Official Report 950KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20167, in the name of Maurice Golden, on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Maurice Golden, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.
15:15
I am grateful to all those who have assisted with the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill to get it to the point at which the Parliament will vote on it at decision time tonight. However, as a former business manager, I will not be counting my chickens, or indeed my chihuahuas—I had to get that in—until the moment the Presiding Officer announces the result of the vote.
First, I thank my team, as well as everyone in the Scottish Parliament legislation team, including Neil Stewart and Ezgi Denli, who are in the chamber. I am also particularly grateful to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, expertly chaired by my colleague Finlay Carson, for its excellent scrutiny. The committee’s stage 1 report contained a number of recommendations that resulted in stage 2 amendments to refine the bill. The committee’s scrutiny resulted in an improved bill, which I hope will soon become the Dog Theft (Scotland) Act 2026, so I again thank the committee.
I also want to thank the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, and her officials. Over the course of the bill’s development, we have formed a very positive and constructive working relationship to deliver a bill that achieves the policy intent and the vision of those stakeholders who campaigned for a dog theft law and that remains practical for the Scottish Government and partner organisations to implement.
I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1, who came from organisations that have campaigned for a change in the law in this area, such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Guide Dogs for the Blind, and those that are involved in implementation and enforcement, such as the Law Society for Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland. The evidence from all those bodies and many others who gave written evidence to the committee or my consultation shaped the bill that we are debating today.
There has been much consideration and scrutiny of the bill, in response to my consultation, in committee and in the chamber at stage 1, and back in committee at stage 2. However, I would like to update members on some of the changes that have been made to my bill since the Parliament agreed to its general principles at stage 1. Members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will be very familiar with these changes, but others might not be.
First, the aggravation in the bill for the theft of an assistance dog is now an aggravation for the theft of a helper dog. That still includes assistance dogs, but it gives the Scottish Government the flexibility to extend the provision to include other categories of dog by regulations. That could include working dogs, which was a recommendation of the lead committee at stage 1. It could also include working gun dogs, should the Government choose to add them, the possibility of which my colleague Rachael Hamilton raised at stage 2.
Secondly, after discussing the matter with the minister, and following stage 1 recommendations from the lead committee, I removed what was section 3 of the bill on victim impact statements. During the bill’s passage, the law on victim impact statements more generally was changed to provide for such statements in solemn cases. I was persuaded by the argument that creating a unique situation for victim impact statements in summary cases through my bill would have been disproportionate. Therefore, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to remove section 3, which was agreed to.
Following discussions with the minister, I lodged amendments to remove the requirement for the act to be reviewed and to make changes to the reporting mechanisms, creating a one-off reporting mechanism after three years, rather than making it an annual requirement. As well as ensuring that the act does not place overly onerous duties on those who will be required to implement its provisions, that will provide for the collection of good data and reporting mechanisms, with consequential scrutiny. I think that the amendments struck the appropriate balance in that regard.
As regards reviewing the legislation itself, the Parliament could do that at a future date. As I have said previously, post-legislative scrutiny is vitally important, and this Parliament can carry out such scrutiny regardless of whether a requirement to do so is included in an act.
What we have before us is a bill that has been developed following parliamentary scrutiny, stakeholder engagement and constructive working with the Scottish Government. It is a good example, if I may say so, of our legislative procedures and, in particular, the member’s bill process, working effectively, and of parliamentarians, stakeholders and Government shaping a law that will make a positive difference to the lives of dog owners and dogs themselves. It is a law that will help to prevent cruel acts of stealing family pets from taking place, that will punish appropriately when such acts take place, and that will create an aggravation for the particularly egregious theft of helper dogs, be they assistance dogs or other dogs prescribed by the Scottish Government.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I call Siobhian Brown to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
15:22
I thank Maurice Golden for his constructive engagement throughout the bill’s parliamentary journey, and I thank the non-Government bills unit for its work and regular engagement with my officials.
No one should ever underestimate the challenges that exist for a member who seeks to take forward their own legislation, and I pay tribute to Mr Golden and his supporting officials for developing legislation that has reached the final stage of its scrutiny process.
I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its stage 1 report and recommendations and for its further consideration of the bill at stage 2. I must also express my thanks to all the stakeholders who offered their views on the bill’s provisions in evidence sessions and in writing to help to inform policy discussion on the bill.
