 The final item of business is a member's business debate on motion 274 of 5, in the name of Maurice Golden, on tackling dog theft. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I would ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now. I call on Maurice Golden to open the debate around such a minute, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank members from across the chamber for supporting that motion. Dog theft is a serious and growing problem. Almost 200 dogs are estimated to have been stolen in 2020, and almost 2,500 across the UK as a whole. That works out in nearly seven dogs stolen each and every day, and the problem has got worse during the pandemic. The charity Dog Lost recorded an alarming 170 per cent increase in cases. That should not be entirely unexpected, though. The loneliness that many felt during the long months of lockdown saw an increased demand for dogs as pets. We know that dogs are the most likely animal to be stolen. Figures from the Metropolitan Police show that an astonishing seven out of 10 stolen animals are dogs. With the price of certain breeds having jumped up as much as 89 per cent over lockdown, dog theft can be a very lucrative crime. However, it is important to recognise that the data on dog theft is woefully incomplete. We do not know exactly how many incidents take place, where the theft hotspots are or how certain breeds might be targeted. The existing law treats stealing a dog as any other property theft, so there is no requirement for the police to record that a dog was involved, let alone additional information such as breed type. That brings us to the simple sad fact. The law of the land treats dogs as nothing more than things. As far as the law is concerned, stealing a dog is no different to stealing a mobile phone, a TV or any other inanimate object. However, dogs are not objects, they are part of the family. For many people, their dogs are by far the most important part of their lives. The current law simply does not recognise that treasured and irreplaceable role that they have. That means that justice is very rarely served. The law treats dogs as mere property, and a dog's monetary value will influence sentencing. However, the Kennel Club estimates that many older dogs that are stolen are worth well under £500, and thus potentially attracting lighter punishments. It is unsurprising that there is little evidence of maximum sentences being handed out, but sentencing only matters if there are convictions. Sadly, across the UK, where suspects are identified, 5 per cent of cases see someone charged, and, in total, just 1 per cent of dog thefts lead to prosecutions. That is not justice. Given those problems, it is understandable that the focus until now has been on prevention, and both Police Scotland and animal welfare bodies are working hard to help to educate and support dog owners to avoid thefts. Microchipping helps, too. All dogs over eight weeks must be chipped and registered, but that only goes so far. There are multiple competing microchip databases that make access cumbersome, and records are not always properly updated, so reuniting dogs and owners can be difficult. With dogs and owners lacking proper protection, I am introducing a member's bill to help tackle the growing problem. My bill will create a specific offence of dog theft, basing punishment on the welfare impact to the animal and owner, not just on the dog's monetary value. It will provide data recording so that we can build an accurate picture of dog theft in Scotland and help to prevent future thefts. My bill will also ensure that Scotland is not left behind internationally on animal welfare. France, parts of Australia and New Zealand already have specific offences, and England and Ireland are planning to introduce legislation soon. In addition, the equally poor data situation in England will be addressed with standardised crime recording across police forces, more robust rules for registering ownership, transfer data and, in a very welcome move, creating a single point of access for the multitude of microchip databases. That is a huge step forward that we should be racing to take advantage of here in Scotland. In Scotland, there is strong support for taking action. Welfare groups have come out publicly in support of my bills, such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish Pays CA, the Kennel Club, Blue Cross and the Edinburgh Dog and Cat Home. I am grateful for their support, and for the support that we see today across Parliament. Almost every party backed today's motion on tackling dog theft, and I am happy to sit down with the Greens—although I appreciate that they are not in the chamber today—to find a way for them to offer their support in the future, because this Parliament is at its best when it acts as one. We should be as one when it comes to animal welfare, a cause that I am passionate about. That is why I am determined that Scotland should lead on this, with the specific offence of dog theft that recognises the welfare impact that this crime has on both animal and owner. That improves data recording to help to prevent future thefts, and, hopefully, it allows more stolen dogs to be reunited with their owners. If that famous old phrase that dogs are our best friend is true, we must repay that friendship and give our beloved companions the full protection of the law. I thank Maurice Golden for bringing this debate, which I welcome, and acknowledge that theft of dogs is on the rise, though we know that actual figures for reasons is given are not available, and I will come to that later. Sometimes guilt and heartbreak certainly ensues when you have a much-loved pet stolen. You will not know what has happened to the dog, its future and how it has reacted to being removed from its home. All of that I appreciate. In my day when my