Chamber and committees

The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created the offence of domestic abuse that incorporates coercive and controlling behaviour, including financial abuse. Anyone who is experiencing domestic abuse is encouraged to seek help. Equally safe, which is Scotland’s strategy to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls, explicitly recognises economic abuse. Our £26.1 million a year delivering equally safe fund supports survivors, including through the greater Easterhouse money advice project, which delivers specialist financial advice and support for survivors in Glasgow. The victim centred approach fund will provide more than £32 million to 23 organisations between 2025 and 2027, including £12 million for advocacy support for survivors of gender-based violence.

I assure the member that we are determined to support women to get the right access that they need. We have provided a pilot project in Edinburgh that provides an early intervention service offering legal advice to women and children who are impacted specifically by domestic abuse. In addition to the current judicare system, we have provided annual grant funding of £230,000 for the past eight years to the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre.

I am aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has previously outlined some of the challenges with the implementation of part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. The challenges are fully understood by our justice partners and external stakeholders. We will look to outline the next steps in the coming months.

I am very concerned by the rise in shoplifting crimes and recognise the significant harm to retail businesses from theft, as well as threatening and antisocial behaviour, which is totally unacceptable. The Scottish Government is committed to supporting Police Scotland’s robust approach to addressing the issue, which is why we have made £3 million available this year to support Police Scotland’s work, alongside retailers, to tackle retail crime. That forms part of a record investment of £1.6 billion for policing this year, which is an increase of £90 million from last year’s budget.

I am confident that Police Scotland takes recommendations from the PIRC seriously. As Mr Fraser knows, ministers have no role in the investigation of complaint handling reviews against Police Scotland.

It is not appropriate for me to comment on cases that are subject to an independent process. We also do not comment on operational matters relating to Police Scotland, in order to ensure that Scotland’s criminal justice system remains free from political interference.

I understand that the PIRC has made recommendations about Mr Fraser’s case, and I am sure that Police Scotland is currently considering the issue and will respond in due course.

I am always happy to go on visits to fire stations and listen to members of the SFRS. However, we have to be clear that the SFRS is undertaking staff and union engagement on the matter. The final list of possible changes will be subject to public consultation and it has not yet been finalised.

I am not hiding—it is just not appropriate for me to comment on individual options at this stage. The SFRS board and the chief officer are best placed to take decisions on how resources should be deployed, and it would be inappropriate for a minister to direct the SFRS on how it should deploy its resources. This is not a cuts exercise; it is about the SFRS carefully examining the risks that are present in our communities and configuring its resources in the best possible way to deal with those risks.

The changes that the Fire and Rescue Service is consulting on have been very carefully considered using substantial evidence and analysis of risk.

As I have said, I am always open to visiting fire stations and hearing directly from those on the front line, and I will speak to my private office about organising a visit. As I set out in my original answer, there will be a full public consultation where everyone will have the opportunity to make their views known.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is carrying out a service delivery review to ensure that its fire stations, appliances and crews are in the right place at the right time to deal with the current and future risks in our communities. Following pre-consultation engagement last year, the SFRS developed a list of possible service changes, and it is currently undertaking staff and trade union engagement on those proposals in advance of undertaking a full public consultation in the summer. I encourage anyone with an interest to engage in that consultation. The SFRS board will then carefully consider the responses in advance of any final decisions being made.

The Scottish Government notes that the bill would make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence. As a result, the court would be required to consider whether the sentence given should be enhanced to reflect the significance of taking an assistance dog. That is one of the issues that the committee will be required to carefully consider as the bill is scrutinised. I note from Mr Golden’s letter to the committee of 18 April that he had engaged with stakeholders such as Guide Dogs Forfar, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dogs Trust to inform the proposal.

I would like to know more from Maurice Golden about the evidence base to support and justify the position that the emotional impact on victims is not sufficiently considered during sentencing under current law. In the committee’s evidence-taking session on 26 March, the representatives from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted that the police

“would have to be able to demonstrate that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog to be able to prove the aggravation.”

At the same evidence session, Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland was also clear that

“the sentencing process is already structured in a way that should allow”

information about the impact of the theft of an assistance dog

“to be properly taken into account.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 20-21.]

If somebody actively seeks to steal an assistance dog, our existing law already reflects that as being worthy of a more serious penalty. We are interested in hearing Mr Golden’s views on that when you take evidence from him.

I will bring in Mr Wilson.

Yes—my personal opinion at this stage is that it is a bit over the top, unless there is a justification from Mr Golden that would change my view.

Mr Wilson, do you have any further views on that?

We would be keen to hear from Mr Golden about his reasoning in that regard and how he would envisage those provisions moving forward. As I said at the beginning of the session, we are taking a neutral stance on the bill and we will be keen to see the committee’s stage 1 report. Nevertheless, as the Scottish Government, we have to ensure, as the process moves forward, that the bill is legislatively competent, so that it can be enacted, and I will be looking at that.