Seòmar agus comataidhean

Those are some fantastic reasons for the need for a consolidation bill to pull all of that together, Mr Wilson. You might consider that for the next parliamentary session. When that was suggested to our clerks at the beginning of the meeting, they almost had nervous breakdowns, but it is maybe something that the Government can take on board.

Minister, it would be helpful to the committee if you could provide a written update on the work of the advisory group and where we are with licensing.

I have a brief supplementary on that. Police Scotland suggested that

“The introduction of a standalone statutory offence of Dog Theft would not enhance accuracy of crime recording as the theft may be committed in commission of another crime”.

Could the bill be amended in some way to ensure that that data is collected? I suppose that that is a question for Jim Wilson.

What would need to be done to publicise the new law, if it were to come into force, to have that deterrent effect? Does there need to be something on that in the legislation? A huge part of Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill was about public awareness raising. Do we need to have that level of public awareness raising of this potential new law, to create the deterrent effect that Maurice Golden seeks?

Good morning, and welcome to the 13th meeting in 2025 of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. Please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent mode.

Our first item of business is to take evidence on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, who is accompanied by a Scottish Government official. I also welcome Maurice Golden to the meeting for this item.

We have 90 minutes for this evidence session. Before we move to questions, I should make the witnesses aware—as they will already be—that they do not need to operate the microphones. That will be done for them.

I draw members’ attention to Maurice Golden’s response to a letter from the committee that asked specific questions on the bill. The Scottish Government highlighted similar points in its memorandum to the bill, so I hope that we can move the issue forward over the course of this morning’s evidence session.

Moving to our questions, I note that Maurice Golden believes that a stand-alone statutory offence would address what are, historically, low levels of cases of and prosecutions for dog theft. The committee has heard conflicting evidence on the ability of the common law offence to adequately take account of the harm caused to the owner—and, to some extent, the dog—following a dog theft. What are your views on the necessity of a specific stand-alone offence in that context?

Thank you. That concludes our questions this morning. Thank you, minister and Mr Wilson. We will now move into private session.

We will try to move to Mark Lodge. He is not on the screen. Indeed, I am told that, unfortunately, we are not able to get him on screen at the moment. I will ask a supplementary question first and hope to come back to Mark to pose the same first question.

The nature targets will cover the whole of Scotland. There are concerns about how they might be viewed in national parks and about whether, in national parks, there will be more effort to ensure a gold standard approach, with everything done by the book, which might mean that the approach is far more stringent within national parks than outwith them. Could you see that happening in the future, whereby, once again, there is a difference between how legislation or its flexibility is applied in national parks and outwith them?

Okay. Do you have any comments about the introduction of the statutory nature targets in your local authority?

However, the list will be in the bill. I mean no disrespect to planners but, following legislation, there is guidance and we know that planners like to reference guidance when recommending approval of an application. Might having a list affect planners’ focus and result in their saying, “It’s not on the list or in the guidance, so we’re minded to refuse the application”? I am worried that the list being in the bill will limit what can be done.

Yes. That is evidence that the park’s aims and objectives are wide-ranging and almost limitless. When it comes to local authorities having a duty to implement a park plan, and with new national parks potentially coming forward, is there a need for legislation to say that the park plans must be drawn up with the local authority on a legal basis? Ultimately, the park plan could set out objectives that have a budget requirement. Whether that objective is for the local authority to build more affordable housing or to create more access or whatever, that has a budget implication. On that basis, given how wide-ranging the park plan could be and that the local authority will have a duty to implement the park plan, does there need to be a far stronger legal basis for national park authorities to work with local authorities, which are ultimately the budget holders for a lot of the plans that might come forward?