Official Report 800KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is our final evidence session on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Maurice Golden, who is the member in charge of the bill; he is supported by parliamentary officials. We have around 90 minutes for the session.
I will kick off with a nice straightforward question. Mr Golden, you have based a lot of the bill’s provisions on the UK Pet Abduction Act 2024, but, given that it was introduced only last summer, no substantive research has yet been carried out on the act’s effectiveness. Can you advise the committee why you decided to introduce your bill at this stage rather than wait until there was evidence on the success, or otherwise, of the 2024 act?
Yes, I am happy to do so. The key question for committee members and, indeed, parliamentarians is whether a dog is part of the family. If you agree that it is part of the family, that is the reason for the bill that is in front of us, and that is why the policy memorandum alludes to a dog being a sentient, cared for, loved and affectionate animal and pet.
11:15As members will be aware, I started the process to introduce a member’s bill in the Parliament in 2021, at which stage there was no UK pet abduction bill, so I started first. Thereafter, I met Zac Goldsmith, who was the minister in charge of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in the UK. Unfortunately, in my view, that bill did not go ahead. Subsequently, in the run-up to the 2024 election, the UK Government backed Anna Firth’s private member’s bill, the Pet Abduction Bill, which became an act.
The timelines are distinctly different, and both my rationale and my consultation process have been on a different trajectory from those for the legislation in England and Wales. Nonetheless, once the UK Government had, essentially, superseded Scotland, it made sense to use the rationale of the 2024 act in the drafting of the bill here to provide consistency across the United Kingdom.
There is a plethora of dog legislation. We have had some from our committee member, Emma Harper. In addition, Christine Grahame has a bill going through Parliament and an act in place. Those measures are or were members’ bills. Should we look to the Government to introduce a consolidation bill and to consider all those individual pieces of legislation and get a more holistic view of how dog behaviour or theft can be addressed in one act?
I would welcome both the UK and Scottish Governments considering an animal welfare bill that encapsulates many of the measures—Scotland actually leads the way on many of the issues. A number of issues could be addressed, but today we are looking at one specific example.
The next question is from Emma Roddick, who joins us online.
As we cannot connect to Emma, we will move on and come back to her if we can get her online.
Maurice, in your letter to the committee, you say that a statutory offence would be used more than the common law offence of theft is used at the moment. You give breach of the peace as an example of that. What benefits do you see in having a statutory offence rather than a common-law offence?
A statutory offence is an effective way of modernising the existing law. There is no specific existing crime of dog theft so, when someone steals a dog, they could be prosecuted under the common law offence of theft. The law therefore treats the theft of a dog in exactly the same way as it treats the theft of any other household item. That is really the crux of the matter. In my view, and in the view of many stakeholders, the law ignores the fact that a dog is often a much-loved member of the family whose loss is mourned by the owner, regardless of the dog’s monetary value.
Mr Eagle points to precedents in this Parliament, such as the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, regarding breach of the peace, and the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. The statutory offences in relation to breach of the peace and the protection of workers are being used far more widely than the common-law offences were used. That is ultimately up to prosecutors, but we see that that is the preferred method of prosecuting. However, a critical point is that the bill would continue to allow the common-law offence to be used as well. Those precedents show that my bill has more to offer and that it is in keeping with the Parliament’s views across a number of sessions.
Thank you.
We will try again to bring in Emma Roddick. Can you hear us now, Emma?
Yes, I can hear you fine.
Maurice, you suggest that the creation of a stand-alone offence would result in
“improved data and ... an improved evidence base.”
We have had evidence from Police Scotland and the Crown Office arguing that the offence would either make no difference to data collection or that it could make it more difficult. Have you considered other ways to improve data collection besides legislation? What is your response to the evidence that we have had?
I am not introducing the bill to improve data collection, but I think that it will be improved as a result of the bill. Other than the bill, I have no means at my disposal to introduce measures to improve data collection. There is a lack of clarity on the number of incidents of dog theft, with official police figures and projections by campaign groups being significantly different. I was pleased to see Police Scotland acknowledge that point in its evidence to the committee on 26 March.
A new offence will mean a new way of recording data. I would hope that details such as the breed or type of dog would be included in that to assist the police, particularly in identifying organised criminal gangs and identifying where particular breeds are being targeted. However, that is ultimately an operational matter.