As a dog owner and a dog lover, I recognise the emotional benefits that dogs bring to our lives. Dogs can lift our mood and provide companionship, and they are treated as members of the family. Therefore, to lose a much-loved dog through theft is horrendous. Dog theft causes distress and can have a profound and devastating impact on victims.
Research and study by the University of the West of England in Bristol tell us that the emotional turmoil experienced by dog owners after their pet has been stolen can lead to owners feeling a sense of grief, and, owing to the closeness of the human-animal bond, it can feel like a devastating loss, with owners experiencing anxiety, sadness, sorrow and despair.
During the stage 1 debate, we heard from many members who spoke passionately about the positive impacts that dogs can have on our lives and the importance of the role that dogs can play within the family setting by bringing happiness, companionship and a sense of purpose. There are also other mental and physical benefits of having a pet.
There is widespread understanding across the Parliament of the impact and emotional turmoil faced by owners who have had their dog stolen and of the very concerning consequences for the health, welfare and wellbeing of dogs that have been stolen.
The amendments that the committee agreed to at stage 2 have addressed the concerns that were raised in the committee’s stage 1 report and have improved and strengthened the bill.
Should Parliament pass the bill this afternoon, there will, of course, be more work to do during the implementation stage. For example, Maurice Golden’s stage 2 amendments to section 2 allow for regulations made by the Scottish Government to be capable of prescribing a category of dog within the description of “helper dog”. That category is wider than the category of assistance dog—for example, it can include a working dog and a support dog. That improved future flexibility in the bill does not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010, which remains unchanged.
I have commissioned the Scottish Government’s responsible dog ownership expert advisory group to provide the Government with advice as to what types of dogs it considers could be added to the aggravation offence in section 2 of the bill and, importantly, how to define them. The focus will be on working dogs and support dogs. Those who are working on the definition will take into account the views that were expressed during the stage 1 debate and at stage 2, and they will be listening to the stage 3 debate in order to ensure that all points that are raised are carefully considered.
We recognise that dogs are sentient beings and that they have an emotional connection with, and impact on, their owners. I want to share with members a quote from Henry Wheeler Shaw, an American humorist, lecturer and author, who is credited with the famous quote:
“A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself”.
That quote aligns very well with the bill’s overarching policy aims, which recognise that it is not the monetary value of a stolen pet that matters most to an owner, nor is it the breed or pedigree of a stolen dog—it is the loss of a member of the family.
By passing the bill today, Parliament can help to raise awareness of, and shine a light on, the heartbreak that is caused by the theft of a dog. The Scottish Government will support the bill at stage 3 today.
I call Tim Eagle to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
15:26
I do not intend to speak for very long today, but I begin by thanking Maurice Golden, whose dedication in introducing this member’s bill and steering it through Parliament has been tireless. His commitment reflects not only his care for animal welfare, but his understanding of the deep bond between people and their dogs.
He is right that, for many Scots, dogs are more than pets—they are companions in times of isolation, loyal partners on long walks, and, for people who are living alone or with health challenges, a daily source of emotional support and wellbeing. Research from animal welfare organisations emphasises that dogs can significantly reduce loneliness and improve mental health.
Losing a dog to theft is not like losing an object; it is—as the cabinet secretary has just pointed out—like losing a valued and loving family member. That is why groups such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish SPCA and other welfare charities have supported stronger recognition of dog theft as a stand-alone offence. They have highlighted the immense emotional impact on owners and the trauma that is experienced when a dog is taken.
The bill, as we know now, will create a specific statutory offence of dog theft with appropriate aggravations where an assistance or helper dog is taken, thereby ensuring that offences are treated with the seriousness that I believe that they deserve.
I therefore urge all members, whether or not they are dog owners, to support the bill today, so that Scotland can send a clear message that we value the welfare of our dogs and the deep, irreplaceable bond that they share with their owners.
15:28
I congratulate Maurice Golden on introducing the bill; it is not easy to bring a member’s bill to this stage.
I thank committee staff and those working in the legislation team who support MSPs in scrutinising legislation, as they are often the unsung heroes of these processes. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped the committee with its deliberations.
The bill changes dog theft from a common law offence to a specific offence in its own right. On the face of it, that appears to change nothing; it is still an offence to steal a dog. However, the bill raises awareness of dog theft. The common law treats a dog as a possession—a thing, rather than a sentient being. The law as it stands does not recognise the distress caused to the dog that is stolen; it recognises only the distress of the owner in having lost a possession and does not recognise the relationship between people and their pets. Pets are more like family members than possessions, and this bill seeks to highlight that relationship.
