Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am happy to do so. Ultimately, the amendments would not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs. Amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 would replace the references to “assistance dog” with “helper dog”. Amendments 3 and 4 would slightly reword section 2 to make it clear what a helper dog is—namely, an assistance dog as defined under the Equality Act 2010 and

“a dog of a category prescribed by”

ministers in regulations.

The suite of amendments is about providing an opportunity for flexibility to broaden the definition and allow, perhaps in due course through the work of experts and ultimately with the decision of Scottish ministers, for the broadening of that definition. That speaks to many of Rachael Hamilton’s amendments.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments 11 to 13 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

This suite of amendments has been lodged following discussions with the minister and in response to the committee’s stage 1 report. Concerns were raised at stage 1 about the burden that the reporting requirement would place on bodies, and some considered that an annual reporting requirement would be overly onerous.

I have listened to those concerns, and I am seeking to amend section 4 to provide for a one-off reporting requirement after three years and to allow the level of information that is required to be reported to be reduced to the numbers of cases, prosecutions and convictions. There is nothing preventing the report from including information that was previously set out in section 4, however.

Under section 4(3), the Scottish ministers may add “other information” that they “consider appropriate.” However, ministers are now not required, for example, to report on the number of cases that are prosecuted under common law or the number of cases that are prosecuted under summary or solemn procedure.

I will turn to my individual amendments in the group. Amendment 11 clarifies that the information that the report is to contain is to relate to things that have happened over the course of the three-year reporting period. Amendment 12 amends the information that is required to be reported on. Amendment 13 is a technical amendment to ensure that the bill is clear that the reference to “length of sentence” in section 4(2)(g)(ii) is to a custodial sentence as opposed to, for example, the period of a work requirement imposed under a community payback order. Amendment 14 removes the requirement to report on cases of dog theft prosecuted under the existing common-law offence of theft. Amendment 16 is a consequential amendment and amendment 15 is a minor and technical amendment.

Although I strongly believe that good data collection and reporting to the Parliament are important, I want to balance that with proportionality, allowing bodies such as Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to get on with their jobs. I have listened to concerns that were raised at stage 1.

I was therefore happy to lodge my amendments in this group, which I believe strike an appropriate balance, and I thank the minister and her officials for their constructive engagement in helping me to develop them.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for lodging her amendments 24 to 28. As with her other amendments in relation to working gun dogs, I remain to be persuaded of the need to include them in the bill. I would have no objections to the report that is required under section 4 providing information on working gun dogs. However, I am not sure that specifying that in the bill is necessarily helpful, as it would mean making a separate case for working gun dogs.

I have just spoken about amendments 10 to 16, which would reduce the amount of information that was required to be reported on. I lodged those amendments following discussions with the Scottish Government, in which there was recognition of the need to balance good data collection and reporting mechanisms with proportionality. My fear with amendments 24 to 26 is that they go against that approach and would place overly burdensome duties on bodies in relation to a very specific type of dog.

Amendments 27 and 28 define a working gun dog in two alternative ways. As mentioned earlier, I have a concern about amendment 27 in respect of the way it conflates breeds and training.

More broadly, I am encouraged by the fact that Rachael Hamilton will engage with the minister following stage 2, and I believe that they will be able to reach a consensus that will allow the issues in Ms Hamilton’s amendments to be addressed.

I move amendment 10.

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.

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.

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?