Chamber and committees

I thank Maurice Golden for his constructive engagement on the bill and the non-Government bills unit for all its continuing work on it. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its stage 1 report and its recommendations, the vast majority of which I agree with.

As a dog lover and a dog owner myself, I recognise and understand the emotional impact that dogs have on our lives. Our dogs are members of our family and to lose a much-loved pet to theft is a harrowing experience. We are all aware that dog theft is an emotive issue that can have serious consequences for dogs and their owners. The Scottish Government is well aware of the impact on any owner who has had their dog stolen and, of course, we are also concerned about the wellbeing and welfare of the dogs that have been stolen. I am therefore pleased to say that the Scottish Government is able to support the key component of the bill, which is to make dog theft a statutory offence, as I confirmed to Mr Golden and to the committee earlier this week.

However, like the committee, I cannot agree with all the proposals in the bill. Therefore, the Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on Mr Golden making changes to the bill at stage 2, to reflect concerns that have also been raised by the committee in its stage 1 report. If those changes are made, the Scottish Government will be content to support the bill at stage 3; given that the changes are also recommended in the committee’s report, I am sure that Mr Golden will be responding to them anyway. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government will be willing to provide support to help with amendments.

The bill also provides that the offence of dog theft will be aggravated if the dog that is taken is an assistance dog, regardless of whether the dog is working when it is stolen. The aggravation makes the charge more serious and ensures that the court is required to consider whether to make the sentence more severe. The report states:

“The Committee recognises that the theft of an assistance dog would have a serious, life-changing, impact on its owner, both in terms of the emotional distress it would bring and the impact on their independence and ability to perform everyday tasks.”

The Scottish Government supports the aggravation and will engage with Mr Golden on how best to ensure that all dogs that provide support and assistance are recognised in the aggravation, reflecting an ask that was made in the committee’s stage 1 report.

The bill provides for victim impact statements to be available for all dog-theft cases. We do not support that provision, and neither did the committee. Members will be aware that only two weeks ago we dealt with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, and we extended the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases. We remain of the view that that is appropriate but that it should not be expanded to summary cases at this point. Therefore, our support for the bill is predicated on that aspect of the bill being removed.

I turn to the provision in the bill that would require Scottish ministers to prepare and publish annual reports on the operation of the act, covering extensive detail, including information that is unavailable or difficult to obtain, which makes it operationally impossible. More important, producing an annual report would present significant resourcing challenges that would be disproportionate to what such a report would provide. Although I am against the provision as it stands, I have offered Mr Golden support on developing a deliverable and appropriate reporting requirement, rather than a recurring annual statutory requirement.

There is also a provision requiring the Scottish Government to review the act. Committees of this Parliament are free to consider any post-legislative scrutiny. For a member’s bill, I consider it appropriate for Parliament to decide on a review, not Government. Therefore, I do not support that provision.

I congratulate Mr Golden on his bill. I know that dog theft is a topic close to his heart, and I know that members across the chamber recognise, just as wider society does, the importance of dogs in our families. As we know, there is fierce competition among MSPs to win the Kennel Club’s dog of the year competition every year. The bill recognises that it is not the monetary value of a stolen pet that matters to an owner, nor the breed or pedigree, but the loss of a family member to theft. By recognising the statutory offence that the bill will introduce, we all accept, as the committee does, that dogs are sentient beings, that their theft has an emotional impact on their owner and that there is also an impact on the welfare of the dog.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr Golden to ensure that the necessary changes are made to the bill so that the Scottish Government’s support for its general principles can lead to continued support at stage 3.

I am totally sympathetic to the concerns raised by Elena Whitham. I am unsure whether this is the right bill to deal with that, but the issue could, perhaps, be considered.

There is no doubt that people are rightly very passionate about our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. When we think about a fire service, we tend to think about it dealing with fires and other emergencies, but it also carries out vital fire safety and preventative work, which prevents fires from happening in the first place. The statistics show that the SFRS has been successful in that regard, with a 20 per cent reduction in house fires over the past 10 years, along with a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24, and a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties in the same period.

I have listened carefully to everybody today, and I have heard the concerns that members have expressed on behalf of their constituencies and communities. I know that this is a really emotive issue. However, I have to point out that I have engaged extensively with the SFRS, which has assured me that any changes that were proposed as part of the service delivery review have been assessed through detailed simulation modelling. The SFRS would not propose any option for change—

I am not taking any interventions at the moment, because I have a lot to get through.

