Seòmar agus comataidhean

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

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?

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.