The evidence from Police Scotland really hit home. On the number of thefts that are being reported, chief inspector Michael Booker said that he did
“not believe that that is a true reflection of the picture in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 2.]
My bill can facilitate improved data collection, but that is not the reason behind it.
I have a supplementary question on that. Police Scotland said that, even if there were to be a stand-alone statutory offence of dog theft, the crime would still be recorded as robbery or theft by housebreaking and that it would not necessarily be recorded as dog theft. Is that something that we need to consider in an amendment for stage 2?
Perhaps. The benefit of the bill is that it would facilitate the police having a better understanding of this horrendous crime. Whether that is with data or how the police detect the crime in operational terms, it is something that we need to look at.
Thank you.
I am interested in the question of relationship breakdown. Will you advise the committee why the exception to the offence regarding relationship breakdown in section 1(2) of the bill has been included?
I welcome the scrutiny of that particular issue from both the member and the committee, and I have heard the evidence. It is right that we consider the issue carefully to ensure that there are no loopholes. It goes without saying that anyone who uses possession of a dog as a means of coercive control in an abusive relationship deserves the full force of the law.
However, there are two separate issues. The first is coercive control within an abusive relationship, and the second is a situation in which a couple who own a dog together separate in the normal course of life. The former is, and will remain, potentially criminal behaviour. The latter is obviously a sad situation and may include the involvement of the civil courts, but it is not in any way criminal. Therefore, there is an existing law in place that already criminalises coercive control within a relationship or after it breaks down. My bill does not change that.
I recognise that the issue has been raised at stage 1. Should the committee have any concerns, I would be happy to carefully consider its recommendations in the area, should the bill proceed to stage 2.
In the evidence that we heard from the Dogs Trust, Police Scotland and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, they felt that the bill needed to be strengthened regarding domestic abuse. We also heard from the Crown Office that it felt that the existing domestic abuse legislation, as you have narrated, would be enough to deal with that situation.
I understand that, in relation to the United Kingdom Government, there is a proposal called Ruby’s law, which was brought forward because of a gap in the legislation in relation to the Pet Abduction Act 2024 and the family law concerning domestic abuse. Ruby’s law seeks to remedy that gap. I do not know whether you have had any regard to those proposals. Incidentally, in that case, it was a cat and not a dog, but it is the same issue of an abuser perpetuating domestic abuse against a victim using a pet.
That is why I am certainly willing to look at this issue and the bill as a whole post stage 1. My approach was to present the Parliament with a simple framework in the bill to make sure that the evidence was as strong as possible to proceed and then aim to improve the bill going forward, perhaps in the manner that the member has described.
It is important to note that the minister indicated to the committee that she is content with the provision. That is part of my rationale for setting it out as it is, because I do not want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. There is time to get perfection in stages 2 and 3—if we get there, of course.
The issue of domestic abuse when a perpetrator seeks to use a pet to control somebody and prevent them from leaving is probably beyond the scope of what your bill sets out to do. However, we need to think about the unintended consequences of not recognising where pets can sit in relation to domestic abuse. I am glad to hear that you are open to continuing that discussion.
We undoubtedly need to think about that. It also chimes with the reason behind the bill. Because a dog is an integral part of the family, some nefarious individuals can unfortunately use that connection and affection in pretty concerning ways. That is why I would certainly be willing to look at ways to improve the bill.
Thank you.
For the record—putting domestic abuse to one side—will you advise why the exception to the offence regarding relationship breakdown in section 1(2) of the bill has been included? Why is that exception in the bill?
Ultimately, as I have highlighted, it is to keep the bill as simple as possible. As we have heard, there is a debate around theft versus abduction, and the same rationale essentially applies here. There is a rationale for abduction, but the difficulty with using that term is that I might then need to justify the will of the dog, and members might have concerns about that, which might mean that they would not support the bill at stage 1.
11:30Essentially, the aim is to get a framework bill in front of Parliament that all members—who, as we all know, have a variety of views—can support. From that point, we can look at the areas that the committee, and ultimately the Parliament, think could be improved.
Good morning, and welcome. It is still morning.
Just.
My question is about deterrence. You say that the bill would act as a deterrent, although Police Scotland and the COPFS have disagreed with that, and the bill does not require the Scottish Government to publicise the new offence. Can you expand your thinking about how the bill should act as a deterrent to dog theft?