The bill also includes an aggravated offence for the theft of a helper dog and allows the Scottish Government to add, by regulation, to that definition. The committee had discussions about police dogs, sheep dogs and the like. They are highly trained dogs that have a value due to that training. Obviously, guide dogs are already included in the bill’s definition of a helper dog.
The bill also means that dog theft data will be reported. That does not happen currently, so it was difficult to ascertain the prevalence of the offence. We suspect that it is significant, but we will not know that until data becomes available. We have all heard of cases where dogs have been stolen, and that is especially the case for sought-after breeds that are valuable and can be sold to order. That appeared to be more the case during the pandemic, when dogs were very much in demand, as people were spending more time at home. We will need to see whether that trend continues, but, without historical data that we can depend on, it will be difficult to follow trends.
Arguably, the greatest benefit of this bill will be dependent on awareness raising being carried out in such a way that it acts as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The awareness raising could also highlight the impact of dog theft on the animal and its owner, while reminding people that it is a serious crime and will lead to a criminal conviction.
Although we support the bill, we note that there have been a number of members’ bills on dogs and their welfare in this session of Parliament. It is also clear that there is a lack of Government action on the issue of dogs and their welfare. We need these pieces of legislation to be brought together under new legislation that protects dogs and their owners. We know that dog smuggling goes on, and members’ legislation has tried to deal with unscrupulous breeders, but here we are again with legislation around dog theft.
We need legislation that is not piecemeal but follows through all the issues of criminality around dogs and their breeding, sale, care and welfare. It looks like that will be a job for a new Government in the next Parliament. I hope that the new Government deals with this issue, because it is incredibly important to our constituents.
I call Ariane Burgess to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens.
15:32
I am grateful to Maurice Golden—and the officials who have supported him—for the work that he has put into this member’s bill, and for introducing legislation that responds to a real public concern. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, and everyone who participated in the discussions during the proceedings on the bill.
For many people, dogs are not property in any meaningful sense—they are family. Therefore, when a dog is stolen, the impact is not just financial but distressing and traumatic, and it can be life-changing, not just for the humans.
This bill is based on the United Kingdom Pet Abduction Act 2024 and it takes an important step for Scotland. It creates a clear offence with serious penalties—up to five years in prison—and the possibility of an unlimited fine. That matters, because dog theft is not a harmless, opportunistic crime. The evidence suggests that, during the pandemic, as the price of dogs rose sharply, dog theft increased, too, with concerns that organised crime was involved in some cases.
The data is imperfect, but it is sobering. It is also striking how few successful outcomes there are for victims. Research has highlighted that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is charged and, in more than half of cases, no suspect is even identified. If we want to deter this crime and support victims, we need laws that reflect the real harm done, and a system that can deliver justice.
I particularly welcome section 2, which makes the theft of assistance dogs an aggravated offence. For someone who relies on an assistance dog, their theft does not simply mean losing a companion—it means losing mobility, independence and safety, so recognising that additional harm is absolutely right.
As Maurice Golden has discussed, the bill introduces the term “helper dog”, and he explained that that part of the bill is intended to create flexibility through regulations. I simply urge ministers to use that power carefully and to keep the focus where it belongs—on protecting those who depend on assistance dogs, and on ensuring that the law is clear and enforceable. It was good to hear from the minister this afternoon that she has already commissioned work on that.
I also welcome section 4, which would create a reporting mechanism. That matters because, right now, we are working with partial and inconsistent information. If we are going to tackle dog theft properly, we will need reliable data on its prevalence, on patterns and on outcomes. That will let us know whether the bill is working and what further action may be needed.
Alongside criminal law, we should also keep moving on practical measures that will make it harder to steal dogs and easier to reunite them with their owners. Scotland likely has somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million dogs, and that population may have grown significantly since Covid. Measures to improve the accuracy and compliance of microchipping and to have better traceability from breeder to owner can strengthen prevention and enforcement.
The stage 3 amendment that we dealt with today was minor and technical, but the bill itself is not. It would respond to a real harm, signal that Scotland can take this crime seriously and help us to measure whether we are succeeding. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I again thank Maurice Golden for his work.
We move to the open debate.