family had the companionship and affection of Roostie, our much-loved member of the family, Irish Seter, thanked me when she went missing, she simply wandered off and soon found her usually on the river bank at the bottom of the garden, or she trotted home herself. I know if she had been stolen, we would have been distraught. Even then dog theft was virtually unknown and we are in a different world with the demand for outstripping supply and the high value in money-to-terms put on dogs. That is where I start. We also are much more informed about all animals as sentient beings, although pet owners, we have always known that, certainly of our dogs, their individuality and personalities, they are indeed one of the family. But now to the detail where the devil always lies. I know that Ronnie Dunlop, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, a dog owner himself, while appreciating the motivations behind the bill, the proposal for the member, considers that the offence is already covered by the common-law and theft. Indeed, the well-meaning, a separate offence, presumably with a maximum of five years, reduces the existing available sentencing range. The view from him is that if sentences are not currently suitable, then the independent Scottish Sentencing Council tasked with setting sentencing guidelines and taking into account other issues that the member has raised and consistency across the court has that role. I am not supporting it, I am just raising it. I am just raising these matters. The motion is certainly yes. I thank the member for taking an intervention. Just to clarify on the sentencing guidelines, I will be consulting on the length of term. Through discussing with the dog charities, we think that five years is reasonable and proportionate. In fact, from the evidence that we have looked at, no one is receiving beyond that in the current system, but it is an opportunity to extend it, if so wished. Indeed, because there is a role for the Scottish Sentencing Council. The motion also refers to the impact on owners, which it infers should have an impact on sentences. However, the existing victim impact statements to the best of my knowledge do not usually alter the weight of evidence nor the value of any reports commissioned by the court, nor usually the sentence unless, and it is unusual, they may, in the case of a matter of serious crime, for example, rape. To give an example, a burglary in an empty domestic property may have different impacts on different people, even though the events are identical. The burglar sneaks through an unlocked door, lifts the computer and leaves. One householder is upset but angry at having left the door unlocked. The other now feels totally insecure in their home and violated by someone uninvited being there. It would be difficult to argue that all things being equal, as I have expressed, other than the impact on the householder, the penalty should be different. What is without contention is that date and dog thefts reported, prosecuted, then without comes should be collected. That is an important move forward and should be chamed. Accepting as I do that animals are sentient beings and not things is another complication. Can we really argue that the theft of a dog should be equated to abducting a child? I do not have answers to those questions, but those have to be addressed. Lighter slations, we all know, is tricky stuff, and I have just touched on some of the difficulties, but can I reassure the member? I do support his proposal. I will see his bill as it is laid and hope that it functions properly, but we all know that those issues have to be addressed to make legislation that is sound and functional. It has been a year, almost to the day, since I adopted my dog, Astro. He is a rescue dog from Romania. Yes, I have heard the joke that he has a European passport and I don't many times, but I went almost 40 years in life without him and I now can't imagine my life without him at all. I know that he is watching this debate online for him, so, as we so often say in members' debates, the wildlife photographer Roger Caras once said, Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole. I disagree. I think that dogs are your whole life, and anyone who has a dog will know that. The Dogs Trust and its briefing told us that having a dog improves their wellbeing and reduces stress. They have clearly never met my dog. But right now, in Scotland, if you were to look at the legislative environment that surrounds dog safety and security, I do not think that you would necessarily believe that we are a nation of dog lovers, which is the point of today's debate. The theft of a dog has been relentlessly highlighted by my colleague Morris Golden, not just in weeks and months, but over years now, because it is the same as having your phone or your wallet stolen or your watch. Dog theft is widespread now. There has been a hundred and seventy percent increase over the pandemic, according to some, and that is hardly surprising given the price of some breeds has more than doubled. In fact, when I was looking for a dog, I went through a rescue charity, mostly out of a sense of frustration at the prices being sought by many breeders, but also the unscrupulous nature by which some of them are being sold and bred, because my dog is not a gold watch. Its value is not in its value and its breed. I felt much better giving my money to a charity and rescuing a pup, which otherwise would have been on the street. Can I be a huge credit to the charity Paws to rescue in one of the great charities that do work in the space and publicly thank Ricky Gervais, who is their patron? In the area that I represent, there have been some really high-profile reports of dog thefts and the effect that that has on the victims. At Breeding Farm in Goulson, there was the loss of four