Contents
- Attendance
- Decision on Taking Business in Private
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
Continued Petitions
Mountain Hares (Protection) (PE1664)
The second item on the agenda is consideration of continued petitions. The first petition for consideration is PE1664, by Harry Huyton on behalf of OneKind, on greater protection for mountain hares. We last considered the petition in December and agreed to ask the Scottish Government what opportunity there is for members of the public, including the petitioner, to contribute to the development of the new principles of moorland management guidance on sustainable hare management, which is currently being developed.
The Scottish Government responded by stating that the moorland forum is developing the guidance, which is technical in nature and therefore not suitable for public consultation. However, the Government highlights that the petitioner can seek membership of the forum if they wish to do so. The written submission also reiterated a point that was made in previous submissions that an independently led group has been set up to look at the environmental impact of grouse moor management, including mountain hare culls, the findings of which will be reported in spring 2019.
Members may also wish to note that Alison Johnstone MSP recently raised a question during First Minister’s question time in relation to the large-scale culling of mountain hares. In response, the First Minister stated that the Government intends to hold meetings with stakeholders to explore the prevention of mass culls of mountain hares, including legislation and a licensing scheme.
Do members have any comments on what action we should take?
Given Alison Johnstone’s question and the Government’s response, maybe it is realistic to wait for the Government to come to its conclusions on the matter, because it is already doing an investigation.
It would be useful to get a response from the petitioner to what the Government has said. If the petitioner is happy to seek membership of the forum and work through it, that would probably make best sense. We need to know what the petitioner is thinking at this stage.
We have not had a written response from the petitioner, but we can seek one. We can also look for information on the response that has been elicited by Alison Johnstone’s question.
We need an update on what has happened since then. Like most people, I saw the footage that Alison Johnstone referred to, and it was horrible. Given that the question was raised at the end of March, it would be interesting to know what has happened since then.
Is that approach agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Prescription (Scottish Law Commission Report) (PE1672)
The next petition is PE1672, by Hugh Paterson, on the Scottish Law Commission report on prescription. We last considered the petition in December, when we agreed to ask the Scottish Government for its views. The Scottish Government’s response states that there should be no reform on the issue of negative prescription, and highlights that it is
“an essential part of balancing individual interests on one hand and serving the wider public interest on the other.”
As such, the 20-year long stop is considered to create
“legal certainty, finality and fairness.”
In response to that point, the petitioner states that he understands the reason for the 20-year cut-off point, but that there should be something in place to cover title deed holders if discrepancies are discovered after 20 years. He also highlights that title deed holders are unaware of the 20-year cut-off period.
Members will recall that the committee discussed a potential solution, which would involve purchasers being informed immediately at the time of purchasing a property whether a title has been adequately registered. The Scottish Government responded by stating that there is already relevant legislation in place that requires the keeper of the register to notify the applicant,
“so long as it is reasonably practicable”
to do so.
Do members have any comments?
I said when we considered the petition previously that I have concerns about the 20-year cut-off. Although I accept that it is important to have an end point and not leave things in perpetuity, if someone has lived in a house for a long time, it is not just about the situation at the point of transfer; as the petitioner states, changes such as computerisation of deeds can mean that boundaries move through no fault of the landowner.
It is suggested somewhere in the papers that notification could be made one year prior to the cut-off point. I do not know how practical that is, but I remain slightly uncomfortable about the idea that, if someone has lived somewhere for a long time, and changes have been made to do with mapping, they can be left high and dry with a boundary change with no right of recourse, through no fault of their own. Maybe there is an issue about raising awareness that, if someone has lived in a property, it is up to them to check that, but I am left with a slight feeling that there is a missing link. I am not sure that I have an adequate answer as to how we protect people at that end point. I do not know what other members feel.
It is clear that the Government is not going to change the law on the issue, but it is fair to ask whether it would consider an awareness campaign. If enough people were aware of the issue, that would greatly lessen the problem. The issue could just be down to people not being aware. Other than that, we have gone as far as we can with the petition, but it is fair enough to ask the Government whether it will consider an awareness campaign.
I agree with Rona Mackay. There is a strong argument for an awareness scheme about the 20-year cut-off period. Clearly, the Government has no plans to amend the law relating to prescription and limitation, but an awareness scheme would maybe help to improve the situation a little, if not completely.
I am not sure that it would, because the problem with an awareness campaign, unless it is a continuous thing, is that an issue is highlighted for a short period, a few people pick up on it, a lot of money is spent and, in the end, nothing really changes. For most people, if they check today, that will not mean that they will be in a better position in 10 years’ time. To be honest, I am not sure whether an awareness campaign would solve the problem or what the return on that investment would be.
