Chamber and committees

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.

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 agree with Mr Torrance, but I put on the record that NHS 24 staff who use Greenmarket car park in Dundee have been in touch with me to say that they are paying up to £100 per month to park there in the course of their duties. I appreciate that the vast majority of healthcare staff are covered, as has been outlined, but I wanted to put that on the record.

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. 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.

Thanks for that question. I published the consultation document on my final proposal in October 2022, and, as part of that, I had meetings with, among others, the Law Society of Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Faculty of Advocates. In my view, it would not be common practice for individual MSPs to seek specific discussions with the Scottish Sentencing Council prior to any member’s bill—or perhaps on any topic. I would be open to engaging with the Scottish Sentencing Council, should the bill progress beyond stage 1, but I am cognisant of the importance of the council’s independence, and I would seek to respect that in any engagement.

As a Parliament, and as individual members of the Scottish Parliament, we need to be cautious about setting a precedent around MSPs meeting the Sentencing Council, particularly in the run-up to an election, and using that as a campaigning tool. I certainly would not use it in that way, but you could quite easily see that happening. I certainly would not want politicians acting in an ultra vires manner with respect to the legislature and the judiciary.

The bill does not limit what can be published. If there are changes to how the Government wants to report, that is not an issue at all.

I am thinking back to my thesis on crime and criminality in the early 19th century and the way in which we report and record crime. Although the punishments are different, the recording aspects are pretty much set in stone and, I would suggest, are unlikely to change. Those aspects are very high level and include the numbers of cases, charges and convictions; the different procedures used; the length of service; the level of fine; and whether an aggravator applied. Those aspects are key metrics for the bill, but, ultimately, if there are other aspects on which the Government wishes to report, it can do so.

Neil, do you want to come in on that?

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.