I very much hope that it will but, arguably, we will know only after the legislation is operational. I believe that the levels of punishment that the bill sets out are appropriate to fit the crime. When those begin to be imposed, there will undoubtedly be publicity in the media, in particular if prison sentences are handed down, and that will contribute to ensuring that the new offence acts as a deterrent.
Moreover, there is an argument that the penalties that are laid out in the bill, and its profile, will potentially cause criminal groups that might consider stealing and then selling dogs as part of a wider criminal enterprise to at least think twice before doing so.
Ultimately, passing the bill would send a message that Parliament takes dog theft seriously. That message, along with the publicity that will follow, and campaigning and messaging by charities such as the Dogs Trust and others, will result in a greater focus on the issue. Furthermore, the reporting requirements imposed in the bill will mean that there is at least an annual focus on the issue and on the level of prosecutions, which I hope will add to the deterrent effect.
Good morning, Mr Golden, and thank you for being with us today. You state that the bill will lead to a decrease in dog theft, thereby improving dog welfare. What evidence do you have that there will be more prosecutions under a stand-alone offence than under common-law theft?
I point members to at least part of the question on common law versus stand-alone legislation that we covered earlier. With regard to animal welfare, there is strong evidence, including from the SSPCA to the committee, that dogs suffer trauma when they are stolen. It therefore follows that creating a stand-alone offence whereby the dog is not simply treated as an item will have a positive effect on animal welfare. If the number of prosecutions and convictions increases, and if there is an increase in reporting and recording, that will, overall, lead to the crime being taken more seriously. Therefore, I believe that the bill will have a long-term deterrent effect, leading to fewer instances of dog theft and having a positive impact on animal welfare.
The maximum penalties set out in your bill will be lower than those currently available under the common-law offence of theft. What impact do you think that that will have on any penalties that are imposed?
We probably need to distinguish between the theory and the practice on that. According to Kennel Club research, 98 per cent of dog abductions in 2021 resulted in no one being charged, and in 54 per cent of the cases that were recorded during 2020, no suspect was identified.
As for prosecution, I have already highlighted that charge rates are less than 5 per cent, and only 1 per cent of dog abduction cases in the UK in 2019-20 resulted in prosecution. Only a tiny number reach the sentencing stage. I am not aware of anyone in the UK having been subject to the maximum penalties that the member has highlighted. Even if the bill were passed, the common-law offence would still exist, so the maximum penalties would remain the same. It is a matter for the Crown Office to determine how the offence is prosecuted.
I think that the penalties that are described in the bill are reasonable and proportionate, and I think that they would be used in the vast majority of cases, as we have heard earlier. Ultimately, however, it is for the Crown Office to determine on what grounds any individual should be prosecuted, so the highest sanction would still be available.
So, you think that it would have no impact.
I do not think that it would have any impact at all. As I have said, I would struggle to configure the circumstances in which a crime of this nature would result in life imprisonment. Nonetheless, the Crown Office could choose to use the common-law offence. It would not be a case of either/or. Both will exist together, so the penalties remain the same.
With the bill, you would have a bespoke law for a particular criminal offence. Where that has occurred previously, the evidence shows that prosecutors tend to favour the bespoke offence rather than the general one.
The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that sentencing guidelines could be an alternative way of achieving the aims of the bill. Have you had discussions with the Scottish Sentencing Council on the possibility of its producing guidelines in relation to the offence of theft involving live animals, as an alternative to your bill?
Thanks for that question. I published the consultation document on my final proposal in October 2022, and, as part of that, I had meetings with, among others, the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Faculty of Advocates. In my view, it would not be common practice for individual MSPs to seek specific discussions with the Scottish Sentencing Council prior to any member’s bill—or perhaps on any topic. I would be open to engaging with the Scottish Sentencing Council, should the bill progress beyond stage 1, but I am cognisant of the importance of the council’s independence, and I would seek to respect that in any engagement.
As a Parliament, and as individual members of the Scottish Parliament, we need to be cautious about setting a precedent around MSPs meeting the Sentencing Council, particularly in the run-up to an election, and using that as a campaigning tool. I certainly would not use it in that way, but you could quite easily see that happening. I certainly would not want politicians acting in an ultra vires manner with respect to the legislature and the judiciary.