The SFRS would not propose any option for change that could place communities at risk. That is important. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, decisions on how to keep communities safe should primarily be a matter for the service, rather than politicians deciding how the service should be delivered.

It is appropriate that we await the independent analysis of the public consultation and learn how the SFRS proposes to progress with the options for change. Any changes that are agreed will be decided by the SFRS board in December and then carefully rolled out over a five-year period, with any impacts fully evaluated on an on-going basis.

I have set out that the risks to people have changed over time, so there are good reasons why the SFRS should look at the footprint of fire stations, types of appliances and crewing patterns. Keeping everything the same for years is not an efficient or effective way to manage the service.

I apologise for not being able to get to response times in my opening speech, because I ran out of time. However, it is important to recognise that response times alone do not provide a meaningful measure in determining an effective emergency response. We are aware that increasing response times are a trend that is being witnessed at fire and rescue services across the UK. The issue is complex, because dynamic factors impact and influence response times. They vary across wide-ranging and diverse geographical areas. Factors include rising traffic levels, varying degrees of congestion, unexpected roadworks, road closures and diversions and an increase in the use of traffic-calming measures over the years, but foremost is firefighters’ safety and wellbeing.

The SFRS has strict health and safety policies to protect its staff. For example, firefighters must ensure that they follow correct safety procedures when mobilising for an incident, which can impact response time.

I will get to that.

Climate change is contributing to warmer, drier conditions, which increase the likelihood and intensity of wildfires. As I said yesterday,

“Shifts in weather patterns, such as those that led to last week’s wildfire danger warning and this week’s yellow warning for rain, reinforce the climate challenges that we currently face.”—[Official Report, 30 September 2025; c 8.]

With that has come a change in the risks to our communities, as incidents such as those of flooding and wildfires increase. Our firefighters are trained to respond to both those types of incident, but the change illustrates the need for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be adaptable to such risks. That is why it is right that the fire service carefully considers how its services are delivered, to ensure that they are configured in the right way, and that it adapts to changing risks to remain effective and efficient, with firefighters in the right place at the right time.

Not adapting and changing over time—

I would like to make some progress.

Continuing to keep everything the same for decades would not be efficient or effective and would not ensure that taxpayers’ money was invested in the right way.

There is a wide disparity between the numbers of incidents that fire stations respond to, which is why the SFRS is looking to adjust the resources that are present in some locations. I emphasise that the driver for the changes that the SFRS proposes is to better align resources to current risks; it is not about saving money.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to update Parliament more in my closing speech.

I move amendment S6M-19124.2, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:

“recognises that, whilst house fires have reduced by over 20% since 2013, due to the climate emergency, incidents and risk of flooding and wildfires have significantly increased; further recognises that the recent Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) Service Delivery Review aims to ensure that the service can respond to these changing risks and that the right firefighters and appliances are in the right place at the right time; notes that no decisions will be taken until an independent analysis of the public consultation has been carried out and that any changes would be implemented over a five-year period; agrees that all public services need to provide efficient and effective services that deliver value for the public purse, and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that Scotland has safer communities.”

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which has been a single national service since 2013, is one of Scotland’s success stories. We have a successful emergency service of dedicated firefighters that we should all be proud of, and I thank each and every one of the staff at the SFRS for their commitment to and their work on keeping our communities safe every day.

The vast majority of the reduction in firefighter numbers that the motion cites can be attributed to the reduction in duplication and layers of management that resulted from this significant public service reform.

I must make some progress.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to redeploy resources that are freed up by making changes to front-line delivery to provide greater resource to its prevention and protection function, and to boost training provision to ensure that firefighters remain fully ready and competent to keep us all safe from the changing risks that we face. The SFRS also aims to ensure that investment is going to the fire stations that need it most—for example, to tackle reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roofs and to enhance the facilities for firefighters, including modern decontamination facilities.

Therefore, I do not accept the accusation that the service delivery review is a cuts exercise. Despite financial pressures in recent years—

That is why the SFRS is having the service delivery review that looks at all such issues. Response times are a really important factor. Many years ago, firefighters would get in their fire engine without putting on personal protective equipment. There is a time delay due to those health and safety issues, which are very important.

I work closely with the SFRS. I regularly meet the board, the chair and the chief officer. I meet the Fire Brigades Union’s Scottish officials to hear directly about current issues. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, we should listen carefully to the evidence that the SFRS provides for change.