puppies. We all read the tragic case of the young couple who had the dog stolen from their garden in Colburni. My heart really goes out to them. I cannot imagine what it would feel like. I once had an episode where he ran out at the front door when I was taking the bins out straight into the front of oncoming traffic, and my heart literally stopped for about eight seconds. You think for that instance, how would I feel if I lost my dog? I cannot imagine what it would feel like knowing that someone has come into your home air garden and taken them away. I do not think that our justice system adequately serves as a deterrent for dog theft, because 5 per cent of dog thefts result in someone being charged, and just 1 per cent lead to prosecution. If that was any other field, we would be an absolute uproar. I should not forget cats, by the way. I have got nothing against cats, so any legislation could look at pets in the round. I think that we should take steps to deter those who steal our furry friends. It is a massive business. In fact, we know that the third most profitable illegal trade after narcotics and weapons are pets. Serious organised criminal gangs and syndicates have given up trading drugs because of the risk involved, and they have switched to legal dog trading. They have gone from cocaine and meth labs to canines and pet labs—that is the sad reality of where we are at. To its credit, the Scottish Government introduced microchipping back in 2016. That was absolutely the right thing to do. Christine Grahame, among others, and other dog and pet lovers have spoken to legislate further in those areas. As have the Dogs Trust, who I pay a huge amount of commendable work to their political asks—see what I did there—are very worthy campaigns, many of which I support and should be looked on favourably. We can do more, we must do more. All we ask of the Government is that, if it is not able to support the dog theft bill specifically, what else can we do to either change changes in guidelines or take into account the emotional effect that a very specific type of theft has on the people that those animals are taking from? I have confidence that all those unanswered questions can be answered. I know that we can do it. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to Maurice Golden for the table and his motion for debate, but also for raising the really important issue of whether we need a new criminal offence for dog theft. As we have heard, pet theft is not currently treated with the seriousness that it deserves in our society. Legally, stealing a dog is pretty much treated the same way as stealing someone's phone, and that simply cannot be right. While we live in a society where, sadly, maybe we are a bit too attached to our phones, they can easily be replaced like for like, but they cannot replace a unique loved family pet, the loss of which can be really devastating for families. At present, the law does not adequately consider the emotional distress caused by the loss of a pet. Pets are companions, they are part of our families and the law should better acknowledge that. As Christine Grahame has highlighted, animals are also sentient beings. We all know that, the science has proved that they experience pain, suffering, joy and comfort, but by equating them to property, we are denying them the right to be considered sentient beings. That is simply not right. Null certainly seems to be the time to reassess the law, so we do not continue to brutally regard pets largely as property. The past few years have been really challenging for everyone during that time. For many people, their pets have provided company and support through periods of isolation and constant worry. More and more people have turned to pets to provide that comfort at times of huge uncertainty. More than ever, we understand that we better appreciate the huge benefits that a pet can bring to a household. Over the half that the people surveyed by Blue Cross said that their first pet taught them unconditional love or the meaning of friendship. Other charities have seen from the fantastic work that they do to re-home pets that they improve owners' mental and physical health, to prevent loneliness and to encourage learning and empathy in children. Let us recognise that and properly value the welfare and safety of our animals. Today's motion focuses on the theft of dogs, and I understand why we have seen a big rise in dog theft during the pandemic, up by around 170 per cent, partly because the price paid for dogs has risen by as much as, I think, Maurice Golden said, 89 per cent. Although, of course, the monetary value of a love pet is what owners care about the least, it is important that we protect under robust animal welfare laws all of our animals. Whatever the monetary value, a point has been made by cat protection. It may be less reported, but cat theft in the UK increased by 194 per cent between 2015 and 2020. That crime will impact on a family just as much as the theft of a dog. We also know that in Scotland, while all dogs over eight weeks must be microchipped, that is not the case for cats, making it much more difficult to return stolen or lost cats to their owners. If we are to strengthen the law on dog theft or even look at strengthening and sentencing guidance to better cover pet theft, which is a point that has been raised. Yes, I certainly will. Christine Grahame One of the horrors that I know the members are aware of about microchipping is that these criminals, in fact, will remove the microchip from the animals that they steal and sometimes dreadful ways. Colin Smyth That is a very important point that Christine Grahame highlights. I think that that is why really taking pet theft seriously is so important because some of these criminals really, frankly, care very little about the animals that they steal and