Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 14 July 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2148 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

During the Easter break, I watched the evidence session in which that issue was brought up. The Scottish Government does not have any views on that. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states:

“Theft is defined as the taking and/or appropriating of property belonging to another, without the owner's consent, with the intention to deprive them of its use. Abduction is a common law offence in Scotland and is defined as carrying off or confining a person against their will and without legal authority.”

We are comfortable with the offence of dog theft being used in the bill, but it will be up to the committee to scrutinise that and see whether it is comfortable with it, too.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

I have not been able to look at that response. As I have said, we saw the letter only yesterday, and I thank the clerks for advising my team that it was on the website.

I will hand over to Jim Wilson, who has a lot of experience, over many years, with Scottish Government dog legislation.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

When giving evidence to the committee in March, the Law Society of Scotland indicated that the number of sentencing guidelines in Scotland is relatively small and that the Scottish Sentencing Council is seeking to develop new guidelines within its available resources. The Scottish Government has the ability to ask the Sentencing Council to consider preparing guidelines, but it is for the independent council to decide whether it does, or can do, so. I know that, at the moment, draft guidelines are in preparation in relation to rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse, and the Sentencing Council’s work programme for the year ahead is really busy.

In saying that, the Scottish Government is interested in understanding whether Mr Golden had approached the Sentencing Council in that regard. We are happy to consider that specific suggestion further, if that is wanted, as the bill progresses.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

That is a really important point that was raised in the evidence session in March. Procurator fiscal Laura Buchan wrote to the committee on 9 April to provide further information on a couple of issues, including the defences that have been set out in the bill. The letter from the COPFS noted that the offence does not apply where a person who previously lived in the same household with the dog takes or keeps the dog, which covers the scenario in which a couple separates following a domestic dispute and one partner keeps the dog.

As the committee heard in the evidence session on 26 March, caution was suggested when legislating for a scenario that might involve a dispute over proof of ownership in the context of criminal proceedings. In scenarios that involve domestic abuse, there are existing legislative provisions that allow for prosecution in relation to the taking of a dog following a relationship. Therefore, those types of prosecutions can already happen.

I noted from Maurice Golden’s letter to the committee, which we saw yesterday, that he remains of the view that it is entirely appropriate for the bill to include defences in respect of the breakdown of a relationship. He goes on to say that, if the committee were to take a contrary view, he would be happy to look at the matter again. His letter, which as I have said we saw only yesterday, does not provide any further evidence to support his view that the bill should include a defence in respect of a breakdown of a relationship. However, I have no doubt that the committee will wish to seek further views from Mr Golden himself when he comes before the committee on 21 May.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

Yes.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

Not at that stage. I want to consider the letter and then also consider the committee’s stage 1 report.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

It could definitely be considered. That was a valid point that was brought up at the evidence session.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

As I said, we know that the proposal for a specific offence of dog theft has been questioned by the Law Society of Scotland and other representatives. The common law offence of theft already covers pet theft, so it has been argued that there are existing laws in place; I mentioned that in response to an earlier question.

I do not know whether Jim Wilson wants to add anything.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

I agree. I am a dog owner, and if someone took my dog I would go straight to the police—that is instinctively what I would do. I appreciate your points that highlight the issue.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 23 April 2025

Siobhian Brown

As Mr Wilson said in response to one of the earlier questions, we have not seen any strong evidence that the bill will be a deterrent, but we must look at the bigger picture. As you will appreciate, my portfolio covers dangerous dogs and Mr Fairlie’s covers animal welfare, so there is a bit of a split there, but we have been working together and looking at responsible dog ownership and raising awareness through stakeholders. If the bill proceeds, it could raise more awareness. At this stage, though, there is no strong evidence that it will be a deterrent.