Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Official Report 993KB pdf

---

Dog Theft

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-02745, in the name of Maurice Golden, on tackling dog theft. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament is concerned by reports that dog thefts have risen sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, including across the North East Scotland region; understands that stealing a dog is not currently a specific offence in Scotland but is grouped along with other non-specific thefts, that there is no requirement to take into account the impact such thefts have on the wellbeing of either animal or owners, and that there is no requirement to collect specific information on dog theft offences, which it considers could aid prevention, and recognises the view regarding the merit of a specific offence of dog theft to address these issues.

17:27  

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.

17:34  

I thank Maurice Golden for securing the debate, which I welcome. I acknowledge that the theft of dogs is on the rise, although we know that actual figures—for the reasons that he has given—are not available; I will come to that later.

Sometimes guilt, and certainly heartbreak, ensues when you have a much-loved pet stolen. You will not know what has happened to the dog, or anything about its future or how it has reacted to being removed from its home—all those things I appreciate. In my day, when my family had the companionship and affection of Roostie, our Irish setter and much-loved member of the family, she would sometimes go missing, but thankfully she had always simply wandered off. We soon found her, usually on the river bank at the bottom of the garden, or she trotted home herself.

We would have been distraught if she had been stolen. Even then, dog theft was virtually unknown. We are now in a different world, with demand outstripping supply and the high value, in monetary terms, that is put on dogs.

That is where I start. We are much more informed now and know that all animals are sentient beings—although, as pet owners, we have always known that, certainly of our dogs, with their individuality and personalities. They are indeed one of the family.

Now to the detail, where the devil always lies. I note that although Roddy Dunlop, who is dean of the Faculty of Advocates and a dog owner himself, appreciates the motivations behind Maurice Golden’s proposed bill, he considers that the offence is already covered by the common law on theft and that, although well intended, a separate offence, presumably with a maximum sentence of five years, would reduce the existing available sentencing range. Roddy Dunlop’s view is that, if sentences are not currently suitable, the independent Scottish Sentencing Council has the role of setting sentencing guidelines and ensuring consistency across the courts—taking into account other issues that the member has raised. I am not supporting that point; I am just raising it, together with other matters.

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.

Indeed—there is a role for the Scottish Sentencing Council.

The motion refers to the impact on owners, which, we can infer, should have an impact on sentences. However, to the best of my knowledge, the existing victim impact statements do not alter the weight of evidence, nor the value of any reports commissioned by the court, nor usually the sentence, although—and this is unusual—they may do so in the matter of serious crime, for example rape.

To give an example, two burglaries in an empty domestic property may have different impacts on different people, even though the events are identical. The burglar sneaks in through an unlocked door, lifts a computer and leaves. One householder in that situation is upset but angry, having left the door unlocked; another feels totally insecure in their home and violated by someone uninvited having been there. It would be difficult to argue that, all things being equal other than the impact on the householders, the penalties should be different. What is without contention is that data on dog thefts, both reported and prosecuted, and with outcomes, should be collected. That is an important move forward, and things should be changed in that respect.

Accepting, as I do, that animals are sentient beings and not things is another complication. Can we really argue that the theft of a dog should be equated to the abduction of a child? I do not have answers to such questions, but they have to be addressed. Legislation is tricky stuff, as we all know, and I have touched on just some of the difficulties, but I reassure Maurice Golden that I support his proposal. I will see his bill when it is introduced, and I hope that it functions properly, but we all know that issues such as those that I have mentioned must be addressed to make legislation that is sound and functional.

17:38  

It has been a year, almost to the day, since I adopted my dog Astro. He is a rescue dog from Romania. Yes, I have heard the joke many times that he has a European passport while I do not. I went almost 40 years in life without him, and I now cannot imagine my life without him at all. I know he is watching the debate online from home—as we so often say in members’ business debates.

The wildlife photographer Roger Caras once said:

“Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole.”

I disagree: I think that dogs are your whole life, and anyone who has a dog will know that.

In its briefing, the Dogs Trust told us that having a dog improves our wellbeing and reduces stress. It has clearly never met my dog.

If we look at the legislative environment that currently surrounds dog safety and security in Scotland, we might not necessarily believe that we are a nation of dog lovers, and that is the point of today’s debate. The theft of dogs has been relentlessly highlighted by my colleague Maurice Golden, not just over the past weeks and months but over years, because it is not the same as having your phone, wallet or watch stolen.

