The Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill touches several different policy areas. Today, I will focus my comments on the bill’s potential for driving progress on sustainable agriculture and the wider environment.

Where the bill can do the most good is in helping farmers to answer the question, “How do we produce more food while using fewer resources?” That is the problem that we face in a world in which the population is rising but the resources are dwindling. Coming up with solutions gives Scotland the opportunity to lead the world in sustainable food production.

To do that, we need a better idea of the wider impact that food production has on society, the economy, the environment and people’s wellbeing. Such an approach, which is being championed by NFU Scotland, would let us build a picture of the food value chain that includes the condition of local supply chains, the effect that imports are having and, ultimately, how we ensure food security. Given that we have just come through a pandemic in which just-in-time supply chains were stretched and food security was, at times, a genuine concern for some, those are issues that the bill should put front and centre. Alongside that, farmers should be recognised as being part of the solution by creating a more circular food production system that helps to restore nature, protect wildlife and fight climate change.

I am quite surprised by that intervention, because every part of the UK is set to benefit from those trade agreements. In 2020, Scotland exported £126 million-worth of beverages to Australia, and the trade deal with Australia will remove tariffs of up to 5 per cent on Scotch whisky. New Zealand lamb was already quota free before the trade deal with New Zealand. I hope that that answers the minister’s question.

No. I need to make progress. I understand why Ms McAllan did not ask me about tackling climate change—because the Scottish Government has failed to meet its emissions targets for three years in a row.

The obvious starting point is to make farms more efficient, because more efficient farms are more sustainable farms. To do that, we need to reduce waste—for example, by reducing discharges through the use of precision fertiliser and slurry operations or closed nutrient loops to prevent nutrient loss.

Fertiliser is an especially big challenge right now, with the war in Ukraine having sent the price skyrocketing—the cost of nitrogen is nudging £1,000 per tonne. The effects of that are already being seen, with farmers being persuaded to adopt regenerative practices, where possible. As well as environmental benefits, such as that of boosting biodiversity, there is the potential for financial savings. Regenerative farming is able to deliver both.

Of course, no system is 100 per cent efficient. There will always be waste, but we should look to generate value from that waste by building new revenue streams for farmers, creating jobs and reducing environmental impacts. The James Hutton Institute has been doing important work on that—it has been looking at how farm wastes and co-products can be used to produce, for example, bioplastics. That process has the potential to displace fossil fuels, with the associated emissions savings in turn supporting the aim of businesses to decarbonise their supply chains.

However, help is needed to make such solutions work. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Conservatives were ahead of the curve on that. For the past several years, we have called for direct financial and technical support for farmers to install new equipment and upgrade infrastructure. We would further assist food producers through our Scotland first strategy, by encouraging public services to use local food, where possible, which would shorten supply chains, help to improve animal welfare and reduce environmental impacts, in turn promoting good Scottish fare and helping to support more than 150,000 people in the food and drink sector supply chain.

Unfortunately, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, as it is currently drafted, simply does not cover any of that in sufficient detail. We hear about public bodies producing their own good food nation plans but without knowing exactly what will be in them. Equally, there are no high-level targets or outcomes to guide individual plans. Those points are highlighted by the Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s assurance that some of the detail will be found in the individual plans, but they need direction to support national objectives, especially environmental progress, which seems to be an obvious link to the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. That is just not happening.

Scottish Environment LINK says that the bill is

“significantly lacking, particularly from an environmental perspective”

while Nourish Scotland warns that it

“is lacking in ambition and purpose.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs, Islands and Natural Environment Committee, 26 January 2022; c 2.]

Let me be clear. I want to see food production improved, farmers supported and our environment protected. We all do. The draft bill is too weak to do that. That must be resolved at stage 2 if we are going to build a good food nation.

We all want to see waste tackled. The amount of waste in Scotland is rising and recycling has declined for two years running. The Scottish Government has missed its 2020 household recycling target and even the 2013 target has not been met. Why?

To clarify the point on sentencing guidelines, I will be consulting on the length of term. Having discussed that with dog charities, we think that five years is reasonable and proportionate. From the evidence that we have looked at, it appears that no one is receiving sentences beyond that under the current system. The proposed bill presents an opportunity to extend that if that is so wished.

I clarify that, although I will be consulting on the inclusion of cats and other companion animals, my focus is on ensuring that the member’s bill is sound and functional, as Christine Grahame highlighted. Expanding the scope could be problematic for me, when we consider that the Government has a whole civil service to support it, while I have only me and a researcher in a little office in Broughty Ferry.