15:35
I am delighted to speak in this debate in support of my colleague Maurice Golden’s bill, and not only because I was the additional member in charge of the bill—that is a smart title but, to be honest, I was not actually required to do anything. I know how much determination is needed to introduce a member’s bill, having successfully introduced two of my own.
During the early stages of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland stated:
“Theft is already an offence under the common law, defined as ‘to appropriate moveable, corporeal things belonging to another person, without the consent of that person, where the accused knows that those things belongs to another and intends to deprive the owner of their use permanently, indefinitely or (in certain circumstances) temporarily’. This offence can be used to prosecute dog theft incidents.”
For balance, I will also quote the Law Society’s comments that
“Judges in Scotland have the tools to assess and sanction appropriately dog theft offences, considering the harm that such behaviours may cause to the animal’s welfare and the dog’s owners and family.”
I recall from my days in practice as a solicitor that, when a relationship broke down, although issues with the monetary assets could be resolved, there was often a fight about the family dog, and there were even circumstances in which the family dog was used in a coercive manner.
The rub is the concept of a dog as a “corporeal thing”. It may break our hearts to have a valuable or sentimental piece of property stolen but, in my book, that by no means equates to having a family dog stolen. We have moved a long way from viewing animals—including pets—as property.
There is also specific reference in the bill to “assistance dogs” and “helper” dogs. The heartbreak may be the same or be of a more professional nature if those dogs are stolen, so that classification is important. I welcome the penalties and the aggravation that would be introduced if it is a helper dog, which helps children and adults in their daily lives, that is stolen. Helper dogs can also be used to detect drug smuggling and explosives, and can possibly alert individuals to the presence of cancer. Therefore, an aggravation of the crime in those circumstances—and that is by no means an exhaustive list—would be very welcome.
I appreciate that the possibility of recording dog theft as a specific crime may offer challenges, but those are not insurmountable—I will leave it at that.
I will conclude my speech with a few words about my very late dog of 40 years ago, Roostie—my delightful, kindly Irish setter. She let the cat sleep on top of her—for her body warmth, not his. My sons, who are now fathers themselves, used her as a pillow for comfort as well as for fun. She dragged us out for walks in the pouring rain and we felt the better for it. She was never—ever—property or a “corporeal thing.” Her impact on my life can be measured by the fact that, 40 years on, she is keen in my memories. She taught my sons how to behave and respect her, just as she taught me how to be a good and responsible owner. The reciprocated love and affection of a dog is invaluable.
I will briefly parachute in another point: the festive season is not the time to buy a dog or a puppy, and, when people buy a dog or a puppy, they should do so only from a reputable source.
Going back to my script, I also agree that it would be a good idea in the next parliamentary session to introduce a consolidation bill on all laws that relate to dogs.
On that note, again, I congratulate Maurice Golden. As a postscript, I say that I know that the member is not seeking re-election. He will be a great loss to this place.
We now move to closing speeches.
15:39
As we close this debate, I want to return to the human impact. When a dog is stolen, it is not just a theft. A family member is taken, routines are shattered and owners are left with the awful uncertainty of not knowing where their animal is or whether it is safe. Again, I thank Maurice Golden for pursuing his member’s bill and for listening to stakeholders as it has progressed.
The bill sits within a wider pattern of legislation in this session of Parliament of members introducing practical reforms to improve dog and pet welfare. We saw that with Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which has strengthened responsible dog ownership by improving the information and safeguards that are in place for people buying a dog.
Although there has been progress, more needs to be done, some of which needs Government time and leadership. In particular, we need the Scottish Government to ensure that Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill is given ample opportunity to pass before the end of this session. Greyhound racing remains a glaring omission in Scotland’s animal welfare landscape. If we are serious about preventing suffering, we cannot keep leaving that gap unaddressed.
Beyond that, there are clear next steps that we should take. We need to ban shock collars for cats and dogs. Training and behaviour should not rely on pain or fear and Scotland should draw a clear ethical line. We need to crack down on puppy smuggling and on poor breeding practices that put profit before welfare, so that people who are trying to buy responsibly are not misled and animals are not traded as commodities. We need tighter regulation of fireworks, because we know the unnecessary suffering, which is predictable and preventable, that they cause to pets, livestock and wildlife.
We need to streamline and strengthen dog legislation. Responsible authorities currently work across multiple overlapping regimes—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and wider welfare law—and those often have different tests, thresholds and processes. That complexity makes enforcement harder than it needs to be and it can leave victims feeling as though no one is accountable. We should ensure that the police and local authorities have clear guidance and the resources to enforce the rules.