Dog theft is widespread now. There was a 170 per cent increase in it during the pandemic, according to some. That is hardly surprising, given the fact that the price of some breeds has more than doubled.

When I was looking for a dog, I went to a rescue charity, mostly out of a sense of frustration at the prices being sought by many breeders, and the unscrupulous way in which some of the dogs are being bred and sold. My dog is not a gold watch and its value is not in its value or its breed. I felt much better giving my money to a charity and rescuing a pup that would otherwise have been on the street.

On that note, I give huge credit to the charity Paws2Rescue, which is one of the great charities that work in this space, and thank Ricky Gervais, who is its patron.

In the area that I represent, there have been some high-profile reports of dog theft and the effect that it has on the victims. At a breeding farm in Galston, there was the loss of four puppies, and we all read about the tragic case of a young couple whose dog was stolen from their garden in Kilbirnie. My heart really goes out to them; I cannot imagine what it would feel like. I once had an episode when Astro ran out of the front door when I was taking the bins out and went straight into the road in front of oncoming traffic—my heart literally stopped for about eight seconds. For that instant, I thought about how I would feel if I lost my dog. I cannot imagine what it would feel like to know that someone had come into your home or your garden and taken your dog away.

I do not think that our justice system adequately serves as a deterrent to dog theft, because 5 per cent of dog thefts result in someone being charged, and just 1 per cent lead to prosecution. If that was any other field, we would be in uproar.

I should not forget cats, by the way. I have nothing against cats. Any legislation could look at pets in the round.

We should take steps to deter those who steal our furry friends. It is a massive business. We know that the third most profitable illegal trade after narcotics and weapons is in pets. Serious organised criminal gangs and syndicates have given up trading in drugs because of the risks involved, and they have switched to illegal dog trading. They have gone from cocaine and meth labs to canines and pet labs. That is the sad reality of where we are.

To its credit, the Scottish Government introduced microchipping back in 2016. That was the right thing to do. Christine Grahame and other dog and pet lovers have spoken about legislating further in this area, as has the Dogs Trust, which I commend hugely. Its pawlitical asks—see what I did there?—are worthy campaigns, many of which I support and should be looked on favourably.

We can and must do more. All I would ask Government is, if it cannot support the proposed dog theft bill specifically, what else can we do to change sentencing guidelines or to take into account the emotional effect that a very specific type of theft has on the people whose animals are taken from them? I have confidence that all those unanswered questions can be answered. I know that we can do it.

17:43  

I thank Maurice Golden for lodging his motion for debate, and for raising the important issue of whether we need a new criminal offence of dog theft.

As we have heard, pet theft is not treated with the seriousness that it deserves in our society. Legally, stealing a dog is pretty much treated in the same way as stealing someone’s phone, and that simply cannot be right. Although we live in a society in which people are, sadly, far too attached to their phones, they can easily be replaced like for like, but we cannot replace a unique, loved family pet, the loss of which can be devastating. At present, the law does not adequately consider the emotional distress caused by the loss of a pet. Pets are companions. They are part of our families, and the law should better acknowledge that.

As Christine Grahame said, animals are also sentient beings. We all know that and the science has proved it. They experience pain, suffering, joy and comfort, so equating them to property is denying them the right to be considered to be sentient beings, and that is not right.

Now certainly seems to be the time to reassess the law so that we do not continue to regard pets largely as property. The past few years have been really challenging for everyone. During that time, for many people, their pets have provided company and support through periods of isolation and constant worry. More and more people have turned to pets to provide that comfort at times of huge uncertainty, and more than ever we understand and better appreciate the huge benefits that a pet can bring to a household.

More than half the people who were surveyed by Blue Cross said that their first pet taught them unconditional love or the meaning of friendship. It and other charities have seen, from the fantastic work that they do to rehome pets, that pets improve owners’ mental and physical health, prevent loneliness and encourage learning and empathy in children. Let us recognise that and properly value the welfare and safety of our animals.

Today’s motion focuses on the theft of dogs, and I understand why. There has been a big rise in dog theft during the pandemic—it has gone up by around 170 per cent, partly because, as Maurice Golden said, the price that is paid for dogs has risen by as much as 89 per cent. Of course, the monetary value of a loved pet is what owners care about the least.

