Chamber and committees

I have a number of concerns with the amendment. First, I am not entirely clear why a specific fund would be created to upgrade the security of kennels housing gun dogs and not other dogs. It would seem to create an inequity between those dogs and other working dogs, assistance dogs or, indeed, dogs generally. I am not clear why those dogs should receive protection that is not afforded to other dogs.

Secondly, the amendment appears to carry with it significant cost, and that causes me concern. Currently, the bill is relatively inexpensive. If agreed, amendment 23 would potentially change that and the benefit would be experienced by only a small proportion of dogs and owners. My bill already creates an offence for the theft of all dogs, including working gun dogs. Furthermore, the amendments in my name that the committee has agreed to mean that the Government could create an aggravation for the theft of working gun dogs via regulations, should it choose to do that. Amendment 23 goes significantly beyond that. Ultimately, the proposal is potentially expensive, it is too specific to a particular type of dog, and it is fraught with unintended consequences.

I think that, in the fullness of time, and after the expert working group has been consulted, working dogs and working gun dogs should be defined as helper dogs if the expert advisory group and Scottish ministers choose to go down that path. However, amendment 20 is, in my view, too restrictive and prescriptive. Amendments 1 to 8 would enable the policy intent behind amendment 20 to be achieved in any event. Ultimately, any regulations would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament—not by me.

Amendments 21 and 22 would create new sections after section 2. Their effect is similar, albeit that amendment 22 is specific to working gun dogs while amendment 21 relates to working dogs more generally. The amendments would provide for an aggravation in respect of those dogs. In relation to both amendments, I reiterate my earlier point that my amendments 1 to 8 would provide ministers with the regulation-making power to designate different categories of dogs, which could include working dogs or working gun dogs, as helper dogs.

I understand that ministers would develop regulations in concert with their expert working group. Therefore, it would be prudent to allow the working group and ministers the time to consider whether such aggravations should be applied to, for example, working dogs or working gun dogs.

I move amendment 1.

I will speak to my amendments 17 and 18. I am acutely aware that, in its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that section 5 be removed from the bill. The minister, too, has made her position clear. Following discussions with ministers and officials, I agreed to lodge amendment 17 to remove section 5 from the bill, to give effect to the policy of removing the requirement for review. Amendment 18 is consequential to that and would remove from the long title the reference to a review.

I thank the committee, Rachael Hamilton, the minister and her officials for constructive discussions throughout stages 1 and 2.

This has been a helpful debate on group 2. I have nothing to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Yes. Assistance dogs would be treated the same; the change is that other categories could, potentially, be included in that definition. That is what amendments 1 to 8 seek to achieve.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 20 would require regulations that were made under section 2(2)(b) of the bill to

“include working gundogs and other working dogs as a category of helper dog.”

Although I recognise the policy intention behind that amendment, it is my view that, if Parliament provides ministers with a regulation-making power, ministers should have an element of discretion in exercising it, albeit that the exercise of that power is subject to parliamentary procedure at a future juncture.

I will start by speaking to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 19. The emotional impact of the theft of a dog should be recognised in law. That is the main purpose of the bill. I also recognise that there are situations in which there will be an operational loss or loss of earnings for a person who owns a working dog.

Although I do not want to jump ahead to the debate on a future group, I point out that amendments 1 to 8, in my name, open up the possibility of the aggravation in section 2 being widened by regulations to include working dogs and, potentially, working gun dogs, although that would be a matter for the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 19 would place a specific type of dog—a working gun dog—at the heart of the section 1 offence. I understand Rachael Hamilton’s policy intention in seeking to ensure that the impact on owners of working gun dogs is fully taken into account in the criminal justice system when such a dog is stolen. However, in my view, singling out working gun dogs over other dogs in section 1 would give a pre-eminence in statute to the theft of those dogs over the theft of other dogs. It would also single out the theft of such dogs for special treatment in sentencing. I am not sure where that would sit alongside the aggravations in section 2, although I note that Ms Hamilton has lodged amendments to that section as well.

The theft of an assistance dog is not singled out in section 1 in the same way that amendment 19 seeks to single out the theft of a working gun dog. The particular issue in relation to working gun dogs did not explicitly come up during the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and, before changing the law on the issue, I would want there to be consultation on and scrutiny of such matters.

All the amendments that I have lodged have been developed following discussions with the Scottish Government, and I thank the minister for her engagement with that. At the outset, I want to express my appreciation for the support that I have received in developing the amendments that are before the committee today in a very short period.

Amendment 9 was lodged following careful discussion and feedback from the committee’s stage 1 report. I believe that the emotional and welfare impact on the owner and, indeed, on the dog itself should be taken into account when a sentence is handed down. However, the Parliament has recently legislated to provide for victim impact statements in solemn cases. I accept that, if we were to make provision through the bill for such statements in summary cases of dog theft, that would create a precedent that the Government and stakeholders such as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might not welcome. Therefore, having tested the issue, I am prepared to accept that there is no appetite to include victim statements in the bill. That is why I have lodged amendment 9 to that effect. Nevertheless, I believe that the emotional impact of a dog being stolen should be taken seriously.

My suite of amendments—amendments 1 to 8—seeks to ensure that the aggravation can be extended by regulations to apply to the theft of dogs that would not ordinarily be considered to be assistance dogs. The amendments would replace the label “assistance dog” with the broader expression “helper dog”. The broader term would enable Scottish ministers to extend the definition of “helper dog” through regulations. In practice, it would allow the Scottish ministers to extend the definition to include, for example, service dogs and other working dogs, should they choose to do so.

The amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

PE1989 and PE2101 both call for increased availability of defibrillators. I will park funding for the moment—that will be my final question—but on the issue of availability, can you provide some information on how defibs are mapped and how access can be improved?

The question of speed versus effectiveness is, I suppose, a bit of a conundrum. An obvious quick way of rolling out defibs would be to, say, put them outside every school, but I think—and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this—that that might mean doubling up in a community. Moreover, a school might not be located in the right area. In Dundee, for example, Grove academy is right in the centre, with lots of houses nearby and having a defib there would be useful. The new Greenfield academy, on the other hand, is right on the outskirts of a community; it might take someone a 10-minute round trip to get there and one would hope that the ambulance would be there by that stage.

When it comes to thinking about a more effective and perhaps longer-term way of rolling out defibs, how would you map that? Where would you look at? What would be the priorities with regard to ensuring the most access, and how might that affect rural communities?

I will follow up on what has been said and bring in Steven Short.

After almost a decade in the Scottish Parliament, I have seen the Scottish Government on many occasions want to create a headline rather than tackle a problem. You can see how appealing it would be for the Government to provide public funding for defibs in every school in Scotland—that sounds great—but I want to press you a little on whether you think that a more sophisticated approach is required. Schools might be part of that, but it might be appropriate for defibs to also be in other public buildings or community areas. If the Scottish Government made public funding available, how should an effective approach be rolled out to prioritise the areas that are most in need of that piece of kit?

My final question is to cover off the matter of funding, although witnesses have touched on that. There are a number of options for Scottish Government funding. It might be a case of taking a bird’s-eye view and targeting the funding directly or it could be done via councils or a community fund. The risk with a community fund is that it is generally the most established community groups that will apply. If it were done through a community fund, the Isle of Eigg would definitely have a defibrillator, if it does not already, because it does a fantastic job of applying for funding. Do you have any thoughts on public sector funding but also any examples that could be spread out, by linking to public funding of excellent third sector work in this area or even to private sector work?