I believe that, as others have said, we should bring the framework together through a modern, breed-neutral dog control bill that simplifies welfare rules, makes it easier to intervene early, and supports consistent, effective enforcement, focusing on behaviour, responsibility and risk, not on the look of a dog.
Times have changed since some of our laws were written. We now have thriving dog grooming, boarding and walking sectors that remain largely unregulated. Most providers are responsible, but a lack of baseline standards means that not every dog gets the treatment that it should, which can lead to inadvertent harm.
Finally, it is worth remembering that Scotland already has strong foundations in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, places a duty of care on those responsible for animals and provides powers that can be used to regulate activities to protect welfare. We should use the powers that we have, and strengthen them where needed, to raise standards and prevent harm.
The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill will help. It recognises the harm of the crime, provides for tougher consequences and improves our ability to measure what is happening through reporting. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I hope that we will treat it not as the end of the journey but as part of a clear programme of work to protect animals, support responsible ownership and prevent suffering across Scotland.
15:43
This small but important piece of legislation is about animal rights and animal welfare, but it is also about human rights. It is about our values, our principles—it is about our very moral philosophy.
As representatives of the people, we must be advocates of the people—and they are clear. The people are clear: they unequivocally want us to pass this law today. So, today it is about us and it is about our responsibility to the people.
Let me start on a positive note. It is welcome that the bill now provides for a broader definition of the kind of dog theft that qualifies for an aggravated offence to that of a “helper dog”, but I regret that some other elements of the original version of the bill have been dropped completely.
There should be a victim statement, even though we are talking of summary, not solemn, cases.
Will the member give way on that point?
I happen to think that it is a useful component in any legal proceedings, because it helps to inform sentencing decisions and brings to our legal system some welcome democratic victim voice.
Will the member give way?
But I understand that Government support for the bill was conditional on this being dropped, and Maurice Golden is hemmed in by those dreaded words: “political feasibility”.
Similarly, in my view, there could be, and there should be, annual reporting. The minister—
Will the member give way?
Yeah, ok.
That was a bit graceless, Mr Leonard.
I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think that a victim statement influences the penalty at the end of the day. I do not think that it does, but no doubt the minister will clarify.
For me, it is about a principle—about whether the impact on the victim is a matter of record. I think that it should be and it should be taken into account.
Let me turn to something else that has been dropped, and that is the annual reporting on the enforcement of the act. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety told Parliament at stage 1 that providing an annual report on the enforcement of the act “makes it operationally impossible”. I do not accept this, and neither should Parliament. Accountability is important for the functioning of our democracy, and the minister appears before Parliament as a prisoner of operational matters far too often, whether it relates to cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; the continued defiance of laws prohibiting fireworks and pyrotechnics use and the absence of a licensing system for that, which, in my personal experience, is also an animal welfare and animal cruelty issue; or this legislation today on dog theft—each one an important area of policy that the minister has direct responsibility for, and I would ask her to reflect on that.
On the other hand, I do accept the argument that post-legislative scrutiny is the prerogative of this Parliament and not of the Government, but that, in turn, requires good data—good data collection and transparency—so that future members of Parliament are able to follow the evidence. As a matter of record, that is something that the Government and its agencies are not always very good at providing. We need action in this area, because people and Parliament deserve more than words of admonishment by the Auditor General for Scotland or criticism by the Public Audit Committee. People deserve action and a wholesale change in political culture.
Where there has been good understanding and where good progress has been made is on the need to raise awareness of the new offence, because our purpose in voting for the legislation is for it to act as a deterrent. While Maurice Golden and I differ on his custodial approach, we can agree that we need to stop dog thefts happening in the first place. We can agree that, when they do happen, we need to raise the probability of the safe return of the dog to their home.
Let me finish with the principles and the values that lie behind the legislation. Dogs are not property—they are living, sentient beings. They are not commodities—they are companions. They are not a lower form of life, but an equal form of life. Without them, for many of us, there would be a loneliness of the soul.
We will be voting for this Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill this afternoon. Many of us will be doing so not only with moral purpose and passion forged on personal experience, but with political principle as well.
I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.
15:49
I had the opportunity back in October to speak in support of the bill and in recognition of the hard work of my colleague Maurice Golden and others at stage 1. As Christine Grahame rightly says, Maurice Golden will be missed in this place, although his humour—judging by the start of his speech—might not be missed quite so much.
