Chamber and committees

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.

The Scottish Government recognises the concerns raised by Maggie Chapman, including the importance of ensuring access to justice for people in North East Scotland. The Scottish Government values the legal profession and continues to fully fund legal aid while advancing reforms to improve access and sustainability across Scotland and not just in the north-east.

We will soon lay regulations to remove unnecessary financial tests for children’s hearings. We will widen the eligibility for summary criminal cases, incentivise early resolution for solemn criminal cases and ensure fair remuneration for solicitors across Scotland. Additionally, the Scottish Government provides funding to citizens advice bureaux across the country and in North East Scotland, and we support the Civil Legal Assistance Office, which operates locally to offer advice and representation on civil legal issues.

I thank Ms Chapman for highlighting these complex challenges on behalf of her constituents. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that everyone, particularly people from marginalised groups, gets the access to justice that they need.

However, the current legislative framework does not guarantee access to legal advice and representation. Solicitors decide whether to undertake legal aid cases and, if they do, which clients or cases to accept. It is important to note that the Scottish Government cannot compel solicitors to take on a case. As I have already noted, the on-going reforms aim to improve the situation, and solicitor availability will be considered as part of any future changes to the system.

No, and we are all aware of the timetable for this parliamentary session. There have been many members’ bills as well as Government ones. I have been engaging with the legal profession for nearly three years now, and I have ensured that we will take forward legal aid reform in the next parliamentary session. In the meantime, there is a lot of secondary legislation going ahead now that will be delivered in this parliamentary session.

We have on-going conversations with Police Scotland. That specific issue has not been highlighted to me, but I will be happy to discuss it with Pam Duncan-Glancy as we take this forward.

Yes. I was going to get to that issue, but I will raise it now. I think that it was raised during general question time last week. The issue is really complex. It is about deciding how we should approach it, because the situation is different in rural areas and in cities such as Glasgow and Edinburgh.

For example, City of Edinburgh Council has led the way with a multi-agency approach, although I believe that the focus was more on the use of quad bikes and motorbikes in parks and green spaces. The approach taken elsewhere could be very different, and there will be variations in what different councils can do, but that council could be leading the way with that example of a multi-agency approach. After all, I do not believe that this is a matter just for Police Scotland; there has to be a joined-up approach, and I think that some learning can definitely be taken from what the City of Edinburgh Council did last week.

I just want to mention a few examples that members have highlighted today. When I and the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity met His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary on the antisocial use of vehicles several weeks ago, we discussed HMICS’s recent review of roads policing, as well as the powers that Police Scotland officers have in relation to the antisocial use of e-bikes and other vehicles. I was pleased to note that a planned review of community policing is to take place next year, and I encourage anyone who might have useful evidence to engage with the inspector on that.

We also discussed officers’ work with colleagues at the Royal hospital for sick children, which has seen a significant increase in injuries relating to antisocial use of these vehicles. I and Mr Fairlie will meet the chief inspector again in the new year to get a deeper understanding of work that is happening on the ground.

With regard to members’ comments on Police Scotland’s powers, throughout the year we have had discussions with the police, in which they have advised that the current powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 are sufficient to respond to the misuse of off-road vehicles. However, the Government remains committed to doing all that we can to support enforcement, and we are open to further legislation action, if required.

I am just conscious that I am coming up to the seven-minute mark, Presiding Officer. Will I get this time back?

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Clare Adamson for highlighting that aspect. It is something that we could all be doing in our constituencies and our regions.

As I was saying, beyond policing, members will recognise that this is a complex challenge, so we are acting in other areas, too. For example, with regard to delivery platforms, several members have raised legitimate concerns about the behaviour of some riders in the food economy. Jim Fairlie and I have reached out to the major delivery companies to discuss expectations with regard to safety, compliance and responsible conduct. I should say that we have just done that, and we are waiting for them to get back to us about having a meeting with them. In any case, companies operating in Scotland are expected to play their part in keeping our streets and communities safe.

As members will know, the Government has undertaken national communication activities to complement local efforts, and statutory local antisocial behaviour strategies, which are the responsibility of councils and Police Scotland, can encompass tackling e-bike and e-scooter misuse, too, as well as preventative work. Members will agree that investment in prevention can help to address the underlying causes of the behaviours that members have described. That is why we continue to invest in the cashback for communities programme, which has provided crucial early intervention to more than 15,000 young people.

I am aware that I am running out of time, so I will move on to the key issue of product safety. As many members will know, many of the most dangerous e-bikes entering the market are imported; they are high-powered models that do not comply with UK standards, and my officials are working with the Office for Product Safety and Standards as it implements the new Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 and strengthens controls. Although the Scottish and UK Governments differ on some issues—for example, licensing for off-road vehicles—there is significant common ground, and I want to work constructively on this shared challenge where we can.

Let me address the specific point in Sue Webber’s motion about face coverings—

I thank Sue Webber for bringing the debate to Parliament and all members for their contributions highlighting the dangerous and antisocial use of e-bikes and e-scooters in our communities.

Sue Webber highlighted recent incidents in Edinburgh and also across the UK. Members have highlighted serious concerns, and the Scottish Government shares those concerns. Several members here have been at various meetings on the work that I and minister Jim Fairlie have been doing on this issue all year.

We share members’ concerns about issues including riders travelling well above the speed limit, intimidating conduct, impacts on public confidence and, of course, injuries to people. Police Scotland’s recent partnership with the Royal hospital for children in Glasgow highlighted a rise in serious injuries associated with e-bikes, and that must be addressed. That is why its recent work to share key messages about this issue, whether in person at the hospital, through press or on social media, is so important, particularly as we approach the festive period.

As Monica Lennon highlighted, people should think twice before buying e-scooters or e-bikes for children and should remember that it is illegal to use e-scooters in public spaces in Scotland. Many high-powered vehicles bought online are not legal for use on public roads, so they can be extremely dangerous, especially for our children.

Police Scotland has also made it clear that anyone riding a non-compliant e-bike or e-scooter on the public road is likely to have it seized by officers. Members are well aware that policing in Scotland is operationally independent. However, I agree with colleagues across the chamber that robust police action is a critical part of the response to the illegal use of or action resulting from e-bikes and e-scooters.

Of course, if anyone feels threatened or unsafe in public places, they should contact the police. We have sought views from Police Scotland on whether further powers might be required in relation to the criminal use of face coverings, and we have been advised that, at this time, additional powers are not needed. However, we will keep the legislation under review.

In closing, I thank members for their contributions. I commit to ensuring that the issues that have been raised are discussed with the SPA and Police Scotland, and to engaging with members as we address this challenge and maintain our collective focus on keeping people safe.