Seòmar agus comataidhean

We undoubtedly need to think about that. It also chimes with the reason behind the bill. Because a dog is an integral part of the family, some nefarious individuals can unfortunately use that connection and affection in pretty concerning ways. That is why I would certainly be willing to look at ways to improve the bill.

Just.

I do not think that it would have any impact at all. As I have said, I would struggle to configure the circumstances in which a crime of this nature would result in life imprisonment. Nonetheless, the Crown Office could choose to use the common-law offence. It would not be a case of either/or. Both will exist together, so the penalties remain the same.

With the bill, you would have a bespoke law for a particular criminal offence. Where that has occurred previously, the evidence shows that prosecutors tend to favour the bespoke offence rather than the general one.

I looked at the existing aggravators, all of which would apply to the new offence of dog theft, and realised that there was a potential legal gap regarding assistance dogs. Someone who relies on an assistance dog for daily tasks is already in need of additional support to carry out those tasks. I considered that, if someone’s dog were to be stolen and they faced the double whammy of not just losing a much-loved companion but being left unable to carry out vital tasks, it would be appropriate and proportionate to put in such a provision. I met representatives of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association to discuss that point.

I accept that the potential crime is extremely rare, but it is important to do the right thing in the bill. There is a distinguishing factor between dogs and assistance dogs.

Yes, I saw that. I have already highlighted to Mark Ruskell the rationale with regard to assistance dogs, and the same rationale could not be applied to working dogs. I would be interested to consider any recommendations that the committee has in that respect.

I think that there is a distinction to be made here. However, I would also point out that the theft of a working dog would still be an offence under the bill. The sheriff might well take the view that, because the dog was a working dog, a higher penalty should be handed down for the offence. My bill allows for that, but I am not convinced that there should be a formal aggravator in such cases. The owner of the working dog would not, by definition, require the dog to assist them with daily tasks, whereas the owner of an assistance dog would.

I know what you mean.

The reporting requirement is a key part of the bill, and—arguably—of any bill. By requiring ministers to report on an annual basis, I am ensuring that the data on the number of dog thefts is collated and published, and then scrutinised by Parliament. Just yesterday, we saw the benefit of a reporting requirement, as the “Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report 2025” resulted in a statement being given to Parliament.

The reporting requirement in this bill would not require a statement—it would simply require a report. Given the wider movement in Parliament on post-legislative scrutiny, reporting and reviewing requirements are a key part of all legislation, and good practice, too.

On the point about regulations, that is certainly not something that I can do, which is why it is important for me to put that requirement in the bill itself.

As members are aware, estimating the costs for any bill is likely to be challenging, but I do not think that this bill will require the taxpayer to put in a significant amount of money.

The explanatory notes to the UK Pet Abduction Bill state:

“The Department does not consider that the Bill has any implications for public finances beyond minimal expenditure in relation to the making of regulations under the Bill”.

That said, as this bill is a stand-alone piece of legislation, the focus on dog theft and the consequential increase in prosecutions and convictions will have costs attached to them. I am happy to bring in Neil Stewart to explain the methodology around that.

I have a lot of sympathy for the petition. Since we last wrote to the Scottish Government, we have received a detailed response. The petition aims to make changes for responsible dog owners who have the kind of dog that does not require muzzling and can routinely socialise well. According to the Scottish Government, if that dog looks like an XL bully, its exercise and training must be restricted.

I believe that the committee has given an answer to the petition. Ultimately, as the convener has highlighted, it is up to dog owners to attempt to identify whether they have one of the designated types of dog. In many cases, that is very difficult to discern, but I urge members of the public, if they feel that their dog is covered by the legislation, not to immediately place a muzzle on it, but, rather, to sign up to muzzle-specific training, so that the dog can become routinely used to it.

Unfortunately, given all that, I think that we have to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders.

In relation to the attempts to keep facilities open, I presume that the issue is, in large part, lack of funding either from the Scottish Government or councils. If not, that is a flag. We have talked about maximising the assets that we already have, particularly in schools, as a way of not requiring extra funding for a facility, but there could be universities in certain parts of the country that have pools. With regard to maximising assets or income generation, are there any innovative examples of approaches or different practices that might allow facilities to remain open?