It is important that we protect, through robust animal welfare laws, all of our animals, whatever their monetary value. That point has been made by Cats Protection. It might be less reported, but cat theft in the UK increased by 194 per cent between 2015 and 2020, and that crime will impact on a family just as much as the theft of a dog. We also know that, in Scotland, although all dogs over eight weeks old must be microchipped, that is not the case for cats, which makes it much more difficult to return stolen or lost cats to their owners. If we are to strengthen the law on dog theft—or consider strengthening sentencing guidance to better cover pet theft, which is a point that has been raised—

I do not know whether the member is aware that one of the horrors that are associated with microchipping is that, often, the criminals will remove the microchip from the animals that they steal, sometimes in dreadful ways.

That is an important point, and highlights why taking pet theft seriously is important: some of these criminals, frankly, care very little about the animals that they steal, and can subject them to appalling things, as Christine Grahame suggests.

We should bring all pets under the same protections. All pets should be treated as treasured animals and not just treated as property, whether they are cats or dogs.

The benefits of having a specific offence of pet theft that would offer protections to all companionate animals go beyond simply recognising the emotional attachment that we have to our pets; there are also practical benefits. According to the Kennel Club, 98 per cent of dog theft criminals in the UK are never charged, and, in more than half of cases, a suspect is never found. A strong identifier of pet theft would allow cases to be better tracked through the criminal justice system. The UK’s pet theft task force found that consistent and accurate recording of pet theft would also help to identify cases, and the Dogs Trust has highlighted the fact that that would build a stronger picture of the true scale of the problem. Proper data collection would also contribute to having more consistency when it comes to punishment and also to having proportionate punishments that serve as an effective deterrent.

Introducing a criminal offence for pet abduction would be a positive step forward. I believe that it would bring us in line with other parts of the UK and other parts of the world that have already committed to such a move. I look forward to backing such legislation if Maurice Golden or, indeed, the Government decide to introduce it.

17:48  

I congratulate Maurice Golden on securing the debate and bringing this important matter to the chamber. I share his concern about the rapid increase in dog theft, which has been caused by the high demand for dogs during the pandemic and the increase in their value. According to the Kennel Club, the crime impacts and upsets nearly 200 affected households across the UK each month.

Last month, in Kilbirnie, where I live, two Scottish terriers vanished from their owner’s back garden and were believed to have been snatched. Thankfully, after having been missing for several days, Archie and Angus were found and returned to their owner.

Such an event shows why there is an increasing fear of dog theft, and many owners now feel the need to constantly keep an eye on their dogs and never leave them unsupervised. That is unsurprising, given that the emotional impact that owners of stolen dogs experience can be profound, with many victims reporting depression, diminished social lives and even, on occasion, marriage breakdown as a result.

More than a decade ago, I was contacted by a distraught constituent living in Whiting Bay, in Arran, after his dog had gone missing. He alerted the police and feared that his collie, Timmy, might never be returned. Astonishingly, the dog was located in Staffordshire, having been lifted by an Israeli tourist who was—ostensibly—looking for some canine company while touring Britain. How was Timmy found? It was through the microchip, which allowed him to be traced back to his island owner, who was absolutely delighted.

That important precautionary measure, which is now a legal requirement, is one that dog owners can take to increase the probability of their being reunited with their dog if the worst should happen. It gives dog owners peace of mind and ensures that, if anyone tries to re-register their dog’s chip number, they will be informed soon afterwards. However, as Maurice Golden pointed out, the system is not perfect.

A decade ago, inspired by Timmy’s recovery, I organised in Kilbirnie the first free microchipping session in Scotland, at which 167 dogs were microchipped, and I followed that up with similar sessions across Cunninghame North. Soon after, microchipping spread throughout much of Scotland, and I cannot thank the Dogs Trust enough, as it not only paid for the microchips but funded the staff to install them. Over many years, the Dogs Trust campaigned remorselessly and successfully to introduce compulsory microchipping.

I completely agree with Colin Smyth that we should also consider microchipping cats. My wife, who is a Westminster MP and chairs the all-party parliamentary group on cats, is pursuing that.