subject to appalling instances like that. We should, in my view, bring all pets under the same protections. All our pets are treated as living treasured animals, not just property, whether they are cats, whether they are dogs. However, the benefits of having a specific offence of pet theft that would offer these protections to all companion animals goes beyond simply recognising the emotional attachment that we have to our pets. There are also very practical benefits of doing so. According to the Kennel Club, 98 per cent of dog theft criminals in the UK are never charged. In more than half of cases, a suspect is never found. A strong identifier of pet theft would allow cases to be better tracked through the criminal justice system. The UK's pet theft task force found that consistent and accurate recording of pet theft would also help to identify cases. The dogs trust have highlighted the fact that that would build a stronger picture of the true scale of the problem. Proper data collection would also contribute to having more consistency when it comes to punishment and proportionate punishments that serve as an effective deterrent. Introducing a criminal offence for pet abduction would be a positive step forward, I believe. It would bring us in line with other parts of the UK and certainly other parts of the world that have already committed to such a move. I look forward to backing such legislation. If Maurice Golden or indeed the Government decides to bring that forward. I now call Kenneth Gibson to be followed by Finlay Carson up to four minutes please. I congratulate Maurice Golden for securing this debate and bringing this important matter to the chamber. I share his concerns about the rapid increase in dog thefts caused by the high demand for dogs during the pandemic and the increase in their value. This is a crime that impacts and upsets nearly 200 affected households across the UK each month, according to the Kennel Club. In Calburni, where I live, two Scottish terrers vanished from their owners' back garden last month, believed to have been snatched. Thankfully, after missing for several days, Archer and Angus were found and returned to their owner. However, it shows us an increasing fear of dog theft and many owners now feel the need to constantly keep an eye on their dog, never leaving them unsupervised. Unsurprisingly, so, given the emotional impacts that owners of stolen dogs can experience, are often profound, with many victims reporting depression, diminished social lives and even on occasion marriage breakdown as a result. More than a decade ago, I was contacted by a distrot constituent living in Whiting Bay Arran after his dog had gone missing. I let to the police fearing his colleague Timmy might never be returned. Astonishingly, the dog was located in Staffordshire, having been lifted by an Israeli tourist, ostensibly looking for some Canadian company whilst touring Britain. How was he found? Through the microchip, which traced Timmy back to his island owner, who was, of course, absolutely delighted, the important precautionary measure and the legal requirement is one that dog owners can take to increase the probability of being reunited with a K9 if the worst should happen. However, doing so gives dog owners peace of mind and ensures that if anyone tries to re-register the dog's chip number, they will be informed it soon after. However, as Maurice Golden pointed out, the system is not perfect. A decade ago, inspired by Timmy's recovery, I organised the first free microchip session in Scotland in Kilburny, where 167 dogs were chipped. I followed that up with other sessions across Culliam North. Soon, microchipping spread throughout much of Scotland. I cannot thank dog's trust enough. It was dog's trust that was not only paid for the microchips, but it also funded the staff to install them. Indeed, over many years, dog's trust campaign remorselessly and successfully introduced compulsory microchipping. I completely agree with Colin Smyth when he said that we should also consider microchipping cats—something that my wife, a Westminster MP, is pursuing, given that she is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cats. Unfortunately, six years after dog microchipping became a legal requirement in Scotland and across Britain, many dog owners still have not chipped their dogs. In fact, an English local authority recently said that just 26 per cent of dogs taken in by council dog warrants last year were microchipped with accurate details. The fact that chipping services had to be paused by the SPCA during the pandemic may have further hindered progress. Given the rise of dog theft and the profound impact that this crime has on affected owners and pets, I welcome Maurice Golden's motion and his proposed bill to create a specific offence of dog theft. I note recent comments that have already been raised in the chamber, made by Roddy Dunlop QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, who stated that there is already a significant deterrent in place in the common law of Scotland and that any court would take the value of the dog to the owner into account when sentencing. That is certainly reassuring, but only up to a point, and we have heard how few cases are actually prosecuted. However, firstly, a separate statutory offence would address the current gap in the available data required to prevent dog thefts and ascertain the true scale of the problem. Secondly, it could act as a deterrent by setting a more realistic maximum sentence, which might actually be used by the courts rather than the current maximum, and theoretical sentence for theft of any kind in Scotland, which is life. Thirdly, for philosophical reasons, a statutory offence would differentiate between the theft of an object and a living animal, and it is quite interesting that members keep referring