Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 29 would add a reporting requirement to section 5 to include any concerns about the geographical distribution of dog theft and a consideration of whether a financial scheme should be introduced for kennel upgrades, as was previously outlined in amendment 23 in group 3, which I did not press.

Similarly to previous amendments, amendments 30 and 31 provide a definition of a working gun dog and also allow definitions to be set by regulations.

That is short and sharp, and I will leave it there.

I move amendment 29.

That is generous of the minister. I feel quite positive about that, because something could be brought back at stage 3 not only to recognise the work that the expert advisory group is doing, but to understand the necessity of recognising working dogs in the bill.

Amendment 19 would require courts, when sentencing for the theft of a working gun dog, to consider both the emotional and the operational impact of that theft. The amendment seeks to ensure that the court takes into account the operational loss that is suffered by the lawful owner and the emotional impact of the theft on not only the owner but others who are affected by the loss.

Gun dogs are trained working animals that often have a high financial and operational value, and their theft disrupts land management, shooting days and livelihoods, and it causes acute welfare and owner trauma. That was evident in a case in which dogs were taken from my constituency in the Borders, which got a lot of coverage in the media. Current common-law theft can treat dogs like property. If we had a specific offence, that would recognise the sentient and working status of gun dogs. Amendment 19 seeks to recognise the unique role that working dogs play and the serious consequences that their theft can have.

With regard to my colleague Maurice Golden’s amendment 9, which seeks to remove section 3, I am aware that that reflects the Government’s commitment to expand the range of offences in relation to which victim statements would be permitted. The committee recommended that that issue should be considered in its wider context, rather than in the context of the bill. I therefore add my support for amendment 9, and I hope that the Government’s commitment to expand the range of offences on which victim statements would be permitted will cover dog theft, too.

I move amendment 19.

I appreciate the comments made by Maurice Golden and the minister about my amendments. As I said to the minister, I feel that there is a chink of light in that there could be some solace for those who have experienced the theft of a working dog and more particularly of a gun dog, which we know are a recognised target. They are from specific—and valuable—breeds that can only be working dogs, and, because of the rurality of their accommodation, they can be targets for theft.

I will not press amendment 19, but I will meet the minister to discuss it further.

Amendment 19, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2—Theft of assistance dogs

I have a supplementary question to Pauline McNeill’s question, which is probably for Bronagh Andrew. Should the bill extend criminalisation to those facilitating prostitution rather than just the buyer?

Well, I am interested in the human trafficking element and child sexual exploitation and in what Amanda Jane Quick spoke about in relation to the pimps who are pimping prostitutes in the industry.

Thank you, convener. You are absolutely right to note that the sun bursting through on this September day is relevant to the petition, as I think of driving along the A1 as the urine-filled bottles by the side of the road glint in the sun, along with all the rubbish.

That brings me to the substance of the petitioners’ targeted campaign. In February, when the petition was last before you, I highlighted the tremendous voluntary efforts to clear Scotland’s roadsides. Groups such as the Berwickshire anti-litter group, which is led by Carolyn Phillip and Myra Watson—who are, I am glad to say, here in the gallery today—and many others across the country dedicate their free time to tackling what Keep Scotland Beautiful has rightly described as a litter emergency.

In Berwickshire alone, volunteers are out on the aforementioned A1 and in local lay-bys week after week, simply because they care about the environment and their local community. I joined the Berwickshire anti-litter group in Duns in April and, in just one hour, we filled a bag with litter weighing 7.3kg. That is proof of how much can be collected in just a short space of time. It was rewarding, but the situation is frustrating for the volunteers, because we know that the litter is going to return very quickly. That is why we need systemic action and not just good will.

Since February, the committee has received fresh submissions on the petition. Transport Scotland has recognised that roadside litter is increasing, that clean-ups are futile without behavioural change and that a campaign is needed to discourage people and companies from discarding their waste on our roads. The Scottish Government’s response acknowledges the role of commercial vehicles, and I recognise that section 18 of the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 provides for civil penalties when litter escapes from vehicles, even unintentionally. That is a welcome step, but it must be matched with communication and enforcement.

The petition does not ask for the earth. It calls for a targeted awareness campaign to ensure that companies understand their responsibilities and the penalties that apply.

We know from previous campaigns, such as the “Give your litter a lift” and “Scotland is stunning, let’s keep it that way” campaigns, that well-designed messaging can shift behaviour. However, in recent years, there has been no consistent national campaign focused on roadside litter, despite strong public demand and cross-party support. We cannot keep relying on volunteers such as Myra and Carolyn. The Scottish Government is delaying taking action, and the petitioner is right: we just need definitive action. A targeted roadside litter awareness campaign is overdue, and I urge the committee to support the petition.

I guessed that that was what committee members would say today. I am really grateful for what has been done to gather information on some of the steps that will be taken in light of the circular economy act. However, I am concerned that the national litter and fly tipping strategy delivery group

“recognises that there is an interest in a campaign on litter”

but says that

“it is not currently something that can be achieved within the resources available to delivery partners”.

I put that on the record because it is really important. The Government cannot say that it is going to do something but then not allocate the resource to carry out that commitment.

Thank you for the welcome, convener. I thank Kenneth Moffatt for lodging the petition. He is not able to make it today, but I welcome members of the Wild Goat Conservation Trust.

In March 2023, an investment company called Oxygen Conservation acquired 11,000 acres of Langholm moor to protect and promote carbon sequestration and generate carbon credits. In February this year, the same company culled more than 80 per cent of the herd of ancient wild goats during the breeding season, which prompted widespread concern across the local community.

Not only are the goats ecologically significant, they form part of the cultural and natural heritage of the Scottish Borders. They have roamed freely between Langholm and Newcastleton for centuries, contributing to the biodiversity of the uplands and attracting visitors from across the country.

As committee members will be aware, despite their long-standing presence, wild goats have no legal protection in Scotland. The Scottish Government has stated that it has

“no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats, or feral goats”.

Unlike other species, such as pigeons or parakeets, the goats can be culled during the breeding season with no safeguards for pregnant or nursing animals. Such a lack of statutory protection leaves them vulnerable to actions that can severely impact herd viability.

The recent cull has highlighted the fragility of their status, and more than 13,000 people have signed PE2151, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to grant protected status to primitive goat species in the Borders. Their message is clear—these animals matter and their future must be safeguarded.

Concerns about landscape damage, as highlighted by the convener, or about population control are not supported by the evidence. Goat numbers have remained broadly stable across Scotland, and they are easier to manage than deer. With traditional livestock numbers declining in upland areas, wild goats might even help to fill ecological gaps. Losing the herd would be a loss not only to biodiversity but to the identity of the Langholm and Newcastleton communities.

The Parliament has the opportunity to act now by reviewing the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which, because of their non-native status, excludes goats from protection. We must consider changes that reflect their ecological role and cultural value and extend appropriate safeguards, particularly during the breeding season, to ensure their continued presence in the Scottish Borders. Thank you for listening.

You have not included that in the bill’s cost summary. Is that because it is up to the UK Government to fund it?