���˿���

Yes, I am happy to do so. The key question for committee members and, indeed, parliamentarians is whether a dog is part of the family. If you agree that it is part of the family, that is the reason for the bill that is in front of us, and that is why the policy memorandum alludes to a dog being a sentient, cared for, loved and affectionate animal and pet.

As members will be aware, I started the process to introduce a member’s bill in the Parliament in 2021, at which stage there was no UK pet abduction bill, so I started first. Thereafter, I met Zac Goldsmith, who was the minister in charge of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in the UK. Unfortunately, in my view, that bill did not go ahead. Subsequently, in the run-up to the 2024 election, the UK Government backed Anna Firth’s private member’s bill, the Pet Abduction Bill, which became an act.

The timelines are distinctly different, and both my rationale and my consultation process have been on a different trajectory from those for the legislation in England and Wales. Nonetheless, once the UK Government had, essentially, superseded Scotland, it made sense to use the rationale of the 2024 act in the drafting of the bill here to provide consistency across the United Kingdom.

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.

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.

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 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 have 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.

I would welcome both the UK and Scottish Governments considering an animal welfare bill that encapsulates many of the measures—Scotland actually leads the way on many of the issues. A number of issues could be addressed, but today we are looking at one specific example.

A statutory offence is an effective way of modernising the existing law. There is no specific existing crime of dog theft so, when someone steals a dog, they could be prosecuted under the common law offence of theft. The law therefore treats the theft of a dog in exactly the same way as it treats the theft of any other household item. That is really the crux of the matter. In my view, and in the view of many stakeholders, the law ignores the fact that a dog is often a much-loved member of the family whose loss is mourned by the owner, regardless of the dog’s monetary value.

Mr Eagle points to precedents in this Parliament, such as the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, regarding breach of the peace, and the Protection of Workers (Retail and Age-restricted Goods and Services) (Scotland) Act 2021. The statutory offences in relation to breach of the peace and the protection of workers are being used far more widely than the common-law offences were used. That is ultimately up to prosecutors, but we see that that is the preferred method of prosecuting. However, a critical point is that the bill would continue to allow the common-law offence to be used as well. Those precedents show that my bill has more to offer and that it is in keeping with the Parliament’s views across a number of sessions.

That is why I am certainly willing to look at this issue and the bill as a whole post stage 1. My approach was to present the Parliament with a simple framework in the bill to make sure that the evidence was as strong as possible to proceed and then aim to improve the bill going forward, perhaps in the manner that the member has described.

It is important to note that the minister indicated to the committee that she is content with the provision. That is part of my rationale for setting it out as it is, because I do not want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. There is time to get perfection in stages 2 and 3—if we get there, of course.