Members: Aww.

Does the minister accept that dog theft is not recorded in a consistent way by the police across Scotland, that it is sometimes not even recorded as dog theft and that, therefore, the police numbers do not necessarily correlate with the true picture on the ground?

I thank members on all sides of the chamber for supporting the motion.

Dog theft is a serious and growing problem. It is estimated that in 2020, almost 200 dogs were stolen in Scotland, and almost 2,500 were stolen across the United Kingdom as a whole. That works out at nearly seven dogs stolen each and every day. The problem got worse during the pandemic—the charity DogLost recorded an alarming 170 per cent increase in cases. However, that should not be entirely unexpected. The loneliness that many felt during the long months of lockdown resulted in an increased demand for dogs as pets, and we know that dogs are the animal that is most likely to be stolen. Figures from the Metropolitan Police show that an astonishing seven out of 10 stolen animals are dogs, and, given that the price of certain breeds jumped by as much as 89 per cent during lockdown, dog theft can be a very lucrative crime.

However, it is important to recognise that the data on dog theft is woefully incomplete. We do not know exactly how many incidents take place, where the theft hotspots are or how certain breeds might be targeted. The existing law treats stealing a dog as any other property theft, so there is no requirement for the police to record the fact that a dog was involved, let alone additional information such as breed type. That brings us to a simple, sad fact: the law of the land treats dogs as nothing more than things. As far as the law is concerned, stealing a dog is no different from stealing a mobile phone, television or any other inanimate object.

However, dogs are not objects—they are part of the family. For many people, their dogs are by far the most important part of their lives. The current law simply does not recognise the treasured and irreplaceable role that they have.

That means that justice is very rarely served. Because the law treats dogs as mere property, the dog’s monetary value will influence sentencing. However, the Kennel Club estimates that many older dogs that are stolen are worth well under £500, and so their theft potentially attracts a lighter punishment. It is unsurprising, therefore, that there is little evidence that maximum sentences are being handed out. However, sentencing matters only if there are convictions. Sadly, across the UK, where suspects are identified, just 5 per cent of cases lead to someone being charged and, in total, just 1 per cent of dog thefts actually lead to prosecutions. That is not justice.

Given those problems, it is understandable that, until now, the focus has been on prevention. Police Scotland and animal welfare bodies are working hard to educate and support dog owners to avoid thefts. Microchipping helps, and all dogs over eight weeks old must be chipped and registered, but that only goes so far. There are multiple competing microchip databases, which makes access cumbersome, and records are not always properly updated, so it can be difficult to reunite dogs with owners.

As dogs and owners lack proper protection, I am introducing a member’s bill to help tackle this growing problem. My bill will create a specific offence of dog theft, and will base punishment on the welfare impact on the animal and the owner, not just on the dog’s monetary value. It will provide for data recording so that we can build an accurate picture of dog theft in Scotland and help to prevent future thefts.

My bill will also ensure that Scotland is not left behind internationally on animal welfare. France, parts of Australia and New Zealand already have specific offences, and England and Ireland are planning to introduce legislation soon. In addition, the equally poor data situation in England will be addressed with standardised crime recording across police forces, more robust rules for registering ownership and transfer data, and, in a very welcome move, the creation of a single point of access for the multitude of microchip databases. That is a huge step forward that we should be racing to take advantage of here in Scotland.

In Scotland, there is strong support for taking action. Welfare groups such as the Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home have come out publicly in support of my proposed bill. I am grateful for their support, and for the support that we see today across Parliament. Almost every party backed my motion on tackling dog theft. I am happy to sit down with the Greens—although I appreciate that they are not in the chamber today—to find a way for them to offer their support in the future, because this Parliament is at its best when it acts as one.

We should be as one when it comes to animal welfare—a cause that I am passionate about. That is why I am determined that Scotland should lead on this issue, with a specific offence of dog theft that recognises the welfare impact that that crime has on both animal and owner, improves data recording to help prevent future thefts, and—I hope—allows more stolen dogs to be reunited with their owners. If the famous old phrase that dogs are our best friend is true, we must repay that friendship and give our beloved companions the full protection of the law.

Stealing a dog can affect the wellbeing of both the animal and the owner. It is not just a criminal justice matter; it is also an animal welfare issue. Unfortunately, the law currently regards stealing a dog as stealing an object. Does the cabinet secretary understand why I, animal welfare organisations and others are calling for the welfare impact of dog theft to be recognised in law?

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote the welfare of dogs. (S6O-00804)