Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is a member’s bill—it is your bill—so you will be doing the work to do that. However, I am happy to have conversations with you. As I said, we now have 16 weeks to go. I have several member’s bills and Government bills to get through in the next 16 weeks, so I do not have a team at the moment that could work specifically with you or any member to get their bill through. However, if you lodge amendments yourself, we will definitely consider it.

The reasons are complex. It is not just about poverty; it is also about mental health issues and addiction.

At the moment, we have committed just under £22 million through the equally safe fund in this financial year. That money is fully allocated to support services and so on. We have also funded a secondment to Police Scotland in relation to operation begonia.

That would put the women in more danger.

I do not support that at the moment.

I can confirm that Mr Golden and I have had constructive discussions since stage 1, and I am pleased to say that the Government will support all the amendments that he has lodged at stage 2.

Unfortunately, I cannot support any of the amendments in the name of Rachael Hamilton. Although I understand the sentiment behind amendment 19, it is the wrong approach. Sentencing in criminal cases is for the independent courts and is subject to certain parameters that are set out in law. Amendment 19 would require the court to consider two specific matters when sentencing for the dog theft offence, but only if the dog in question was a working gun dog. No definition of the expression “working gun dog” is included in amendment 19.

The court will already take into account the two matters that are specified in the amendment—operational loss and emotional impact—in its consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances in a case. Specifying those two matters is unnecessary and risks skewing the sentencing process by giving undue prominence to the specified matters.

Absolutely. That is a main part of Mr Golden’s amendments.

Amendment 19 would also risk creating doubt about whether the courts should take account of the two specified matters when the dog that has been stolen is not a working gun dog. That goes back to the definition of a working dog: we want them all to be covered, not just the working gun dogs.

The theft of other types of working dog can also cause operational loss, and, whether the theft of any dog causes operational loss or not, it is likely to have an emotional impact. It would be unhelpful to frame the law in a way that signals that the courts need to consider those matters in sentencing only when the dog that has been stolen is of a particular kind. I therefore urge the committee to reject amendment 19.

I encourage members to support amendment 9, which will remove section 3 from the bill and ensure that the treatment of the dog theft offence is consistent with the treatment of all other offences that are prosecuted under solemn procedure.

As Mr Golden said in his opening remarks, the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025 includes provision to extend victim impact statements to all solemn cases, which will include cases of dog theft that are prosecuted under solemn procedure. That is the right approach.

I urge members to support amendment 9.

I do not think that that is necessary at this stage, but it could be considered.

I will move on, because there are a few points that I want to touch on. As I said, we support extending the aggravated offence to cover categories of dog that might not naturally be called assistance dogs—for example, working dogs, such as farm dogs, gun dogs, service dogs with the police, and support dogs whose owners receive specific forms of support from them that go way beyond the support from just owning a pet. I am pleased that amendments 1 to 8 will adjust the enabling power in section 2 of the bill to ensure that the full range of helper dogs can be added to the aggravated offence in the future.

The Scottish Government established the responsible dog ownership expert advisory group following last year’s dog summit. The group includes key dog welfare stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust and the Scottish SPCA. I have commissioned that group to consider what further types of helper dogs could be added to the aggravation and, crucially, how best to define them. That is with a view to using the enabling power during implementation to add the further categories, so that the aggravation applies to them.

It is important that criminal law is clear. Therefore, definitions matter. That is why I do not support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. Properly identifying different types of dogs in legislation is challenging, and it is right that we listen to the experts in that area.

We do have that—I have a lot of information on that work. I will not go through all the detail, but I am happy to send it to Rachael Hamilton. A lot of work is going on, and the bill is just going through the Parliament now. Last month, there was a meeting with the expert advisory group, which felt that it needed to be involved in the bill. We have commissioned the group to be tasked with producing the definition, if the bill is passed.

As I said, it is important that criminal law is clear. Therefore, definitions matter. That is why we cannot support Rachael Hamilton’s amendments. It is important that we listen to experts in this area.

Amendments 20 to 22 would pre-empt the work of the expert advisory group by providing definitions of certain types of dogs—working dogs and gun dogs—in primary legislation. If such provisions were created in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation, any future change would require an amendment to the initial primary legislation, which would be disproportionate and not a good use of parliamentary time.

In addition, the definition of “working gundog” that is used in amendments 20 and 22 is especially problematic. It begins by talking about breeds but ends with the training and roles of individual dogs. The clear problems with that definition are enough on their own to mean that I cannot support either amendment 20 or amendment 22.

The major issue with amendment 21, which is also relevant to amendment 22, is that it cuts across section 2, as amended by Maurice Golden’s amendments 1 to 8. Creating separate bases for what is in effect the same aggravation risks causing confusion about which of the enabling powers in the legislation can be used to specify the type of dog. That is because of the presumption in law that a more specific rule in legislation will be seen as parliamentary intent, where a general rule in legislation also exists.

In due course, such provisions could lead to confusion among prosecutors about which aggravation to charge. The amended section 2 will create aggravations for the theft of any dogs that would be covered by the sections that amendments 21 and 22 would insert in the bill. It is better for the operation of the law to have one section that deals clearly with the aggravation of the offence. As I have said, criminal law needs to be clear.

I therefore ask members to support Maurice Golden’s amendments and reject those of Rachael Hamilton. I offer to discuss the subject with Ms Hamilton prior to stage 3 if she would like to not move her amendments. We can also discuss it with officials or perhaps even the expert advisory group. I would be happy to enable that.

I could go through my spiel, but I will not do so, given that the member is not going to move the amendments.