���˿���

As I said, it is a very emotive issue for anyone who has a pet, whether it is a dog or any other pet. Having been in my role and had this portfolio for two years, and having extensively gone through dog legislation and the XL bully situation, I am acutely aware of how emotive dog theft and having to go through things that have happened in the past couple of years has been for families with dogs. So, yes, we consider and take cognisance of the impact.

Yes. Everything is under consideration. We will not say no.

The Scottish Government notes that the bill would make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence. As a result, the court would be required to consider whether the sentence given should be enhanced to reflect the significance of taking an assistance dog. That is one of the issues that the committee will be required to carefully consider as the bill is scrutinised. I note from Mr Golden’s letter to the committee of 18 April that he had engaged with stakeholders such as Guide Dogs Forfar, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dogs Trust to inform the proposal.

I would like to know more from Maurice Golden about the evidence base to support and justify the position that the emotional impact on victims is not sufficiently considered during sentencing under current law. In the committee’s evidence-taking session on 26 March, the representatives from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted that the police

“would have to be able to demonstrate that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog to be able to prove the aggravation.”

At the same evidence session, Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland was also clear that

“the sentencing process is already structured in a way that should allow”

information about the impact of the theft of an assistance dog

“to be properly taken into account.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 20-21.]

If somebody actively seeks to steal an assistance dog, our existing law already reflects that as being worthy of a more serious penalty. We are interested in hearing Mr Golden’s views on that when you take evidence from him.

I will bring in Mr Wilson.

Yes—my personal opinion at this stage is that it is a bit over the top, unless there is a justification from Mr Golden that would change my view.

Mr Wilson, do you have any further views on that?

We would be keen to hear from Mr Golden about his reasoning in that regard and how he would envisage those provisions moving forward. As I said at the beginning of the session, we are taking a neutral stance on the bill and we will be keen to see the committee’s stage 1 report. Nevertheless, as the Scottish Government, we have to ensure, as the process moves forward and that the bill is legislatively competent, so that it can be enacted, and I will be looking at that.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. The Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 created the offence of engaging in a course of abusive behaviour against a partner or ex-partner, including behaviour that is directed towards pets or the removal of a pet from a partner or ex-partner where that is likely to cause the victim to suffer physical or psychological harm. Those provisions are not reliant on a specific offence of dog theft, but I appreciate the comments that were raised in the previous evidence session on the bill.

It is of note that, were a defence to be created under the proposed dog theft offence for partners and ex-partners, it would not apply directly to offences under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. However, the existence of such a defence for dog theft might be argued by the accused as amounting to their behaviour being reasonable, and, as such, would be the defence for a charge brought under the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018.

Jim, do you have any further views on what is happening down south, as was raised in the evidence session?

In Mr Golden’s response to the committee, which was published on the website yesterday, he indicates that the reasoning for setting out

“The list of information the annual report should contain”

is so that

“sound and robust data on dog thefts is collated and reported on.”

However, it may be considered unnecessary to place an annual reporting requirement on the Scottish Government for something that is considered to be low-level crime and on which we can already obtain statistics from the Crown Office.

Mr Golden’s response notes that the bill also

“includes the provision that the report must set out whether the Scottish Ministers consider whether there should be a statutory offence for the theft of any other animal kept as a pet.”

I am sure that every member has received emails in relation to that.

It would be welcome to get some further information from Mr Golden when he appears before the committee on 21 May as to the reasons for including that provision in the bill.

The points that Ariane Burgess raises are valuable. I would like the expert advisory group to be able to look at all those issues moving forward.

No, we have not.