Unfortunately, six years after dog microchipping became a legal requirement in Scotland and across Britain, many dog owners still have not chipped their dogs. An English local authority recently said that only 26 per cent of dogs that were taken in by council dog wardens last year were microchipped with accurate details. The fact that chipping services had to be paused by the SPCA during the pandemic may have further hindered progress. Given the rise in dog theft, and the profound impact that that crime has on owners and pets, I welcome Maurice Golden’s motion and the proposal for a bill to create a specific offence of dog theft.

I note the recent comment made by Roddy Dunlop QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, which has already been raised here. He stated that there is already a significant deterrent in place in the common law of Scotland and that any court would take into account the dog’s value to the owner when sentencing. That is certainly reassuring, but only up to a point. We have heard how few cases are actually prosecuted.

First, a separate statutory offence would address the current gap in the available data that is required to prevent dog theft and would help to ascertain the true scale of the problem. Secondly, it could act as a deterrent by setting a more realistic maximum sentence that the courts might actually use, rather than the current theoretical maximum sentence for theft of any kind in Scotland, which is life. Thirdly, for philosophical reasons, a statutory offence would differentiate between the theft of an object and that of a living animal. It is interesting that members keep referring to mobile phones as if those are their most important possessions. Such an offence would establish a clear difference in the law between objects and sentient animals, which would recognise the welfare impact on the dog, rather than treat the theft as a commodity loss for the dog owner.

I am alarmed by the recent increase in instances of dog theft across Scotland and I therefore welcome the fact that a formal consultation on Mr Golden’s proposed bill to introduce a specific statutory crime of dog theft will begin next month. I hope that the introduction of a specific offence will not only recognise the emotional impact and trauma that stealing a dog creates for owners and pets but act as a strong deterrent to potential offenders, while establishing a separate database for dog theft to track the number of offences that are being committed.

I call Finlay Carson, who has up to four minutes.

17:52  

I thank my colleague Maurice Golden for bringing to the chamber this important debate on tackling dog theft. Sadly, hardly a week passes without a story appearing in a local or national newspaper about a family pet being snatched from a garden, a park or even a street. The impact on individual families is often devastating, to say the least. That is why I fully support any move to make dog theft a specific offence. I hope that that would reduce theft cases and—crucially—protect all companion animals by bringing those involved in such cruel acts to face tough and quicker justice.

The Scottish Parliament must send out a clear and concise message that dog theft is no longer and was never acceptable and that it will not be tolerated. People who are prepared to go down that road must be severely punished for their cowardly actions.

Dogs are traditionally described as men and women’s best friends. I have had dogs all my life and I know the pain of losing a dog through an accident. A theft would be equally painful. I would have spoken a lot about my current dog, but that would make me really emotional, because the poor old soul is coming to the end of his life. He is still very much part of the family.

Robert Burns, our national bard, had a beloved collie dog that he chose to immortalise in “The Twa Dogs”. He might well also have said that the rights of cats merit some attention. Colin Smyth has catnapped much of my contribution, but I make no apology for highlighting the alarming rate of cat theft. That worrying increase impacts not only on owners but on the cats.

A pet theft awareness report produced by Cats Protection revealed that cat theft crime had, on a like-for-like basis, risen by more than 12 per cent in the past year alone, and that there had been an almost threefold increase—of 194 per cent—between 2015 and 2020. As with many of the dogs that are stolen to order, it is the high-value cat breeds, in particular Bengals, that are most targeted as thieves look to make a financial killing on the black market.

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.

I absolutely take that on board and I sympathise with the member for having a small office in Broughty Ferry. My priority, too, is for the bill to protect dogs.

However, I am told by Cats Protection that many cats have been stolen for breeding purposes. There have been a number of instances when cats have been returned home with their sides shaved where there would have been a scar if they had been neutered, which suggests that thieves are targeting cats in order to breed from them.

The rise in cat theft can also be attributed to the online market in cats and kittens. Owners are increasingly likely to buy their cat rather than adopt one. More than a third of the cats that individuals or families have obtained in the past year were bought, and the public are increasingly going online to find that cat—68 per cent of purchases were made through that method last year.

