Seòmar agus comataidhean

As someone who started school at four and got accepted to the University of Dundee at 16, I am a big fan of flexibility. However, given the explanations that we have heard and on the basis that, as you have highlighted, local authorities have the flexibility to determine school commencement dates, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders. Parents are key to the matter and have a long-standing legal right to defer the school’s starting date for their child, particularly when they feel that more time in early years and childcare settings would be more appropriate. Finally, meeting the needs of different learners in the single-class cohort is already built into the principles and practices of curriculum design under the curriculum for excellence framework.

Do any of the other witnesses want to come in? I see that Hazel Johnson wants to come in.

Perhaps I can ask Laura Shanks to follow on from Hazel Johnson’s point. There is the initial question of early intervention, but, in addition to that, how consistent is the approach of local authorities to the area more generally?

We often hear that planning departments in local authorities are struggling with staff recruitment and retention. What is the picture with regard to building standards?

I think that we all want to avoid the type of situation that we see today, walking down Princes Street, in which a lot of our heritage has been destroyed because the council of the day wanted progress. The same happened with the royal arch in Dundee, which has sadly been lost.

A specific example, which leads on to my question, is Castleroy house in Broughty Ferry in Dundee. It was built by one of the jute barons in 1867 and had 100 rooms and 365 windows—one for every day of the year. Sadly, after world war two, it was demolished—those involved did not try to recover very much, but if you visit Dundee, you can see the gatehouse, which is still standing and is usefully deployed for housing.

The issue with Castleroy house was that it was allowed to deteriorate. Are there any early interventions that could be deployed in such cases? If there are, who would do that, and how would it work?

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.

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 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.

Perhaps. The benefit of the bill is that it would facilitate the police having a better understanding of this horrendous crime. Whether that is with data or how the police detect the crime in operational terms, it is something that we need to look at.