Chamber and committees

How can we build something that takes account of the role that each individual plays in the setting that they work in? We have our allied health professionals and our colleagues in general practice, as well as specialist psychiatrists. How can we ensure that those teams come together in a multidisciplinary way to effect change in this area? It feels as though that is where we need to get to, but it feels as though we are a long way away from realising the potential of such empowered teams. I realise that resource is a huge part of that, but it would be helpful for us to understand how those roles could come together to create meaningful change for people.

I will briefly bring in Louise Bussell from a Highland perspective. Gill Kidd put context around the reality that you are facing and what can be delivered online. Do you have any other thoughts?

[Made a request to intervene.]

I was just going to intervene on the cabinet secretary to ask whether it could be made clear in the statutory guidance that victims organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid and others will be represented in the panels and on the committee.

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.

Good morning. I am interested in referrals to and from other services and how that process has developed while the Thistle has been open.

Thank you for the information that was supplied in the submission, which states that the number of referrals is “likely to be” an underestimate. I want to put a little bit of a narrative around that and think about somebody’s journey before engaging with the Thistle, how the relationships with other organisations are built up through assertive outreach and the importance of the fact that they can be referred to other services after, for example, coming in to use the shower facilities and getting to know people. How important are such relationships? It is a long journey for somebody in a chaotic situation from when they start to engage in services to when, eventually, they perhaps start making use of residential rehabilitation. Can you talk about that?

May I ask another short question, convener?

My question is about understanding the journey that is involved following someone’s choice to seek a path to residential rehabilitation, and how you help them to engage with services such as stabilisation in order to enable the person to reach that point. A lot of people do not understand that someone cannot just walk into resi rehab or get referred there straight away. If someone is using, with a high volume of usage, it is very difficult to go straight to rehab. Could you tell us a tiny bit about stabilisation?

I see that Saket Priyadarshi wishes to contribute, but I will hand back to the convener now.