Seòmar agus comataidhean

It is up to us to persuade the Government. I am sure that, between us and the member in charge of the bill, we might make progress. I just put that down as a marker. I have no problems with that, because I am retiring next year—I am free.

However, like the committee, I do not support the requirement for a victim statement about the effect of the crime on the victim. Such statements are not mandatory in other theft offences, but the court has the flexibility and discretion to permit a victim statement. I like the word “discretion” in relation to court.

I do not support annual reporting. It is the province of parliamentary committees to make space for post-legislative scrutiny. There has been an argument for a long time that we should have a committee that simply does post-legislative scrutiny.

I support the theft of a dog or puppy being recorded by the police as a specific category of offence. Facts give us power.

Again, I congratulate Mr Golden and wish him well as the bill moves—as I am sure it will—to stage 2, where I might well meet him and some others. It appears that there will be a crowded field.

I support the bill’s general principles. I note other comments that have been made. We need a consolidating bill that takes in all the dog welfare legislation that we have made. There is nothing worse for a lawyer—I am a former lawyer—than having to pick our way through separate little bits of legislation. Let us have a consolidation bill in the next session of Parliament.

It is unfortunate that I did not remark on section 1(2) in my speech. That is a tricky section. As a former divorce lawyer, I assure members that parties would agree on the division of household assets and bank accounts, but the biggest fight would be about the family pet. I agree with many of the things that Elena Whitham said, but I am just putting it into the pot that somebody might use the defence that somebody has been abusive so that they can keep the dog; sometimes, people will try anything to get what they want.

On the point that we are dealing with, which is covered in section 1(2), I ask the member to reflect on what to do when there is a dispute of ownership between those in a cohabiting or a married couple, which is probably one of the most difficult issues to deal with when considering the bill.

I congratulate my colleague on his persistence in bringing forward the bill—I know what it takes.

We have come a long way from when we, as the highest animal species, failed to recognise that animals are sentient beings, although dogs throughout the centuries could attest to the fact that the similarity between the words “dog” and “friend” is by no means an accident.

My late Irish setter, Roostie, was my best comfort when times were tough. She taught my sons much about being respectful to animals and, as she toasted herself by the fire, she let them use her as a pillow. I miss her to this day.

I note that the bill has been introduced in the context of a rise in the levels of dog theft since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, when demand far outstretched supply and there was growing evidence of systematic dog theft through organised crime. I thoroughly agree with dog theft being a stand-alone offence and, indeed, with there being a statutory aggravation if the theft is of an assistance dog, although I would include working dogs in that, and I note that the committee was of the same view.

I met the issue about the definition of working dogs during the passage of the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, but I am certain that that issue is not insurmountable, because we all know a working dog when we see one. I notice that the purpose of the bill is, inter alia,

“to create an offence of dog theft”

and

“to provide for a statutory aggravation of that offence”.

There is nothing to prohibit the inclusion of working dogs in that purpose. I was minded to propose that at stage 2, but I think that other members will do so before I get to the starting gate. I remind members that, if that requires additional evidence, that can be taken at stage 2. It would mean adding a new section, but, as I have said, it would be competent within the purpose of the bill.

We know what a pet dog is, we know what an assistance dog is and we should know what a working dog is. Those are dogs that are bred and trained for a specific purpose and that perform tasks to assist humans in various roles. They possess key traits, such as intelligence, loyalty and alertness. They require consistent training and care to thrive in their roles. They include sheep dogs, sniffer dogs for drugs and explosives, cadaver dogs to detect buried corpses, and dogs that are trained to locate the living. Although they have an added value, for reasons that members will understand, I suspect that stealing a police dog might be a bit of a challenge for a thief.

Unfortunately for Richard Leonard, we have to look at the purpose of the bill. It is about dogs, so I am afraid that he cannot introduce another lot of animals—that would not be competent.

Will the member take an intervention?

Gulls are indeed a nuisance, but there will be gulls only where there is easy food, which is often supplied by our own throwaway waste. No food, no urban gulls—that is it.

Will the minister confirm that, even after gull questions and a gull summit, it was the Tories—who opposed us talking about Gaza—who insisted on taking up more precious parliamentary time talking about gulls? Given that there are folk who will not be able to afford food or heating this winter, will this be the last time that we use our valuable parliamentary time talking about gulls? It is making a mockery of this place.

I know that the minister recently had a meeting on farrowing crates. Would he consider using rural payments to support animal welfare improvements such as transitioning from farrowing crates to free farrowing?

To ask the Scottish Government what provisions are in place to support people in hospitals and care settings who have serious spinal injuries resulting in paralysis from the neck down. (S6O-05006)

My constituent, Graham Wright, suffered a freak accident last year. His spine was paralysed from the neck down. Sadly, he died recently. Although his wife had praise for the three months that he spent in the spinal unit at Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, the planned transfer to Borders general hospital exposed dreadful deficiencies in its ability to look after him, including not even knowing initially how to use a hoist.

Will the cabinet secretary meet my constituent to hear her experience, as it is disturbing that in an area known for rugby, horse-riding and agriculture, where a spinal injury might not be so uncommon, the appropriate training for spinal injuries appears to be lacking in the local hospital?