Is it something that you could do in tandem with the Scottish Government, which would take the politics out of it, to an extent?
Yes, I would be more than happy to do that. My concern here is less about the bill, but I could envisage a situation in which the Scottish Sentencing Council opened itself up to politicians, a politician issued a press release about a crime and then they asked to meet the Sentencing Council, almost using it as a political football. I am not saying that that would happen—I am sure that most members would respect the council—but that explains my caution.
I am certainly comfortable when it comes to the bill—it is more a matter for members now and in future sessions. I certainly would not want to change a precedent in parliamentary engagement with the judiciary.
We will move on to section 2, with questions from Mark Ruskell.
Theft of assistance dogs is incredibly rare, but the committee has had evidence from the Law Society of Scotland and the Crown Office that its impact can be taken into consideration in sentencing. What is your response to that evidence?
I looked at the existing aggravators, all of which would apply to the new offence of dog theft, and realised that there was a potential legal gap regarding assistance dogs. Someone who relies on an assistance dog for daily tasks is already in need of additional support to carry out those tasks. I considered that, if someone’s dog were to be stolen and they faced the double whammy of not just losing a much-loved companion but being left unable to carry out vital tasks, it would be appropriate and proportionate to put in such a provision. I met representatives of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to discuss that point.
I accept that the potential crime is extremely rare, but it is important to do the right thing in the bill. There is a distinguishing factor between dogs and assistance dogs.
For sure. We have had evidence to suggest that, in order to prove an aggravation, it has to be demonstrated that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog—in other words, a link must be made between knowing that a dog was an assistance dog and then going on to steal it. What are your thoughts on that? Your intention is, I think, that the aggravation should apply regardless of whether somebody knew that the dog was an assistance dog.
Yes. We need to be careful that we are not comparing apples and pears, with regard to the role that we have as legislators and the role that the Crown Office has in interpreting and applying the law. Both things can be true at the same time in my policy intention and what is in the bill.
The key thing with an aggravated offence, when it comes to sentencing, is that the court must take the aggravator into account, and it is up to the prosecution to prove it. The feedback that the member has highlighted could be applied to any form of aggravator. We have established precedent with regard to aggravators, and, in this case, I think that, in respect of assistance dogs, it is a proportionate approach. It might not need to be deployed very often—never, I hope. Still, I think that those provisions are exactly what I am attempting to get Parliament to approve.
I can certainly see how that element—that is, how the individual knew the person in question or recognised that the dog was an assistance dog—would be a central part of the consideration of such a case.
I will jump the next question, as I think that we have a broadcasting issue, and move to a question from Tim Eagle.
The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply to the power allowing Scottish ministers to add to the category of “assistance dog”. Currently, the negative procedure would apply. Can you explain your thinking as to why the negative procedure would be proportionate and appropriate in this case?
11:45
I am happy to consider the matter further. I have seen the information in the letter from the DPLR Committee, but the negative procedure certainly seems more proportionate to me.
The key point is that flexibility is essential to accommodate specific cases in the future, given that assistance dogs support individuals with numerous different medical conditions in numerous different ways. It is considered that the negative procedure will offer sufficient flexibility while still providing adequate parliamentary scrutiny and avoiding inappropriate use of parliamentary time. However, as Maurice Golden has highlighted, we are happy to consider that issue further.
We will try to go back to Emma Roddick. I do not know whether it is just the camera that is frozen.
Emma, can you hear us? Can you come in and ask your question?
I can hear you. I am not sure whether you can hear me.
Yes, we can hear you.
That is great.
What are your views on the possibility of expanding the use of aggravators to include the theft of other working dogs? That point was raised in a few of our evidence sessions.
Yes, I saw that. I have already highlighted to Mark Ruskell the rationale with regard to assistance dogs, and the same rationale could not be applied to working dogs. I would be interested to consider any recommendations that the committee has in that respect.
I think that there is a distinction to be made here. However, I would also point out that the theft of a working dog would still be an offence under the bill. The sheriff might well take the view that, because the dog was a working dog, a higher penalty should be handed down for the offence. My bill allows for that, but I am not convinced that there should be a formal aggravator in such cases. The owner of the working dog would not, by definition, require the dog to assist them with daily tasks, whereas the owner of an assistance dog would.