I am pleased that the bill has reached this stage, and I sincerely hope that, at the end of the day, it will complete its progress through the Parliament, as it sounds like it will. A key component in the bill advancing is the Scottish Government’s support for the creation of a distinct dog theft offence. That is welcome, and I largely commend the minister for the way in which the Government has engaged with the process and helped to create a level of cross-party consensus.
As others have mentioned, the bill is different from the one that we were faced with at stage 1. In the stage 1 debate, I argued, alongside others, for the positive role that victim statements could play in relation to the proposed offence, as highlighted by Richard Leonard. At that point, it was already clear that there was no obvious route to the provision gaining Scottish Government support, and it has been removed from the bill that is before us today.
That is disappointing, because the inclusion of victim statements was a positive measure that seemed to earn widespread support in the chamber. It now appears to have fallen victim to expediency—specifically, the Scottish Government’s view that, in the words of the minister, “at this point”, it did not wish to address the introduction of victim statements in summary cases. I acknowledge the position that summary offences that are equally serious would not have provision for victim statements to be used. Although I accept that that is the cost of securing the Scottish Government’s support, that provision could have been a powerful tool to emphasise the deeply personal and emotional elements of the offence, as highlighted by other members, and to inform sentencing decisions.
There are a number of other worthy elements that members may wish to have seen added to the bill rather than subtracted from it. Protection for other animals was high on the list. Cats were most obviously mentioned, although, given the freedom to wander, for practical purposes, they are quite different from dogs. Christine Grahame put it best when she said:
“Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.”—[Official Report, 2 October 2025; c 87.]
At stage 1, Richard Leonard made an impassioned plea on behalf of his constituent about dog attacks on other dogs, and he pointed to the public position on the subject. Such attacks can be devastating for dogs and owners alike and can leave owners with enormous costs for treatment. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of people not taking proper precautions to prevent dog attacks, and a considerable gap exists in how the law addresses those.
Elena Whitham made some very insightful, powerful and concerning points about the role that pets can play as a tool of domestic abuse and coercive control.
One of the most pressing remaining issues with the bill, should it be passed and receive royal assent, is that of what resources will be available to publicise and enforce the new law. I hope that the Scottish Government and relevant agencies will make that part of their work once the new offence is in place.
I commend Maurice Golden, his staff and all those who have been involved in bringing the bill to this stage. Any dog owner will attest to the fact that it has been an important issue to champion and, as any victim of dog theft will know, Maurice Golden is tackling a terrible evil. It seems that the Parliament accepts and recognises the main issue that dog theft is different from normal theft in category rather than just degree, and that such a difference ought to be recognised consistently.
We all appreciate that the bill can go only so far and achieve only so much, and the bill’s critics are by no means entirely wrong or misguided. Much more is needed than legislative change, and the direct gain from the bill might be smaller than we might like. However, I hope that it can help to drive a shift in our institutions’ culture towards treating dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. The Parliament, in its role not only as a legislative body but as a forum for the nation, will also be sending a strong message that this sort of crime should not and will not be tolerated.
15:53
I thank all members for their contributions to the debate.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, I have welcomed the constructive and helpful meetings that I have had with Mr Golden since stage 1 to discuss the bill. Although the Scottish Government had concerns about aspects of the bill when it was introduced, Mr Golden lodged stage 2 amendments on those aspects to ensure that the Scottish Government could support it.
I will come to some of the points that have been raised throughout the debate.
A few members mentioned consolidation of legislation in the next parliamentary session. I have responsibility for dangerous dogs, and animal welfare is under Minister Fairlie. With that in mind, last September, we hosted a responsible dog ownership summit, because we believe that more can be done to improve public safety by ensuring that dogs are responsibly acquired, owned and looked after. The Scottish Government is always open to considering carefully any evidence-based suggestions to help to improve people’s safety. The summit was an opportunity to bring together attendees from a wide range of organisations, including Police Scotland, local authorities and veterinary bodies as well as public health and third sector organisations, to consider how dog control and public safety can be improved. My colleague Christine Grahame was also in attendance.
The summit’s key outcome was the Scottish Government’s establishment of an expert advisory group to look at the various issues that were raised and to help to determine what can be progressed in the short, medium and long term. A number of sub-groups of the expert advisory group have now been set up to look at specific areas of work, such as enforcement and resources; dog welfare; prevention, education and communication; data to inform and support dog control policy; and health service data.
