���˿���

I am not introducing the bill to improve data collection, but I think that it will be improved as a result of the bill. Other than the bill, I have no means at my disposal to introduce measures to improve data collection. There is a lack of clarity on the number of incidents of dog theft, with official police figures and projections by campaign groups being significantly different. I was pleased to see Police Scotland acknowledge that point in its evidence to the committee on 26 March.

A new offence will mean a new way of recording data. I would hope that details such as the breed or type of dog would be included in that to assist the police, particularly in identifying organised criminal gangs and identifying where particular breeds are being targeted. However, that is ultimately an operational matter.

The evidence from Police Scotland really hit home. On the number of thefts that are being reported, chief inspector Michael Booker said that he did

“not believe that that is a true reflection of the picture in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 2.]

My bill can facilitate improved data collection, but that is not the reason behind it.

Ultimately, as I have highlighted, it is to keep the bill as simple as possible. As we have heard, there is a debate around theft versus abduction, and the same rationale essentially applies here. There is a rationale for abduction, but the difficulty with using that term is that I might then need to justify the will of the dog, and members might have concerns about that, which might mean that they would not support the bill at stage 1.

Essentially, the aim is to get a framework bill in front of Parliament that all members—who, as we all know, have a variety of views—can support. From that point, we can look at the areas that the committee, and ultimately the Parliament, think could be improved.

Yes, I would be more than happy to do that. My concern here is less about the bill, but I could envisage a situation in which the Scottish Sentencing Council opened itself up to politicians, a politician issued a press release about a crime and then they asked to meet the Sentencing Council, almost using it as a political football. I am not saying that that would happen—I am sure that most members would respect the council—but that explains my caution.

I am certainly comfortable when it comes to the bill—it is more a matter for members now and in future sessions. I certainly would not want to change a precedent in parliamentary engagement with the judiciary.

I welcome the scrutiny of that particular issue from both the member and the committee, and I have heard the evidence. It is right that we consider the issue carefully to ensure that there are no loopholes. It goes without saying that anyone who uses possession of a dog as a means of coercive control in an abusive relationship deserves the full force of the law.

However, there are two separate issues. The first is coercive control within an abusive relationship, and the second is a situation in which a couple who own a dog together separate in the normal course of life. The former is, and will remain, potentially criminal behaviour. The latter is obviously a sad situation and may include the involvement of the civil courts, but it is not in any way criminal. Therefore, there is an existing law in place that already criminalises coercive control within a relationship or after it breaks down. My bill does not change that.

I recognise that the issue has been raised at stage 1. Should the committee have any concerns, I would be happy to carefully consider its recommendations in the area, should the bill proceed to stage 2.

Perhaps. The benefit of the bill is that it would facilitate the police having a better understanding of this horrendous crime. Whether that is with data or how the police detect the crime in operational terms, it is something that we need to look at.

Thanks for that question. I published the consultation document on my final proposal in October 2022, and, as part of that, I had meetings with, among others, the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Faculty of Advocates. In my view, it would not be common practice for individual ���˿��� to seek specific discussions with the Scottish Sentencing Council prior to any member’s bill—or perhaps on any topic. I would be open to engaging with the Scottish Sentencing Council, should the bill progress beyond stage 1, but I am cognisant of the importance of the council’s independence, and I would seek to respect that in any engagement.

As a Parliament, and as individual members of the Scottish Parliament, we need to be cautious about setting a precedent around ���˿��� meeting the Sentencing Council, particularly in the run-up to an election, and using that as a campaigning tool. I certainly would not use it in that way, but you could quite easily see that happening. I certainly would not want politicians acting in an ultra vires manner with respect to the legislature and the judiciary.

The bill does not limit what can be published. If there are changes to how the Government wants to report, that is not an issue at all.

I am thinking back to my thesis on crime and criminality in the early 19th century and the way in which we report and record crime. Although the punishments are different, the recording aspects are pretty much set in stone and, I would suggest, are unlikely to change. Those aspects are very high level and include the numbers of cases, charges and convictions; the different procedures used; the length of service; the level of fine; and whether an aggravator applied. Those aspects are key metrics for the bill, but, ultimately, if there are other aspects on which the Government wishes to report, it can do so.

Neil, do you want to come in on that?

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.

I point members to at least part of the question on common law versus stand-alone legislation that we covered earlier. With regard to animal welfare, there is strong evidence, including from the SSPCA to the committee, that dogs suffer trauma when they are stolen. It therefore follows that creating a stand-alone offence whereby the dog is not simply treated as an item will have a positive effect on animal welfare. If the number of prosecutions and convictions increases, and if there is an increase in reporting and recording, that will, overall, lead to the crime being taken more seriously. Therefore, I believe that the bill will have a long-term deterrent effect, leading to fewer instances of dog theft and having a positive impact on animal welfare.

We probably need to distinguish between the theory and the practice on that. According to Kennel Club research, 98 per cent of dog abductions in 2021 resulted in no one being charged, and in 54 per cent of the cases that were recorded during 2020, no suspect was identified.

As for prosecution, I have already highlighted that charge rates are less than 5 per cent, and only 1 per cent of dog abduction cases in the UK in 2019-20 resulted in prosecution. Only a tiny number reach the sentencing stage. I am not aware of anyone in the UK having been subject to the maximum penalties that the member has highlighted. Even if the bill were passed, the common-law offence would still exist, so the maximum penalties would remain the same. It is a matter for the Crown Office to determine how the offence is prosecuted.

I think that the penalties that are described in the bill are reasonable and proportionate, and I think that they would be used in the vast majority of cases, as we heard earlier. Ultimately, however, it is for the Crown Office to determine on what grounds any individual should be prosecuted, so the highest sanction would still be available.