Analysis of the trend has revealed that cat prices across three pet-selling websites—Gumtree, Preloved and Pets4Homes—have rocketed in the past year, with people spending an average of £474 in 2021, compared with £327 in the previous year. Of course, that has helped to fuel demand and make cat and kitten theft, just like dog theft, far more attractive to thieves, who are looking to profit directly from the sharp rise in prices.

Sadly, what is not taken into account—as far as I am concerned, it should be—is the devastating effect that theft has on cats and their owners and the families who love them. For many cat and kitten owners, those cute companions—like dogs—proved to be a godsend during the pandemic by providing important interaction, friendship, direction and love during anxious and troubled times.

It should be mentioned that cats are especially prone to stress, which is triggered by changes in their environment or stressful situations, such as being transported. I support the call from Cats Protection for a specific offence of pet theft to be introduced that covers all companion animals, including cats and dogs. However, I absolutely take on board Maurice Golden’s position on ensuring that the dog theft legislation gets through. Furthermore, it should include—

Mr Carson, could you please conclude? You are at about five minutes now.

I will, Presiding Officer. Finally, I go back to Colin Smyth’s discussion of microchipping, which is really important for cats, too.

I am sure that the issues that I have highlighted have significance not only for cats but for dogs. If Maurice Golden is successful with his bill, perhaps we could look towards the future with an all-inclusive debate on tackling pet theft.

17:58  

I will make a short contribution to support my colleague and friend Maurice Golden in his attempt to bring forward this piece of legislation, the shape of which is currently being defined through the process that he is taking it through.

I look forward to Scotland taking a lead in this area. It is something that we should endeavour to do. Truth be told, we do not have a dog at home. I often wish that we did, because I grew up with dogs. My mum and dad always had a dog and it was always a west Highland terrier.

Does Stephen Kerr want one?

Having listened to Jamie Greene’s speech, I am not sure that I want that particular dog.

Each of those west Highland terriers had its own personality. In fact, to be truthful, I had a bit of a problematic relationship with at least one of them. The dog saw me as an interloper in the family and itself as the true heir. Of course, dogs see themselves in that way, and people treat them as full and equal members of the family.

There came a point in life when my mum and dad decided that they had reached an age when they were not going to get another dog. That was when my dad’s health began to become an issue, and my sister had the bright idea that what dad needed was a dog. He had always had a dog and so he got a rescue dog, Tara.

Now, if anyone ever loved a dog, my dad did, and if anyone here has ever loved a dog they will know the difference that a dog can make to a person. It made a huge difference to my dad and his love of life. That dog had been abused and was very nervous, but dad’s devotion to it calmed the poor creature’s nerves and nervousness.

He walked it several times a day and pampered it. In return, the dog showed him nothing but devotion. It was a perfect match.

I say all that because I want to assert that a dog is not a thing. That should be accepted, and there should be some statute that reflects it. A dog is a loving and loyal companion. From walks to eating schedules, diaries are often structured around the needs of a dog. Such a time commitment demonstrates the burgeoning relationship between a dog and its owner.

When a dog is stolen, the separation of that loving relationship causes trauma for both sides: for the owner, who is separated from a loving companion that has always been there for them, leaving them with emotions that range from anger to despair, and for the dog, on having been ripped away from their safe home and loving owner. Who can imagine the feelings of insecurity, vulnerability and loneliness that a dog has in that situation?

For the welfare of owners and pets, we in the Scottish Parliament can take a lead and treat the issue of dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. Worryingly, an increasing number of families are facing that heartbreaking situation. In well-crafted and well-informed speeches, a number of members referred to the number of dog theft cases in 2020 compared with the previous year. That has been well rehearsed, so I will not take time to revisit those statistics.

We in the Parliament should not be content to accept that situation; we need to do something about it. We must ensure that owners can remain hopeful of reunion by ensuring that there is some kind of justice. We must ensure that dogs can feel the love and security of their owners and home again.

I thank Maurice Golden for raising the profile of dog theft and highlighting the need for a specific crime of dog theft. I repeat that dogs are not objects; they are not even just pets—they are loving members of families across Scotland, and the law should be updated to acknowledge and recognise that fact. Therefore, I support the call for there to be specific legislation on dog theft.

I call Ash Regan to respond to the debate.

