Official Report 950KB pdf
The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendment, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 58A—and the marshalled list. If there is a division, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes. The period of voting for the division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on amendment 1 should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as the amendment is called.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list.
Section 2—Theft of assistance dogs
I call amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden.
I will not detain the Parliament for too long.
At stage 2, I lodged amendments to establish in the bill the term “helper dog”, which I defined as a dog that satisfied one of two conditions—namely, that it was
“an assistance dog, as defined by ... the Equality Act 2010”
or
“a dog of a category prescribed by regulations”.
The bill as amended at stage 2 links those two conditions with the word “and”, thereby risking an interpretation whereby the dog has to be both an assistance dog and a dog of a category that is prescribed by regulations. That was not my intent. I therefore seek to correct that minor drafting error at stage 3 with my amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that there is no ambiguity and that, to be a helper dog, a dog must be either an assistance dog “or” a dog of a category that is prescribed by regulations.
I move amendment 1.
I confirm that the Scottish Government supports amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden, for the reasons that he has given.
Do you have anything to add by way of winding-up remarks, Mr Golden?
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments.
As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise of Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill, in the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.
Previous
Motion of No Confidence