Seòmar agus comataidhean

It might be helpful to set out the context for all that before we actually look at the petition. I want to clarify one point. Tess White said that the consultation was disgraceful, but Douglas Lumsden suggested that the relevant organisations were undertaking pre-application consultation anyway, which would be good practice. Was Mr Lumsden referring to other organisations? If an organisation is undertaking good practice, that would strike me as not being disgraceful—does that make sense?

Okay, sorry.

Quite. With regard to the context for all this, all Scottish Conservatives, in the 2021 manifesto, wanted to showcase Scotland as world leading in tackling climate change, so candidates were very much standing on the agenda of tackling the issue of net zero and being ambitious in doing so.

I appreciate that communities are up in arms regarding the infrastructure. There was a very simple way in which we could have avoided building the infrastructure, and that was by not building the generation at a point where we need to transmit electricity via said infrastructure. That happened under 14 years of UK Conservative Government.

There are ways to unpick that, but it is much more difficult, with regard to the context of the petition, to do it from this point. Nevertheless, there are possible follow-ups with regard to the Scottish Government aspect, which is only a part of the entire project. One would be to ask the Scottish Government what action it will take, now that the consultation on reforming consenting processes in Scotland has closed, specifically with regard to implementing the proposal for a statutory pre-application community engagement process, and what mechanisms it will put in place to strengthen community participation for the life cycle of energy infrastructure projects beyond the pre-application stage.

I agree. Members of the public would think that it is outrageous that people are living in damp or mouldy conditions. It is a sad reflection of things that a petition needed to be lodged for this committee’s consideration. I am loth to close the petition until stage 3 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill is complete and we have seen what provisions acquiesce to the petition’s aims.

I welcome the scrutiny of that particular issue from both the member and the committee, and I have heard the evidence. It is right that we consider the issue carefully to ensure that there are no loopholes. It goes without saying that anyone who uses possession of a dog as a means of coercive control in an abusive relationship deserves the full force of the law.

However, there are two separate issues. The first is coercive control within an abusive relationship, and the second is a situation in which a couple who own a dog together separate in the normal course of life. The former is, and will remain, potentially criminal behaviour. The latter is obviously a sad situation and may include the involvement of the civil courts, but it is not in any way criminal. Therefore, there is an existing law in place that already criminalises coercive control within a relationship or after it breaks down. My bill does not change that.

I recognise that the issue has been raised at stage 1. Should the committee have any concerns, I would be happy to carefully consider its recommendations in the area, should the bill proceed to stage 2.

With regard to victim statements, the bill enables owners and families to tell the court of the trauma that the theft of the dog has caused them, including the potential trauma experienced by the dog. A victim statement is, within the scope of this bill, incredibly important in highlighting to the court the gravitas of such a crime. The bill is a measure for improving the legal system, and it is for others to decide whether that approach should be considered for other offences. I would certainly welcome the Scottish Government looking into that.

Although a case of dog theft might be considered in a low-level court, the impact on the victim is not low level. Having a victim statement is, therefore, incredibly useful. Ultimately, it is for the Scottish Government or other members to look at other crimes and where such provision should be brought in.

I very much hope that it will but, arguably, we will know only after the legislation is operational. I believe that the levels of punishment that the bill sets out are appropriate to fit the crime. When those begin to be imposed, there will undoubtedly be publicity in the media, in particular if prison sentences are handed down, and that will contribute to ensuring that the new offence acts as a deterrent.

Moreover, there is an argument that the penalties that are laid out in the bill, and its profile, will potentially cause criminal groups that might consider stealing and then selling dogs as part of a wider criminal enterprise to at least think twice before doing so.

Ultimately, passing the bill would send a message that Parliament takes dog theft seriously. That message, along with the publicity that will follow, and campaigning and messaging by charities such as the Dogs Trust and others, will result in a greater focus on the issue. Furthermore, the reporting requirements imposed in the bill will mean that there is at least an annual focus on the issue and on the level of prosecutions, which I hope will add to the deterrent effect.

Yes. We need to be careful that we are not comparing apples and pears, with regard to the role that we have as legislators and the role that the Crown Office has in interpreting and applying the law. Both things can be true at the same time in my policy intention and what is in the bill.

The key thing with an aggravated offence, when it comes to sentencing, is that the court must take the aggravator into account, and it is up to the prosecution to prove it. The feedback that the member has highlighted could be applied to any form of aggravator. We have established precedent with regard to aggravators, and, in this case, I think that, in respect of assistance dogs, it is a proportionate approach. It might not need to be deployed very often—never, I hope. Still, I think that those provisions are exactly what I am attempting to get Parliament to approve.

I am happy to consider the matter further. I have seen the information in the letter from the DPLR Committee, but the negative procedure certainly seems more proportionate to me.

Yes, I am happy to do so. The key question for committee members and, indeed, parliamentarians is whether a dog is part of the family. If you agree that it is part of the family, that is the reason for the bill that is in front of us, and that is why the policy memorandum alludes to a dog being a sentient, cared for, loved and affectionate animal and pet.

As members will be aware, I started the process to introduce a member’s bill in the Parliament in 2021, at which stage there was no UK pet abduction bill, so I started first. Thereafter, I met Zac Goldsmith, who was the minister in charge of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill in the UK. Unfortunately, in my view, that bill did not go ahead. Subsequently, in the run-up to the 2024 election, the UK Government backed Anna Firth’s private member’s bill, the Pet Abduction Bill, which became an act.

The timelines are distinctly different, and both my rationale and my consultation process have been on a different trajectory from those for the legislation in England and Wales. Nonetheless, once the UK Government had, essentially, superseded Scotland, it made sense to use the rationale of the 2024 act in the drafting of the bill here to provide consistency across the United Kingdom.