18:02  

I thank Maurice Golden for securing this evening’s debate on the important subject of dog theft. We are a nation of dog lovers. As the stories that many members have shared illustrate, dogs can be irreplaceable members of the family. I started my day by being woken up by my dog jumping on to my bed and licking my face. That is not my favourite thing, but there you go.

Over the past two years of the pandemic, dogs and other pets—there has been much mention of cats, too—have provided companionship for many people, especially for those who live alone, at a time when social contact has been limited to prevent the spread of coronavirus. People who have dogs or other pets will find it all too easy to imagine the sense of loss, anger and hopelessness that they would feel if their dog were to be stolen.

Although I absolutely acknowledge that any theft of a dog is a serious matter that can cause real anxiety and upset to its owners, it is important to note, by way of context, that it is not a high-volume crime in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland, which told us that its internal records showed that 62 cases had been recorded across the whole of Scotland in 2019-20. That figure increased to 88 cases in 2020-21, but that is still a low number in the context of the number of dogs in Scotland. As members have noted, that increase is likely to have been driven by the rise in demand for puppies during the lockdown in that year.

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 agree that there are always ways in which we could improve the data to which we have access. I take that point.

Police Scotland has indicated that, while it does not as yet have statistics for 2021-22, its impression is that levels of dog theft have since fallen and have returned to what they were previously.

It is estimated that there are at least 600,000 dogs in Scotland. In that context, the scale of theft is low, although the theft of a loved family pet is undoubtedly a traumatic experience. As members have noted, dogs are not objects. When they are stolen, that can cause considerable upset. When a person’s pet is lost or stolen, monetary value will be the last thing on their mind. Posters have been put up by people who have lost their pet dog or cat offering rewards for their return that are many times higher than the pet’s monetary value because of the value that the pet has to them.

I am aware of Maurice Golden’s view that the best way for the justice system to address the harm that is posed by the theft of pets is to create a specific statutory offence. My understanding is that the member considers that that would recognise that the theft of a dog can have a serious effect on its owner. I agree that it is important for the criminal justice system to be able to deal effectively with perpetrators of dog theft. As members will know, and as discussed in the debate, theft is a common law offence in Scotland. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is limited only by the sentencing powers of the court in which the offender is being sentenced. I have heard concerns that when an offender is sentenced for theft, the court will be concerned with only the value of the item that has been stolen. However, I do not think that that is the case. Courts are well used to taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. When sentencing a person for the theft of a dog or other pet, a court would take into account the fact that the offender had stolen a beloved family pet and the impact that that would have had.

Of course, we will consider carefully any bill that is lodged that proposes a specific dog theft offence. A key question is whether that would bring greater transparency to how the justice system responds to those kinds of offences and whether it would provide reassurance to victims that the impact that those crimes have had has been taken into account when perpetrators are sentenced.

It is not just the level of the sentence. One of the key benefits of having specific offences is the message that it sends to criminals that there is a high tariff associated with that type of crime. Would that not serve as a deterrent, given the rise in cases of dog theft?

I have set out the context, and I am not sure that it is right to characterise the situation as a rise in cases, because we think that dog theft has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Education and deterrence are important and we should take note of those things. However, for any new law, we need a clear evidence base to show that it would have a real and beneficial impact. I am sure that members would accept what I have said about that.

As members have indicated, I recognise that the theft of a beloved pet has an impact on those whose pets have been stolen. That has come out strongly in the debate. The criminal law policy question is whether the creation of a specific criminal offence meaningfully adds to the powers of the police and the courts to tackle dog theft, given the wide-ranging powers that courts already have to take relevant matters into account when sentencing.

The debate has been good in raising awareness of the important issue of dog theft. I will conclude on what I hope is a positive note: Police Scotland has advised that its records show that in around half of all cases where a dog has been reported as being stolen, that dog has subsequently been reunited with its owner. It is clear that that is much easier to achieve when the dog has been microchipped. Microchipping is an effective method to identify animals and to help reunite them with their owners when they have been lost or stolen, as has come out strongly in the debate. As members may be aware, the Government made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up to date. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs that are coming into their care, which helps to ensure that when a lost or stolen dog is recovered, it can be returned to its owners swiftly.

The Government is happy to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations, to look at what can be done to improve how pet theft is addressed in our criminal justice system. I am happy to consider any specific new evidence-based proposals on how the criminal law could be improved in this area.

Meeting closed at 18:09.