³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have not been able to look at that response. As I have said, we saw the letter only yesterday, and I thank the clerks for advising my team that it was on the website.

I will hand over to Jim Wilson, who has a lot of experience, over many years, with Scottish Government dog legislation.

When giving evidence to the committee in March, the Law Society of Scotland indicated that the number of sentencing guidelines in Scotland is relatively small and that the Scottish Sentencing Council is seeking to develop new guidelines within its available resources. The Scottish Government has the ability to ask the Sentencing Council to consider preparing guidelines, but it is for the independent council to decide whether it does, or can do, so. I know that, at the moment, draft guidelines are in preparation in relation to rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse, and the Sentencing Council’s work programme for the year ahead is really busy.

In saying that, the Scottish Government is interested in understanding whether Mr Golden had approached the Sentencing Council in that regard. We are happy to consider that specific suggestion further, if that is wanted, as the bill progresses.

That is a really important point that was raised in the evidence session in March. Procurator fiscal Laura Buchan wrote to the committee on 9 April to provide further information on a couple of issues, including the defences that have been set out in the bill. The letter from the COPFS noted that the offence does not apply where a person who previously lived in the same household with the dog takes or keeps the dog, which covers the scenario in which a couple separates following a domestic dispute and one partner keeps the dog.

As the committee heard in the evidence session on 26 March, caution was suggested when legislating for a scenario that might involve a dispute over proof of ownership in the context of criminal proceedings. In scenarios that involve domestic abuse, there are existing legislative provisions that allow for prosecution in relation to the taking of a dog following a relationship. Therefore, those types of prosecutions can already happen.

I noted from Maurice Golden’s letter to the committee, which we saw yesterday, that he remains of the view that it is entirely appropriate for the bill to include defences in respect of the breakdown of a relationship. He goes on to say that, if the committee were to take a contrary view, he would be happy to look at the matter again. His letter, which as I have said we saw only yesterday, does not provide any further evidence to support his view that the bill should include a defence in respect of a breakdown of a relationship. However, I have no doubt that the committee will wish to seek further views from Mr Golden himself when he comes before the committee on 21 May.

Yes.

Good morning to the committee. First, I appreciate that dog theft is a very emotive issue, and I have had meetings with Mr Golden in the run-up to this meeting, which is why the Scottish Government is taking a neutral position at this stage. We received Mr Golden’s response only yesterday morning, so we have not had a chance to go through all the responses in detail.

On the issue of the stand-alone offence, the need for a specific offence of dog theft has been questioned with the Law Society of Scotland and other representatives in the legal system. The common law offence of theft already covers pet theft, and the penalty goes all the way up to a life sentence if a case is tried in the High Court. It can therefore be argued that existing laws are in place, with appropriate sentencing powers. The courts have wide discretion to consider the facts and circumstances when sentencing, which includes taking into account the harm that might arise from a dog theft, such as the impact on the dog’s health and wellbeing and the distress that is caused to the owner. I am confident that the committee will carefully scrutinise the bill to assess what evidence there is of a gap in the law and the necessity for the bill’s provisions.

As I said, stage 2 of that bill has just finished and the cabinet secretary has committed to looking at victim impact statements. I will ask Jim Wilson to comment on how that could impact section 3 of this bill.

I am happy to look into that. I will not commit to amending it, but it can be considered.

I will bring in Jim Wilson, but I do not have any strong views on the financial memorandum. I know from the evidence session that it was very hard to determine exact figures at that stage.

Just for clarity, the 2020 act made a number of amendments to animal welfare, animal health and wildlife legislation, and animal welfare is under Jim Fairlie’s portfolio, not the justice portfolio.

Under the legislation, Scottish ministers are obliged to review whether the 2020 act’s provisions are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and the protection of wildlife. In August last year, when Mr Fairlie put out the review, the need for specific provisions on pet theft was considered. The Scottish Government sought views from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Sentencing Council on the current approach to pet theft, such as the laws used, the effectiveness of those laws and any proposal to introduce a new statutory offence of pet theft.

After considering the matter last year, the Scottish Government review concluded that we would not seek to legislate on pet theft. There appeared to be no consensus on whether such a move was necessary, but the Scottish Government was also aware that Mr Golden’s bill was being introduced.

As I said, we are taking a neutral stance at this stage, so nothing could prevent us from perhaps supporting it. However, as the Scottish Government, we want to look at the letter from the committee and the many points that were raised in it. We have not really had a chance to go into detail on that, because we received it only yesterday. We also want to look at the stage 1 report. I am happy to engage with the member further on the issue at that stage.

Yes.