Chamber and committees

A statutory offence is an effective way of modernising the existing law. There is no specific existing crime of dog theft so, when someone steals a dog, they could be prosecuted under the common law offence of theft. The law therefore treats the theft of a dog in exactly the same way as it treats the theft of any other household item. That is really the crux of the matter. In my view, and in the view of many stakeholders, the law ignores the fact that a dog is often a much-loved member of the family whose loss is mourned by the owner, regardless of the dog’s monetary value.

Mr Eagle points to precedents in this Parliament, such as the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, regarding breach of the peace, and the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. The statutory offences in relation to breach of the peace and the protection of workers are being used far more widely than the common-law offences were used. That is ultimately up to prosecutors, but we see that that is the preferred method of prosecuting. However, a critical point is that the bill would continue to allow the common-law offence to be used as well. Those precedents show that my bill has more to offer and that it is in keeping with the Parliament’s views across a number of sessions.

That is why I am certainly willing to look at this issue and the bill as a whole post stage 1. My approach was to present the Parliament with a simple framework in the bill to make sure that the evidence was as strong as possible to proceed and then aim to improve the bill going forward, perhaps in the manner that the member has described.

It is important to note that the minister indicated to the committee that she is content with the provision. That is part of my rationale for setting it out as it is, because I do not want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. There is time to get perfection in stages 2 and 3—if we get there, of course.

We undoubtedly need to think about that. It also chimes with the reason behind the bill. Because a dog is an integral part of the family, some nefarious individuals can unfortunately use that connection and affection in pretty concerning ways. That is why I would certainly be willing to look at ways to improve the bill.

Just.

I do not think that it would have any impact at all. As I have said, I would struggle to configure the circumstances in which a crime of this nature would result in life imprisonment. Nonetheless, the Crown Office could choose to use the common-law offence. It would not be a case of either/or. Both will exist together, so the penalties remain the same.

With the bill, you would have a bespoke law for a particular criminal offence. Where that has occurred previously, the evidence shows that prosecutors tend to favour the bespoke offence rather than the general one.

I looked at the existing aggravators, all of which would apply to the new offence of dog theft, and realised that there was a potential legal gap regarding assistance dogs. Someone who relies on an assistance dog for daily tasks is already in need of additional support to carry out those tasks. I considered that, if someone’s dog were to be stolen and they faced the double whammy of not just losing a much-loved companion but being left unable to carry out vital tasks, it would be appropriate and proportionate to put in such a provision. I met representatives of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to discuss that point.

I accept that the potential crime is extremely rare, but it is important to do the right thing in the bill. There is a distinguishing factor between dogs and assistance dogs.

Yes, I saw that. I have already highlighted to Mark Ruskell the rationale with regard to assistance dogs, and the same rationale could not be applied to working dogs. I would be interested to consider any recommendations that the committee has in that respect.

I think that there is a distinction to be made here. However, I would also point out that the theft of a working dog would still be an offence under the bill. The sheriff might well take the view that, because the dog was a working dog, a higher penalty should be handed down for the offence. My bill allows for that, but I am not convinced that there should be a formal aggravator in such cases. The owner of the working dog would not, by definition, require the dog to assist them with daily tasks, whereas the owner of an assistance dog would.

I know what you mean.

With regard to victim statements, the bill enables owners and families to tell the court of the trauma that the theft of the dog has caused them, including the potential trauma experienced by the dog. A victim statement is, within the scope of this bill, incredibly important in highlighting to the court the gravitas of such a crime. The bill is a measure for improving the legal system, and it is for others to decide whether that approach should be considered for other offences. I would certainly welcome the Scottish Government looking into that.

Although a case of dog theft might be considered in a low-level court, the impact on the victim is not low level. Having a victim statement is, therefore, incredibly useful. Ultimately, it is for the Scottish Government or other members to look at other crimes and where such provision should be brought in.

The reporting requirement is a key part of the bill, and—arguably—of any bill. By requiring ministers to report on an annual basis, I am ensuring that the data on the number of dog thefts is collated and published, and then scrutinised by Parliament. Just yesterday, we saw the benefit of a reporting requirement, as the “Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report 2025” resulted in a statement being given to Parliament.

The reporting requirement in this bill would not require a statement—it would simply require a report. Given the wider movement in Parliament on post-legislative scrutiny, reporting and reviewing requirements are a key part of all legislation, and good practice, too.

On the point about regulations, that is certainly not something that I can do, which is why it is important for me to put that requirement in the bill itself.