Chamber and committees

I am listening to the evidence from stakeholders. I have not been approached by anyone in any of my meetings who has said that such a change would make people safer.

I would like to see it rolled out in all 32 local authorities.

We could consider that, if it could be integrated into the current system in future. As I said, the Scottish Government is open to considering anything that could be implementable and valuable.

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate.

As I made clear in my opening remarks, I have welcomed the constructive and helpful meetings that I have had with Mr Golden since stage 1 to discuss the bill. Although the Scottish Government had concerns about aspects of the bill when it was introduced, Mr Golden lodged stage 2 amendments on those aspects to ensure that the Scottish Government could support it.

I will come to some of the points that have been raised throughout the debate.

A few members mentioned consolidation of legislation in the next parliamentary session. I have responsibility for dangerous dogs, and animal welfare is under Minister Fairlie. With that in mind, last September, we hosted a responsible dog ownership summit, because we believe that more can be done to improve public safety by ensuring that dogs are responsibly acquired, owned and looked after. The Scottish Government is always open to considering carefully any evidence-based suggestions to help to improve people’s safety. The summit was an opportunity to bring together attendees from a wide range of organisations, including Police Scotland, local authorities and veterinary bodies as well as public health and third sector organisations, to consider how dog control and public safety can be improved. My colleague Christine Grahame was also in attendance.

The summit’s key outcome was the Scottish Government’s establishment of an expert advisory group to look at the various issues that were raised and to help to determine what can be progressed in the short, medium and long term. A number of sub-groups of the expert advisory group have now been set up to look at specific areas of work, such as enforcement and resources; dog welfare; prevention, education and communication; data to inform and support dog control policy; and health service data.

The expert advisory group is now also considering the helper dog definition issue. Although we are not progressing with legislation in this parliamentary session, work has started on that for the next session.

I will touch on victim statements, which have been raised. The bill as drafted would have allowed people who are victims of a dog theft to give a victim impact statement to the court, and that would have applied to any court. Although the Scottish Government is sympathetic on the issue, victim impact statements are currently available for certain solemn offences only. The bill, as drafted, would have specifically included the new offence of dog theft in summary cases so that, in order to inform sentencing, a victim could express to the court the impact that the crime had on them physically, emotionally and financially.

When I met Maurice Golden ahead of stage 1, I made it clear that the Scottish Government required the removal of that provision in order to support the bill, which he acted on at stage 2. That also reflected the committee’s recommendation in the stage 1 report that the provision be removed—a recommendation that was made in light of general concerns about the appropriateness of the approach.

I confirm that the Scottish Government supports amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden, for the reasons that he has given.

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.

Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer?

My understanding is that the statements help the court and inform sentencing, but perhaps I could get back to Christine Grahame on the exact details.

Amendments that were made to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will in due course extend the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases.

I know that I am short of time, but I want to touch on raising awareness of the new offence. The Scottish Government will work with Maurice Golden to publicise and raise awareness of the new dog theft offence. 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. My officials meet regularly with a range of organisations that have a strong interest in the new offence and dog welfare, including Police Scotland, local authorities, veterinary bodies, the public health sector and a wide range of third sector organisations, such as the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and many more. The Scottish Government will work with all stakeholders to promote and raise awareness if the bill is passed.

I thank the members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the bill. As I have made clear as the bill has progressed through Parliament, dog theft is an emotive issue. The Scottish Government recognises and understands the emotional impact on owners if their dog is taken from them. I hope that, by supporting the bill, the Parliament demonstrates how seriously it takes dog theft.

I congratulate Mr Golden on being able to progress his bill through all the various scrutiny processes, and I encourage all members to support the bill at decision time.

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.