The expert advisory group is now also considering the helper dog definition issue. Although we are not progressing with legislation in this parliamentary session, work has started on that for the next session.
I will touch on victim statements, which have been raised. The bill as drafted would have allowed people who are victims of a dog theft to give a victim impact statement to the court, and that would have applied to any court. Although the Scottish Government is sympathetic on the issue, victim impact statements are currently available for certain solemn offences only. The bill, as drafted, would have specifically included the new offence of dog theft in summary cases so that, in order to inform sentencing, a victim could express to the court the impact that the crime had on them physically, emotionally and financially.
When I met Maurice Golden ahead of stage 1, I made it clear that the Scottish Government required the removal of that provision in order to support the bill, which he acted on at stage 2. That also reflected the committee’s recommendation in the stage 1 report that the provision be removed—a recommendation that was made in light of general concerns about the appropriateness of the approach.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer?
If the intervention is brief.
I honestly do not know the answer to this question. As I understand it, a victim impact statement does not do anything to the sentencing at the end of the day. I know that the provision was taken out of the bill, but is it generally the case that such statements have nothing to do with sentencing?
I think that Richard—oh, I have forgotten his other name.
Leonard.
I beg your pardon, Mr Leonard, I was distracted.
Richard Leonard seemed to be confused about that issue—
I think that the minister has the gist of your question.
My understanding is that the statements help the court and inform sentencing, but perhaps I could get back to Christine Grahame on the exact details.
Amendments that were made to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will in due course extend the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases.
I know that I am short of time, but I want to touch on raising awareness of the new offence. The Scottish Government will work with Maurice Golden to publicise and raise awareness of the new dog theft offence. 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. My officials meet regularly with a range of organisations that have a strong interest in the new offence and dog welfare, including Police Scotland, local authorities, veterinary bodies, the public health sector and a wide range of third sector organisations, such as the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and many more. The Scottish Government will work with all stakeholders to promote and raise awareness if the bill is passed.
I thank the members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the bill. As I have made clear as the bill has progressed through Parliament, dog theft is an emotive issue. The Scottish Government recognises and understands the emotional impact on owners if their dog is taken from them. I hope that, by supporting the bill, the Parliament demonstrates how seriously it takes dog theft.
I congratulate Mr Golden on being able to progress his bill through all the various scrutiny processes, and I encourage all members to support the bill at decision time.
I call Maurice Golden, as the member in charge of the bill, to wind up the debate. You have up to five minutes, Mr Golden.
15:59
I thank all members who have contributed to today’s debate, which has been very useful. More generally, I thank everyone for their engagement in scrutinising the bill.
I will touch on the speeches that we have heard. Minister Siobhian Brown, who is a dog owner and dog lover, said that dog theft has a
“profound and devastating impact on victims.”
I look forward to the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group’s recommendations with respect to helper dogs in due course.
Tim Eagle spoke about dogs being companions, loyal partners and a daily source of emotional support and wellbeing. Rhoda Grant agreed and highlighted that the bill will facilitate improved data collection. Ariane Burgess said that the bill responds to a real harm and that dog theft is not just a theft.
Christine Grahame, whom I thank for being the additional member in charge of the bill, spoke of her late dog Roostie, the Irish setter, who was never property but a loving companion. She highlighted that it would be appropriate for there to be a consolidation bill in the next session of Parliament.
On the point that Richard Leonard and Jamie Halcro Johnston made about victim statements, it is worth noting for the Official Report that the removal of that provision was a committee recommendation, so it would be wrong to frame the proposal as one that emanated solely from the Scottish Government.
Of course, politics is the art of the possible, and achieving goals often involves compromise, challenge and collaboration. The bill that is before us, which we will vote on tonight, has been refined in that fire, and I will be very proud if it becomes the Dog Theft (Scotland) Act 2026.
Again, I thank members and stakeholders for their engagement. In particular, I thank the minister, Siobhian Brown, and the committee.
During the stage 1 debate, I quoted the late American animal welfare activist Roger Caras, who said that dogs “make our lives whole”. I will close with more of his wise words. He said:
“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust.”
Dogs are for life, not just for Christmas, so let us repay some of that love, faith and trust this Christmas season by voting to pass the bill at decision time.
That concludes the debate on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Previous
Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3