Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am sure that the whole committee congratulates Callum, and I am sure that he will make a very effective presentation when he is there on Friday. Sue Webber said that he is at home this week, which means that he might be watching us just now. If that is the case—congratulations, Callum.

That seems like an admirable suggestion. Do members have any other thoughts or comments?

We can write to the key stakeholder organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—that picks up on Paul Sweeney’s point about the role of swimming lessons as a life-saving measure. With regard to the suggestion about writing to local authorities, it probably makes sense for us to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in the first instance, if that would be acceptable. I would also be interested to find out from Scottish Swimming where it is in the discussion about expanding its programme and what action is proposed. I would like to get an understanding of what public information initiatives are under way in relation to encouraging people to swim for the reasons that Mr Sweeney identified.

As there are no further suggestions, are members content to keep the petition open and to proceed to gather further information on the basis that I have outlined?

Members indicated agreement.

The next new petition is PE1892, which has been lodged by Evelyn Baginski. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a law that would make an attack by one dog on another dog a crime that would be subject to a penalty, whereby the owner would be required to pay a fine and reimburse any expenses that were related to the incident.

In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control. It says:

“A dog is deemed to be dangerously out of control if there is reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person or an assistance dog”.

In addition, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 provides for a civil regime in respect of dog owners who allow their dogs to be out of control.

The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 relates to the offences of causing unnecessary suffering and facilitating animal fighting. In its submission, the Scottish Government states that, depending on the exact circumstances, certain conduct that relates to the behaviour of a dog that attacks another dog may fall within the scope of the offences in that act.

The petitioner states that the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 does not fully legislate for attacks by one dog on another and that it does not consider the financial effect on owners who have lost a dog in that way. To address the issues that are raised in the petition, the petitioner suggests the introduction of financial penalties to provide compensation to dog owners who have lost a dog as a result of an attack by another dog. The petitioner believes that such compensation could cover veterinary fees and funeral expenses.

I invite comments from colleagues. I realise that Mr Kidd, Mr Torrance and I must have been involved in the passing of the 2010 act, but I cannot quite recall the detail of the provisions, the deficiencies in which the petitioner seeks to address.

Do colleagues have comments?

On both the 2006 and 2010 acts?

Thank you. We will keep the petition open and, in the first instance, make further inquiries, as suggested.

As no other member has offered an alternative course of action, do we agree to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, as David Torrance recommended?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner very much, but we will close the petition on the basis of the submission that we have received from the Scottish Government.

Our next meeting will take place on 17 November.

The next petition for consideration is PE1897, on reforming certain procedures for the collection of council tax. The petition, which was lodged by Richard Anderson, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the procedures for the collection of council tax that apply when a person has difficulty in making payment.

The SPICe briefing outlines the process of using summary warrants to enforce council tax debts. It explains that a summary warrant issues information to a judge, who will then grant it without any further investigation of individual circumstances. As a result of a summary warrant, a 10 per cent surcharge is added to the debts listed.

The Scottish Government’s response states that its policy is

“to ensure households that are financially vulnerable do not have to meet a Council Tax liability they are unable to afford”,

and highlights the council tax reduction scheme. It further states that around 500,000 households receive some level of council tax reduction, and of those households, 80 per cent receive a full reduction and are therefore not liable for council tax.

The protected trust deed—PTD—protocol commenced on 1 October 2021 and sets out non-statutory changes to the operational processes for protected trust deeds. The intention of the protocol is to improve transparency and clarity to better enable trustees to manage debtor and creditor expectations in a protected trust deed.

I invite colleagues to comment.

How young you are. It is 31 years not 20 that some of us have been debating the issue—that is, every year since it was introduced.

Are there any other comments?

The next petition for consideration is PE1898, on making entering someone’s home without their permission or without a warrant a crime. The petition, which was lodged by Julia Gow, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it a crime for a stranger to enter your home without permission or a warrant.

In its response, the Government sets out the current offences that relate to entering someone’s home without their permission. The submission confirms that

“While entering someone’s home without their permission is not a crime in and of itself, housebreaking with intent to steal is an aggravated form of the common law offence of theft in Scots law. The essential elements of this crime are that a person (1) overcomes the security of the premises and (2) does so with the intention of stealing.”

A number of other common-law or statutory offences might be used, including the common law offence of malicious mischief, the statutory offence of vandalism and a provision of section 57 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which criminalises

“Any person who, without lawful authority to be there, is found in or on a building or ... premises”

where

“it may reasonably be inferred”

that the person

“intended to commit theft there”.

Additionally, the SPICe briefing highlights section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010, as it sets out an offence of threatening or abusive behaviour, which might cover some situations where a person enters someone’s house without permission.

In her submission, the petitioner questions the “essential elements” of the aggravated form of theft in Scots law, which states that a person must both overcome the “security of the premises” and do so with the intent of stealing. She asks the committee to consider how being subject to either element of the crime can leave a person feeling safe and secure in their own home. The petitioner urges the committee to consider the mental trauma and loss of experiences as a result of having someone enter your home without permission.

Again, I invite members to comment.