We will move on to section 3, which is on victim impact statements.
We are aware that amendments are likely to be lodged to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3 to extend the right for victim impact statements to be provided in all solemn cases. However, the cabinet secretary has also suggested that she will look at whether that goes far enough and might extend that ability to provide impact statements. In the light of evidence that we have heard from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, would this section in your bill create an anon—an anomaly, if I can say it properly. You know exactly what I mean.
I know what you mean.
Would it create an issue whereby a person would be allowed to provide an impact statement in relation to dog theft, but the same thing would not happen in any other case that was not a solemn case?
With regard to victim statements, the bill enables owners and families to tell the court of the trauma that the theft of the dog has caused them, including the potential trauma experienced by the dog. A victim statement is, within the scope of this bill, incredibly important in highlighting to the court the gravitas of such a crime. The bill is a measure for improving the legal system, and it is for others to decide whether that approach should be considered for other offences. I would certainly welcome the Scottish Government looking into that.
Although a case of dog theft might be considered in a low-level court, the impact on the victim is not low level. Having a victim statement is, therefore, incredibly useful. Ultimately, it is for the Scottish Government or other members to look at other crimes and where such provision should be brought in.
We move to sections 4 and 5, with questions from Emma Harper.
My questions are about annual reporting and review. The minister stated that it might be unnecessary to place an annual reporting requirement on the Scottish Government for something that is considered to involve a low level of crime, and on which it can already obtain statistics from the Crown Office. Indeed, it seems like that can be done pretty easily. What do you think about that? Does reporting need to be carried out every two or three years? Does such a requirement need to be in primary legislation? Could it be considered further in regulations?
The reporting requirement is a key part of the bill, and—arguably—of any bill. By requiring ministers to report on an annual basis, I am ensuring that the data on the number of dog thefts is collated and published, and then scrutinised by Parliament. Just yesterday, we saw the benefit of a reporting requirement, as the “Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report 2025” resulted in a statement being given to Parliament.
The reporting requirement in this bill would not require a statement—it would simply require a report. Given the wider movement in Parliament on post-legislative scrutiny, reporting and reviewing requirements are a key part of all legislation, and good practice, too.
On the point about regulations, that is certainly not something that I can do, which is why it is important for me to put that requirement in the bill itself.
You are saying that all the items that the bill proposes to obtain in order to report on specific issues need to be in primary legislation. What if the required information were to change? That would require primary legislation to be changed again.
The bill does not limit what can be published. If there are changes to how the Government wants to report, that is not an issue at all.
I am thinking back to my thesis on crime and criminality in the early 19th century and the way in which we report and record crime. Although the punishments are different, the recording aspects are pretty much set in stone and, I would suggest, are unlikely to change. Those aspects are very high level and include the numbers of cases, charges and convictions; the different procedures used; the length of service; the level of fine; and whether an aggravator applied. Those aspects are key metrics for the bill, but, ultimately, if there are other aspects on which the Government wishes to report, it can do so.
Neil, do you want to come in on that?
Just to say that section 4(3) includes a provision to allow the report to cover any
“other information as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”
Finally, Mr Golden, could you advise the committee of how you arrived at the figures in the financial memorandum accompanying the bill?
As members are aware, estimating the costs for any bill is likely to be challenging, but I do not think that this bill will require the taxpayer to put in a significant amount of money.
The explanatory notes to the UK Pet Abduction Bill state:
“The Department does not consider that the Bill has any implications for public finances beyond minimal expenditure in relation to the making of regulations under the Bill”.
That said, as this bill is a stand-alone piece of legislation, the focus on dog theft and the consequential increase in prosecutions and convictions will have costs attached to them. I am happy to bring in Neil Stewart to explain the methodology around that.
Absolutely. We looked at the existing statistics from Police Scotland’s reporting and from the evidence that we received from stakeholders on potential underreporting and the like, and then took the additional number of cases and projected what it would look like if there were an increase in investigations by the police and an increase in prosecutions. That was the broad methodology for the financial memorandum.
That was helpful, because I was going to ask you about underreporting. You have answered that question, so thank you.
That concludes our questions for this morning—I think that you got off lightly, Mr Golden. I thank you and the officials very much for your time.
11:55 Meeting continued in private until 12:24.