Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

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.

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.

I am happy to consider the matter further. I have seen the information in the letter from the DPLR Committee, but the negative procedure certainly seems more proportionate to me.