 5 to include any concerns about the geographical distribution of dog theft and a consideration of whether a financial scheme should be introduced for kennel upgrades, as was previously outlined in amendment 23 in group 3, which I did not press.
Similarly to previous amendments, amendments 30 and 31 provide a definition of a working gun dog and also allow definitions to be set by regulations.
That is short and sharp, and I will leave it there.
I move amendment 29.
I will speak to my amendments 17 and 18. I am acutely aware that, in its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that section 5 be removed from the bill. The minister, too, has made her position clear. Following discussions with ministers and officials, I agreed to lodge amendment 17 to remove section 5 from the bill, to give effect to the policy of removing the requirement for review. Amendment 18 is consequential to that and would remove from the long title the reference to a review.
I thank the committee, Rachael Hamilton, the minister and her officials for constructive discussions throughout stages 1 and 2.
When it comes to this group of amendments, the choice for members is straightforward: to support either Maurice Golden’s amendment, which will remove the ministerial duty under section 5 to review the act, or Rachael Hamilton’s amendments, which would add to the matters that the Scottish Government’s review under section 5 would have to address. I encourage members to support Mr Golden’s amendment.
The Government’s position on reviewing the act is that any such review is best undertaken by the Parliament, not the Government, and that it is up to the Parliament and relevant committees to do that scrutiny as they see fit. I urge the committee to support Mr Golden’s amendment and to reject Ms Hamilton’s amendments.
I also place on record the fact that I am keen to work with Ms Hamilton as we move to stage 3. However, the bill is not mine but Mr Golden’s, so I encourage her also to engage with him.
I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 29.
I will be cheeky and say that I am not sure that it is Maurice Golden’s bill; given the removal of section 5, it might be the minister’s bill. However, I understand that Maurice Golden needs to be flexible and work with the Government in order to get his bill through.
I contest the minister’s comment on the Scottish ministers reviewing a piece of legislation, because it is a normal part of any act that ministers review its operation or impact. I do not accept the minister’s comments. However, to make life easy for the committee, I will not press amendment 29.
Amendment 29, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.
Amendment 17 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8 agreed to.
Long Title
Amendment 18 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.
Long title, as amended, agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill.
Meeting closed at 12:00.