Chamber and committees

May I ask another short question, convener?

I understand the narrow nature of a member’s bill, which, as the committee also suggested, might not be the right vehicle. However, although there are provisions in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 to allow for the prosecution of coercive control when an animal is used in that way, there is no data to tell us how often that happens or how it is linked to dog theft. My question is about how those two things can ever possibly be linked.

I am speaking in support of the general principles of Maurice Golden’s Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. In doing so, I will focus my remarks on whether to include an aggravator when a dog is weaponised as part of a broader pattern of coercive control in cases of domestic abuse.

Having worked for Scottish Women’s Aid, supporting survivors of domestic abuse, I have long advocated for a trauma-informed approach to justice and policy making. It is through that lens that I urge us to consider the lived experience of survivors—in particular, women and children—who have been subjected to domestic abuse in which the family pet has become another tool of manipulation, fear and control.

We know from survivor testimony and from research that has been conducted by organisations such as the Dogs Trust, through its freedom project, that pets are often used by abusers to exert power and control. In my previous work, I saw harrowing examples of beloved animals being stolen or harmed, with abusers threatening to kill or get rid of a pet unless a woman returned home, or even using the custody of a dog as leverage in post-separation abuse. One survivor described to me how her partner would remove her dog from the house for days at a time when she tried to leave, only returning it when she complied. That is not just theft or cruelty but a continuation of abuse, and it must be recognised as such in law.

Thankfully, the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 recognised the pernicious nature of coercive control and set it out as an aggravator in domestic abuse prosecutions. However, there is currently no specific data available in Scotland for the number of prosecutions combining domestic abuse coercive control with actions against a pet. Although coercive control is now finally a crime under the 2018 act and animal welfare laws can address cruelty, there is no specific legal offence or statistical category that links the two aspects together, making it difficult to track such prosecutions. The legal system does not currently collect data that cross-references domestic abuse charges with instances of animal abuse. Perpetrators can be prosecuted for separate offences, but we have no understanding of how many perpetrators have been prosecuted specifically for harming a pet to further their abuse of the survivor and of any children involved.

Please believe me when I say that I have witnessed far too many occasions on which a woman has had to leave the safety of refuge to return to her abuser, with her children, due to his treatment of the family dog and the desperate pleas from her children. I urge the bill’s proposer and the Scottish Government to consider an aggravation for offences committed in the context of domestic abuse or the explicit linking up of those two offences, which are currently separate. That would signal that our legal system recognises the full range of abusive behaviours and that it will not ignore the suffering that is caused to the animal’s owner and the pet itself by the theft, harm or manipulation of a companion animal.

I take on board what my colleague Christine Grahame said about the purpose of the bill, but I also want to raise a concern, voiced clearly and compassionately by Cats Protection, which rightly pointed out that cats must not be forgotten in our legislative response. Cats, like dogs, are deeply loved members of households, and they, too, are used in coercive contexts. They, too, are stolen, harmed or used to manipulate. Although the bill focuses on dogs, it is important that any aggravator related to domestic abuse must be species neutral. Abuse does not discriminate, and neither should the law.

Let this bill, through careful scrutiny and amendment, reflect the lived realities of those facing abuse. Let it say clearly that you cannot use someone’s animal against them and expect the law to look away. I would be devastated if someone stole my wee black and tan Jack Russell, Mojo—or Mr Mojo Risin’, to give him his full title. I love it when I get home on a Thursday night and he is waiting in the hallway for me—more than any other members of my family, it is the dog who is waiting for me.

I support the general principles of the bill and I look forward to working with colleagues across the chamber to ensure that it offers real protection not only to the animals but to the people who love them.

I have a final question. What wider benefits could result from the appropriate supports being made available at the right time? What difference could it make for people if those appropriate supports started as early as possible and at the right time for them?

As a neurodivergent politician, I can absolutely tell you that this place is not yet neuro affirming—there is a long way to go. It is really good to hear the way that you all have articulated the journey that we are on.

We are short on time, but I want to spend a wee bit of time on transitions. Some of them have been mentioned. We have the transition from child disability payment to adult disability payment, the transition from primary school to secondary school, and the transition involving the hormonal journey of a woman throughout her entire lifespan. Is there a need for a transitions framework for neurodivergent young folk? When people move from child to adult services, a lot of the time, they end up ageing out. They can be on one waiting list and then end up at the bottom of an adult waiting list. It feels as if there is no standardised approach across the country.

That is to the point—absolutely. Does anybody else have anything on that?

Thank you very much. That clearly set out the early intervention and prevention stuff that happens during transition.

That is helpful to hear. Does anybody else have any thoughts on that?

That is powerful for us to hear. There is a big difference between being handed a leaflet that has support information on it and being supported to access that support. Are young people getting adequate support in the transition phase? I can see Sofia Farzana saying, “Absolutely not.” Is there an urgent need to ensure that the support that they should be getting is being delivered?

Good morning, everybody, and thank you so very much for coming along. This is one of those times in life where, for me, lived experience converges with my role here as an MSP in taking evidence from you.

I want to spend a wee bit of time focusing on the availability of support. You have all touched on that already, but I want to think about the fact that access to support seems to be contingent on diagnosis a lot of the time. Have you experienced that in your organisations? Could you give examples of where a diagnosis is required? I understand the point about medication for ADHD, but in relation to the availability of all other types of support, diagnosis seems to be the blocker that is put in front of people. Who wants to start on that one?