Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would it be necessary to update sentencing guidelines to include some of the stated definitions that I have just read out, including that of working dogs?

It seems as though my amendments will not be successful today, given the comments of the minister and Maurice Golden. However, I would say that, without those working dogs, country sports such as shooting, which are worth millions to the economy, would not be possible. Therefore, I do not want the role of working dogs to be devalued.

I know that the minister and Maurice Golden respect the intention behind my amendments, which aim to strengthen and expand the reporting and monitoring duties in the bill.

Amendment 24 provides that each of the reporting requirements under section 4(2)(a) to 4(2)(g) should also be reported on in relation to working gun dogs.

Amendment 25 adds that the ministers’ annual report in section 4 must also include information on the number of dogs that are returned to their owners.

Amendment 29 adds a reporting requirement to include in the annual report the areas where cases of dog theft have taken place. That is important and it is perhaps something that the working group could commit to looking at.

Amendment 27 provides a definition of working gun dog for the purposes of sections 4 and 5.

Amendment 28 allows the definition to be set entirely by regulations, offering flexibility to adapt to future needs.

I have lodged all my amendments in good faith. I know that, when a member brings forward a bill, they must work with the Government and listen to the concerns of the committee and the Government, which means that there must be some compromise and negotiation.

Having listened to Maurice Golden and the minister, I hope that they will take all those amendments in good faith. However, I am not planning to move them.

If you are happy that the Scottish ministers will have the ability to make a further definition by regulation, does that mean that you support amendment 20?

My amendments would establish that the theft of a working dog includes the theft of a working gun dog and that such thefts should be treated as a specific aggravated offence. Amendment 21 would introduce an aggravation for the theft of any working dog, using the definition that is found under section 6 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Amendment 22 would apply the same principles specifically to working gun dogs.

The amendments define working dogs to include those that are used in sheep herding, policing, rescue operations, pest control and lawful shooting. Working gun dogs are defined as dogs that are used in shooting and land management work.

Amendment 20 would work alongside Maurice Golden’s amendments and expand the scope of the aggravation under section 2 of the bill. The amendment would require that any regulations to prescribe categories of helper dogs

“must include working gundogs and other working dogs.”

My amendments would also allow Scottish ministers to expand the definitions later by regulation.

Under the amendments, courts would have to

“state ... that the offence is aggravated”,

record it as such,

“take the aggravation into account”

when sentencing and explain why the sentence is or is not different because of it. As I have explained previously, the amendments would ensure that the law reflects the seriousness of stealing working dogs, which play an important role in rural and agricultural communities.

Maurice Golden has explained, in relation to his amendments 1 to 8, that the issue could be dealt with in guidelines from Scottish ministers. I recognise that, but I do not believe that describing the specific group of dogs as “helper dogs” recognises the full extent of my policy intent.

I will be cheeky and say that I am not sure that it is Maurice Golden’s bill; given the removal of section 5, it might be the minister’s bill. However, I understand that Maurice Golden needs to be flexible and work with the Government in order to get his bill through.

I contest the minister’s comment on the Scottish ministers reviewing a piece of legislation, because it is a normal part of any act that ministers review its operation or impact. I do not accept the minister’s comments. However, to make life easy for the committee, I will not press amendment 29.

Amendment 29, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 30 and 31 not moved.

Amendment 17 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 8 agreed to.

Long Title

Amendment 18 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Long title, as amended, agreed to.

Would the minister be open to considering the impact of the theft of working dogs? We know that there were about 1,800 thefts of dogs in the UK last year, but we do not know how many of those were working dogs. There is also an issue with operational loss through loss of income, training time and all the rest of it. If the court was not aware of those situations, it would be going in blind, so how could it determine the emotional and financial loss?

On the basis of what the minister said, I will not move amendment 20.

Amendment 20 not moved.

Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

After section 2

Amendments 21 and 22 not moved.

Section 3—Victim Statements

Amendment 9 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to.

After section 3

Amendment 23 would require ministers to undertake research into areas where working gun dogs are most at risk of being stolen or unlawfully kept. Within one year following the completion of that research, ministers would have to establish a grant or loan scheme to support owners to improve kennel security in high-risk areas.

As I have indicated, data shows that, in the United Kingdom and Scotland, dog theft remains an issue for working dog owners. Industry analysts estimate that 1,800 thefts are carried out each year—that figure was from 2024. That means that about five thefts happen per day. Often, recovery rates are low. Reports suggest that about 50 per cent of dog thefts each year relate to dogs in the working dog category, with the most commonly stolen gun dogs being cocker spaniels, springer spaniels and Labradors.

Working gun dogs are vulnerable to theft because, as I have already indicated, they have a very high market value and undergo specialist training. If they are in a kennel, they are exposed to theft. A properly trained gun dog might be worth several thousand pounds and could have taken up to two years to train, which means that not only is the theft of the working dog financially rewarding to a criminal, but, as we have talked about, it disrupts land management and shooting days and causes significant emotional trauma.

The proposed kennel grant scheme would support professional gun dog keepers and those who shoot in high-risk areas to upgrade security. It could cover measures such as CCTV, flood lighting and alarmed padlocks. By ensuring that the areas that are most at risk are identified and financial support offered, the amendment aims to reduce the incidence of theft and better protect those animals, particularly in rural areas.

I move amendment 23.

Why is the minister not taking into account the amendments that I have lodged if the advisory group has met only once and she does not have a clear guideline as to its recommendations?

I have no further comments to make, and I will not press the amendment.

Amendment 23, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4—Annual reports by Scottish Ministers