to mobile phones as if that appears to be their most important possession. That would establish a clear difference in the law between objects and sentient animals, thus recognising the welfare impact on the dog rather than just treating it as a commodity loss for the dog owner. I am alarmed by the recent increase in the incidence of dog thefts across Scotland, and I therefore welcome that a formal consultation on Mr Golden's proposed bill to introduce a specific statutory offence for dog theft will begin next month. I am hopeful that the introduction of a specific offence will not only recognise the emotional impact and trauma that stealing a dog has on owners and pets. It will also act as a strong deterrent to potential offenders, while equally establishing a separate database for dog theft to track the numbers of offences that are being committed. I now call Finlay Carson to be followed by Stephen Kerr and Mr Kerr will be the last speaker in the open debate. Up to four minutes please, Mr Carson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I thank my colleague Maurice Golden for bringing this important debate on tackling dog theft to the chamber. Sadly, hardly a week passes without a story appearing in a national or local newspaper about a family pet being snatched from a garden park or even the street. The impact of this often on individual families is devastating, to say the least, which is why I fully support any moves to make dog theft a specific offence that would hopefully reduce theft cases and crucially provide protection to all companion animals and bring those involved in such cruel acts to face tough and quicker justice. We as a Scottish Parliament must send out a clear and concise message that dog theft is no longer or was ever acceptable, nor will it be tolerated in the future. People must be prepared if prepared to go down this road will be severely punished for their cowardly actions. We know that dogs are traditionally men and women's best friends and I've had a dog all my life and I know the pain of losing a dog through an accident and a theft would be the same. I would have spoken a lot about my current dog, but I would get really emotional because the poor old soul is coming to the end of his life, but it's still very much part of the family. Robert Burns, our national barred, had a beloved collie dog, which he chose to immortalise in the twad dogs, but he may well have also said that the rights of cats merit some attention. Colin Smyth has catnaped much of my contribution, but I make no apology in highlighting the alarming rate in cat thefts. Once again, that worry increase impacts not only on their owners but on the cats as well. A pet theft awareness report carried out by Cat Protection has revealed that cat theft crime has risen by more than 12 per cent on a like-for-like basis in the last year alone, and with a near threefold increase of 194 per cent between 2015 and 2020. Like many of the dogs stolen to order, it is the high-value cat breeds, in particular Bengals, that remain the most targeted cat, with the thieves looking to make financial killing on the black market. I will be consulting on the inclusion of cats and other companion animals, but as Christine Grahame highlighted, my focus is ensuring that the member's bill is sound and functional. Expanding the scope could be more problematic for me when you consider that the Government has a whole civil service to support them. I have me and a researcher in a little office in Brotiferry, nonetheless. Mr Carson? I absolutely take that on board and sympathise for having a small office in Brotiferry, but I absolutely take that on board and my priority would be to support in your bill to protect dogs. I am also told by cat protections that for many cats, in fact, they have been stolen for breeding purposes. There have been a number of instances where cats have been returned home with sideshaved, where there was a scar for neutering that would have been present, and that suggests that thieves are targeting cats directly in order to breed from them. The rise in cats can also be attributed to online marketing cats in kittens, where many owners are increasingly more likely to buy their cat than adopt. More than a third of cats obtained by individual families in the last year bought them, and increasingly the public are going online to find that cat, with 68 per cent purchase through this method last year. Analysis of the trend has also revealed that cat prices across three pet-selling websites, including Gumtree, Preloved and Pets for Home, are rocketed in the last year, with people spending an average of £474 in 2021, compared with the previous year. That has helped to fuel demand and make cat and kitten theft, just like dog theft, far more attractive to thieves looking to profit directly off the sharp rise in prices. Sadly, what is not taken into account, and it should, as far as I am concerned, is the devastating effect that it has on cats and their owners and the families who love them. For many cats and kitten owners, these cute companions and dogs proved to be a godsend during the pandemic, providing important interaction friendship and even direction in love during anxious and troubled times. It should also be mentioned that cats are especially prone to stress, which is triggered by changes in their environment or stressful situation, such as being transported. I share the call from Cat Protection that a specific offence for pet theft, covering all companion animals, including cats and dogs, you have introduced, but I absolutely take on board Maurice Golding's position when it comes to ensuring that the dog theft gets through the legislation. Furthermore, it should include access to appropriate— Mr Carson, could you please start to conclude? I will, thank you. You are about five minutes now. I will thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Finally, I would like to go back to Colin Smith's discussion on microchipping. That is really important for cats as well. I am sure that the issues that I have highlighted do have significance not only around cats but in dogs. When Maurice Golding is successful with this bill, perhaps we could look towards the future with an all-inclusive tackling pet theft debate. Thank you. I now call Stephen Kerr up to four minutes please, Mr Kerr. