Chamber and committees

We remain committed to working collaboratively with local authorities and Police Scotland through the road safety framework strategic partnership board. Earlier this year, I met several members of the Scottish Parliament to discuss concerns, which led to a summer safety awareness campaign.

Enforcement is a matter for Police Scotland, whose local teams are best placed to identify misuse and prevent future incidents. It is undertaking initiatives, including work with delivery companies.

Police funding has increased to a record £1.62 billion this year. We will continue to engage with the United Kingdom Government, which holds reserved powers over off-road vehicles, including licensing and regulation.

I hope that the member appreciates that ministers have met members several times this year to tackle the issue. The issue is not being ignored. Police Scotland has a record £1.64 billion in its budget this year. As I said to Mr Doris, Police Scotland is doing on-going work on the confiscation of vehicles, and I hope that we will be able to update you at the next meeting.

I will be happy—I am sure that Jim Fairlie will be, too—to meet members to keep the conversation alive.

We support Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with the misuse of vehicles. Across Scotland, police have seized 816 e-bikes and scooters in the past year, mainly on account of the rider having no licence or insurance. As I said, enforcement is a matter for Police Scotland, and local policing teams are best placed to identify misuse and work to prevent future incidents.

The road policing function of Police Scotland is leading on the development of new guidance on the organisation’s approach to the returning of confiscated vehicles. I am keen to work with all interested MSPs to determine potential opportunities for further Government action, including approaches to the UK Government.

We are a nation of animal lovers, and many of our households have or look after animals. Whether it is a goldfish or a horse, animals play a major role in our lives. Many of us do not even stop to think about patting a dog or a cat as they walk past us.

However, it is dogs that go back the longest in our history. They are thought to be among the first animals that humans domesticated and brought into our lives and our homes. It is estimated that early domestication took place between 10,000 and 30,000 years ago. Dogs are now members of just under 30 per cent of households in Scotland.

I think that, given the content of members’ speeches today, we can all agree that dogs play a major role in the lives of our families and households, as well as in wider society, and that they are very much loved. We can also agree that there is much support for the bill.

However, as the debate has also indicated, there are still important matters to be considered and I have to be clear about the Scottish Government’s position. I have listened carefully to members’ speeches and the issues that they have raised, and I am sure that Mr Golden will reflect on them ahead of stage 2, as will the Scottish Government.

I will comment on some of the issues that have been raised. Rhoda Grant asked about awareness raising. The Scottish Government will work with the member to publicise and raise awareness of the dog theft offence, should it become law. As I made clear to Mr Golden when I met him recently, 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. When I appeared before the committee, I spoke about the expert advisory group; it is now up and running and doing some great work. I hope to update the Parliament about that shortly, and I would be happy to get the group involved with awareness raising.

I come to Elena Whitham’s comments about domestic abuse, and my response will also cover a bit of what Rhoda Grant mentioned. The issue was raised when I was before the committee. We know that the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created the offence of engaging in a course of abusive behaviour against a partner or ex-partner, including behaviour that is directed towards pets or the removal of a pet from the partner or ex-partner when it is likely to cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. Those provisions do not rely on the need for a specific offence of dog theft.

Looking at the relationship defence, I note that the views were offered in the absence of a specific recommendation in the committee report. Given that common-law theft will continue to apply and can be used where necessary in situations in which the relationship defence might arise, we do not have a view on whether the relationship defence is appropriate. Prosecutors could still continue to ensure that dog theft can be addressed using common-law powers or theft in any given relevant case.

I am happy to take that away and meet the member to discuss the issue further. It might be something that the expert advisory group could look at; perhaps we could raise the issue with the group and take it from there. I am happy to take that idea away and consider it.

As I appreciate that all of our pets are loved, I now move on to the topic of cat theft. The common-law offence of theft offers robust protection, including for pets, with a maximum penalty that goes all the way up to a life sentence for cases that are tried in the High Court. I listened to what Finlay Carson said about the evidence that the committee took regarding opening the bill up to other pets. A number of members have made valid points about the consolidation of legislation. We are all aware that we do not have any time in this session of Parliament due to the amount of legislation that we are trying to pass during the next several months, but I definitely think that that should be dealt with in the next session.

I turn to the request for the definition of “assistance dog” to be widened. I understand that the SSPCA previously provided the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee with a research paper on defining the terms that are used for animals working in support roles. I am aware that the committee had concerns about the definition of assistance dogs. In particular, the issue might be that not all dogs that provide assistance and support for their owners would be covered.

Although the bill includes an enabling power that allows for changes to the definition, that would create an issue for the Scottish Government to address further down the line. I had a conversation with Maurice Golden last week and welcome his commitment to lodge amendments at stage 2 to ensure that appropriate coverage is achieved for the aggravation so that it includes dogs that provide assistance to support their owners. That is a necessary part of the Scottish Government’s support for the bill and I ask Maurice Golden when closing the debate to provide confirmation that he will take that action.

Dogs are vital and much-loved members of our families. If they are lost in any way, including as a result of theft, that brings grief to their owners and leaves a hole in those families. I hope that, by supporting the new dog theft offence, I am showing that the Scottish Government takes the issue seriously. If Parliament agrees today to the general principles of the bill, I look forward to working with Mr Golden at stage 2 to ensure that amendments are made so that the Scottish Government can continue its support for the bill to stage 3.

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—