���˿���

This has been a helpful debate on group 2. I have nothing to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Yes. Assistance dogs would be treated the same; the change is that other categories could, potentially, be included in that definition. That is what amendments 1 to 8 seek to achieve.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 20 would require regulations that were made under section 2(2)(b) of the bill to

“include working gundogs and other working dogs as a category of helper dog.”

Although I recognise the policy intention behind that amendment, it is my view that, if Parliament provides ministers with a regulation-making power, ministers should have an element of discretion in exercising it, albeit that the exercise of that power is subject to parliamentary procedure at a future juncture.

I will start by speaking to Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 19. The emotional impact of the theft of a dog should be recognised in law. That is the main purpose of the bill. I also recognise that there are situations in which there will be an operational loss or loss of earnings for a person who owns a working dog.

Although I do not want to jump ahead to the debate on a future group, I point out that amendments 1 to 8, in my name, open up the possibility of the aggravation in section 2 being widened by regulations to include working dogs and, potentially, working gun dogs, although that would be a matter for the Scottish ministers.

Amendment 19 would place a specific type of dog—a working gun dog—at the heart of the section 1 offence. I understand Rachael Hamilton’s policy intention in seeking to ensure that the impact on owners of working gun dogs is fully taken into account in the criminal justice system when such a dog is stolen. However, in my view, singling out working gun dogs over other dogs in section 1 would give a pre-eminence in statute to the theft of those dogs over the theft of other dogs. It would also single out the theft of such dogs for special treatment in sentencing. I am not sure where that would sit alongside the aggravations in section 2, although I note that Ms Hamilton has lodged amendments to that section as well.

The theft of an assistance dog is not singled out in section 1 in the same way that amendment 19 seeks to single out the theft of a working gun dog. The particular issue in relation to working gun dogs did not explicitly come up during the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the bill, and, before changing the law on the issue, I would want there to be consultation on and scrutiny of such matters.

All the amendments that I have lodged have been developed following discussions with the Scottish Government, and I thank the minister for her engagement with that. At the outset, I want to express my appreciation for the support that I have received in developing the amendments that are before the committee today in a very short period.

Amendment 9 was lodged following careful discussion and feedback from the committee’s stage 1 report. I believe that the emotional and welfare impact on the owner and, indeed, on the dog itself should be taken into account when a sentence is handed down. However, the Parliament has recently legislated to provide for victim impact statements in solemn cases. I accept that, if we were to make provision through the bill for such statements in summary cases of dog theft, that would create a precedent that the Government and stakeholders such as the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service might not welcome. Therefore, having tested the issue, I am prepared to accept that there is no appetite to include victim statements in the bill. That is why I have lodged amendment 9 to that effect. Nevertheless, I believe that the emotional impact of a dog being stolen should be taken seriously.

My suite of amendments—amendments 1 to 8—seeks to ensure that the aggravation can be extended by regulations to apply to the theft of dogs that would not ordinarily be considered to be assistance dogs. The amendments would replace the label “assistance dog” with the broader expression “helper dog”. The broader term would enable Scottish ministers to extend the definition of “helper dog” through regulations. In practice, it would allow the Scottish ministers to extend the definition to include, for example, service dogs and other working dogs, should they choose to do so.

The amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

PE1989 and PE2101 both call for increased availability of defibrillators. I will park funding for the moment—that will be my final question—but on the issue of availability, can you provide some information on how defibs are mapped and how access can be improved?

The question of speed versus effectiveness is, I suppose, a bit of a conundrum. An obvious quick way of rolling out defibs would be to, say, put them outside every school, but I think—and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this—that that might mean doubling up in a community. Moreover, a school might not be located in the right area. In Dundee, for example, Grove academy is right in the centre, with lots of houses nearby and having a defib there would be useful. The new Greenfield academy, on the other hand, is right on the outskirts of a community; it might take someone a 10-minute round trip to get there and one would hope that the ambulance would be there by that stage.

When it comes to thinking about a more effective and perhaps longer-term way of rolling out defibs, how would you map that? Where would you look at? What would be the priorities with regard to ensuring the most access, and how might that affect rural communities?

I will follow up on what has been said and bring in Steven Short.

After almost a decade in the Scottish Parliament, I have seen the Scottish Government on many occasions want to create a headline rather than tackle a problem. You can see how appealing it would be for the Government to provide public funding for defibs in every school in Scotland—that sounds great—but I want to press you a little on whether you think that a more sophisticated approach is required. Schools might be part of that, but it might be appropriate for defibs to also be in other public buildings or community areas. If the Scottish Government made public funding available, how should an effective approach be rolled out to prioritise the areas that are most in need of that piece of kit?

My final question is to cover off the matter of funding, although witnesses have touched on that. There are a number of options for Scottish Government funding. It might be a case of taking a bird’s-eye view and targeting the funding directly or it could be done via councils or a community fund. The risk with a community fund is that it is generally the most established community groups that will apply. If it were done through a community fund, the Isle of Eigg would definitely have a defibrillator, if it does not already, because it does a fantastic job of applying for funding. Do you have any thoughts on public sector funding but also any examples that could be spread out, by linking to public funding of excellent third sector work in this area or even to private sector work?

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that it is expected that draft regulations will be laid this year and that an alkaline hydrolysis regulations working group has been established and has begun exploring issues to inform the development of the draft regulations.

I agree with Mr Torrance. However, in the next parliamentary session, it might be helpful for the petitioner to look at the effectiveness of the ban. I note that the petition called for a full or partial ban. I would agree that, in practical terms, the current ban is a partial ban and there are, unfortunately, numerous shops in Scotland where people can still buy disposable vapes.

I agree with the member’s comments. We should close the petition under rule 15.7 of the standing orders on the basis that, given the time constraints and the likely requirement for an exemption under the UK 2020 act, the Scottish Government’s track record with regard to exemptions under that act, and the lack of the delegation of powers and governance in relation to the application of that act in the UK, the timescales mean that the committee could not progress the petition before the end of the parliamentary session. However, in closing the petition, I agree that we should write to the Scottish Government regarding how, from a circular economy point of view, it might look to tackle the issue of disposable barbecues and to ask whether it has engaged, or plans to engage, on that specific issue with the UK Government, including on guidance, as the member highlighted.

The petitioner might want to consider whether it is worth while lodging a new petition in the next session, and, if so, to consider the fact that, were we to ban disposable barbecues, it would be relatively simple to redesign said barbecues to make them reusable. As the member will know, we already have examples, such as hexamine stoves. With regard to tackling wildfires, a ban on disposable barbecues would take us no further forward. There would still be a risk; it is just that the risk would be from a reusable, rather than a disposable, product.