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to make a short contribution to support my colleague and friend, Maurice Golding, in his attempts to bring forward this particular piece of legislation, the shape of which has currently been defined through the processes that he is taking it through. I really look forward to the fact that Scotland is taking a lead in this area. I think that it is something that we should endeavour to do. The truth be told, Deputy Presiding Officer, we do not have a dog at home and I often wish that we did, because I grew up with dogs. My mum and dad always had a dog. It was always a West Highland terrier. I mean, I am not sure whether having listened to your speech I am not sure whether I would have a particular dog, but each of those West Highland terriers had its own personality, in fact, to be truthful either. A bit of a problematic relation, though, that at least one of them who saw me really as an interloper in the family and the dog saw itself as the true heir. Dogs do see themselves in this context, of course, and members of families treat them as full and equal members of the family. That actually came a point in life from my mum and dad when they decided that they reached an age where they were not going to get another dog. That is when my dad's health began to become an issue. My sister had a bright idea that what dad needed was a dog. He always had a dog, and so he got a rescue dog, Tara. If anyone has ever loved a dog, my dad loves dogs. If anyone has ever loved a dog, they will know that the difference a dog can make to a person. It made a huge difference to my dad and his love of life. This was a dog that had been abused. It was a very nervous dog, but dad's devotion to the dog calmed the poor creature's nerves and nervousness. He walked it several times a day. He pampered it. In return, the dog showed him nothing but devotion. It was the perfect match. The reason why I say all this is because I just want to assert one thing in my speech this afternoon, and that is that a dog is not a thing. That should be accepted, and there should be some statute that reflects that. A dog is a loving companion, a loyal companion. Through walks and eating schedules, diaries are often structured around the needs of a dog, and such a time commitment demonstrates the burgeoning relationship between a dog and its owner. When a dog is stolen, the separation of this loving relationship causes trauma for both sides. For the owner, they are separated from a loving companion who has always been there for them, leaving them with emotions ranging from anger to despair. For the dog, they have been ripped away from their safe home from loving owners. Who can imagine the feelings of insecurity, vulnerability and loneliness that a dog has? For the sake of the welfare of both the owner and the pet, I think that we in the Scottish Parliament can take a lead and treat the issue of dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. Warringly, there is an increasing number of families that are facing this heartbreaking situation. A number of us have referred to in speeches, well-crafted and well-informed speeches, as I might add, about the number of dog theft cases in 2020 compared with the previous year, and that has been gone over quite well. I will not take time to revisit those statistics, but this is not a situation that we should be content to accept in this Parliament. We need to do something about it. We must ensure that owners can remain hopeful of reunion by ensuring that there is some kind of justice. We must ensure that dogs themselves can feel the love and security of their owners and home again. I thank Maurice Golden for raising the profile of this particular crime and highlighting the need for a specific crime in relation to the theft of dogs. I repeat again, dogs are not objects, they are not even just pets, they are loving members of families across Scotland and the law should be updated to acknowledge and recognise this fact. Therefore, I support calls for there to be a specific legislation on dog theft. I now call on Minister Ashwickan to respond to the debate around the sub-minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to begin this evening by thanking Maurice Golden for securing the debate on this important subject this evening. We are a nation of dog lovers and dogs can be irreplaceable members of the family, as many members this evening have shared stories. I will start by saying that I started my day this morning by my dog jumping on to my bed and waking me up by licking my face, which is not my favourite thing, but there we go. Over the past two years, during the pandemic, dogs and other pets—there has been much mention made of cats as well this evening—have provided companionship for many people, and perhaps especially those who were living alone at a time when social contact was limited to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Those with dogs or other pets will find it all too easy to imagine that sense of loss, of anger and of hopelessness that they would feel if their dog were to be stolen. While I absolutely acknowledge that any theft of a dog is a serious matter that can cause real anxiety and upset to its owners, it is important to note, just for context this evening, that it is not a high-volume crime in Scotland. Last year, the Scottish Government contacted Police Scotland to confirm to us that, in its internal records, it was showing that there were 62 cases recorded across the whole of Scotland, so that was 2019-20. That did increase to 88 cases in 2020-21, but that is still a low number when, obviously, in context against the number of dogs in Scotland. However, as other members have noted, that increase has likely been driven by the rise in demand for puppies during lockdown that year. Does the minister accept that the way in which police record dog theft is not consistent across the whole of Scotland, and sometimes it is not even recorded as a dog theft? Therefore, the numbers associated with that do not necessarily correlate with the true picture on the ground? I would agree with the member that there are always ways that we could be looking to improve that data that we have access to, so I would take that point from the member. Police Scotland indicated that, although it does not have statistics as yet for 2021-22, its impression is that levels of dog theft have since fallen away again and returned back to the previous level that we saw. It is estimated that there will be at least 600,000 dogs in Scotland, so the scale of theft is low in that context. Although a traumatic experience is undoubtedly when it occurs to a loved family pet, as members have noted, dogs are, of course, not objects. When they are stolen, that can often cause considerable upset. When a person's pet is lost or stolen, the monetary value of that pet will be the last thing on that person's mind. We have seen posters put up by people who have lost their pet dogs or cats, offering rewards for their return many times higher than the monetary value that that pet might have because of the value to the person that that pet has to them. I am aware that Morse Golden considers the best way for the justice system to address the particular harm that is caused by the theft of pets is to create a specific statutory offence. My understanding is that the member considers that that would recognise that the theft of a dog can have a serious effect on its owner. I agree that it is important that the criminal justice system is able to deal effectively with perpetrators of dog theft. As members will know, and we have discussed this evening, theft is a common law offence in Scotland, and the maximum penalty that can be imposed is limited only by the sentencing powers of the court in which the offender is being sentenced. However, I have heard concerns that where an offender is sentenced for theft, the court will be concerned only with the value of the item that has been stolen. However, I do not think that that is the case. I think that courts are very well used to taking account of the facts and the circumstances of each individual case. When sentencing a person for the theft of a dog or pet, the court would take into account the fact that the offender stole a beloved family pet and the impact that this has had. We will of course consider carefully any bill that is brought forward that proposes a specific offence of dog theft. One of the key questions is whether that would bring greater transparency to how the justice system responds to this kind of offending and provides reassurance to victims that the impact that this crime has had on them has been taken into account when sentencing the perpetrator. I agree. It is not just the level of the sentence. One of the key benefits of specific legislation is the message that it sends to the criminals, is that there is a high tariff associated with this type of crime, without not serving as a deterrent given the rising cases. I have set the context out. I am not sure if it is right to characterise this as a rising case, because, as I have set out, we think that the level has returned to pre-pandemic levels. Education and deterrents in general are very important things that we should all take note of. With any new law, we need a clear evidence base. I am sure that the members would accept what I am saying about that, to show that it will have a real and beneficial impact. As members have indicated this evening, I recognise that a theft of a beloved pet has a particular impact on those from whom the pet has been stolen. That has come out strongly this evening in this debate. The criminal law policy question is whether the creation of a specific criminal offence, meaningfully, adds to the police and to courts powers to tackle dog theft, given the wide-ranging powers that the courts already have to take relevant matters into account when sentencing. Today's debate has been good in raising awareness of the important issue of dog theft. I would like to begin my conclusion on what will hopefully be considered a positive note. Police Scotland has advised that its records show that in around half of all cases where a dog is reported as being stolen, the dog is subsequently reunited with its owner. It is clear that it is much easier to achieve where the dog has been microchipped. That was a theme that came out strongly this evening that microchipping is an effective method to identify animals to help to reunite them with their owners when they are lost or stolen. As members may be aware, it was this Government that made it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped and for contact details to be kept up-to-date. It is standard practice for enforcement agencies to scan all dogs that are coming into their care. That helps to ensure that, when a lost or stolen dog is recovered, it can be swiftly returned to its owners. The Government is happy to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations, to look at what can be done to improve how pet theft is addressed in our criminal justice system and to consider any specific new evidence-based proposals on how the criminal law could be improved in this area.