The issue is more about the closure point and whether it would be feasible, at about 18 months before the 20-year cut-off—
Who would do that? How would that be triggered?
I have no idea. As I said, I do not have the answer, but that could be triggered if a registration has sat unchanged for a period of time. Computer systems can flag up something and send an automatic letter; it could be programmed in, I guess, from transfer date.
Whose computer would that be?
It would be the land registration body’s.
It is a council issue.
No—it is land registration. It is nothing to do with councils.
It would be Registers of Scotland.
Everybody recognises that there needs to be a stopping point and that having a stopping point that does not really stop would not work either. I wonder whether it would be worth asking the Scottish Government how it addresses the issue of ensuring that people are aware of their rights or the consequences. Are people made aware of the issue at the point of transaction? Something could happen a long period after that, and people would not even be thinking about the issue. If the Scottish Government will not consider running an awareness campaign, maybe we could ask what else it would consider. It would be reasonable to test those options with the Government.
I suppose that I am asking whether it would be feasible for us to write to Registers of Scotland to ask whether its system could work so that, when a land registration has not been changed and it is coming up to the 20-year cut-off point—say 12 months or 18 months before—a letter could be sent automatically saying, “Your registration has been in place for 18 and a half years and in 18 months you will have no right of redress should there be any errors, so you may wish to check the issue before then.” The letter does not need to have a name; it can be sent just to the owner of the property and then the onus would be on them. It is worth asking whether that is feasible. The number of properties that do not change hands in 20 years is probably relatively small now.
I suggest that we flag up to the Scottish Government the question of an awareness-raising scheme. It may be that it will say that, if people are not paying attention, why would such a scheme trigger anything? It is also worth asking whether it is feasible to have the sort of system that Michelle Ballantyne has outlined. Is that approach agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Child Protection Services (PE1673)
Children’s Hearings (PE1675)
The next petitions, both of which are by James Mackie, are PE1673, on the operation and running of child protection services in Scotland, and PE1675, on attendance at children’s hearings. We last considered the petitions at our meeting on 23 November, when we agreed to join them together for consideration and to seek a response from the Scottish Government on the action called for in them. Members will note that we have received responses from the Scottish Government and a response from the petitioner. We have also received three other submissions on PE1673, from three individuals with an interest in the petition.
Members will recall that PE1673, in particular, sets out issues in relation to a number of elements of child protection and the Government response provides commentary on those points. In addition to addressing the various points of the petition, the Government response also refers to two specific areas of work: the reconvening of the child protection systems review group in April 2018 and the work being undertaken by the independent care review, which is chaired by Fiona Duncan.
The petitioner’s response addresses the points made in the Government’s response, as do the submissions from Maggie Mellon and Gary Clapton. Overall, the view offered by the petitioner and others is that the practical experience of the operation of child protection systems differs from what is envisaged by the regulations and procedures that govern the system.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I said when we considered the petition previously that I did not recognise a lot of the opinion and claims in it, much as I sympathise with the petitioner for having had a bad experience. The Government’s response is comprehensive, and I do not see any justification for keeping the petition open. The review is going on. The children’s hearings system is always under scrutiny, so I cannot see where we can go with the petition. I am in favour of closing the petition.
Bear in mind that we are considering two petitions. Specifically on the petition on attendance at children’s hearings, which is PE1675, there is an important issue about the purpose of children’s hearings and making sure that the young person is at the centre of consideration. It looks as though we have had a reasonable response from the Government on that.
However, some questions have been flung up by PE1673. One point is about what supports we are putting in at an earlier stage instead of responding to a crisis by bringing a child into care. That is a different argument, which is about what is around the hearings system rather than simply the system itself. Might that be worth exploring?
I agree with Rona Mackay. I do not recognise a lot of what we heard but, in raising the issue, the petitioner continues to keep child protection at the forefront. I also agree with you, convener, in that there are some issues around early intervention that still have to be addressed. It would not do any harm to continue to flag that and investigate it.
The problem with the child protection system is that it is very people based, so there can be some really good positive experiences but there can also be some very negative experiences. It is a complicated and difficult process. It is very emotional, and getting it right is extremely difficult. The review that Fiona Duncan is leading on is important. I have already talked to the review about some of the work that is being done and I think that it may well have a big impact on our systems, particularly our child protection system. To an extent, we need to wait and see what comes out of the review.
We cannot dismiss the petitions, because there is a basis for concern, and it is the same concern that lies behind the review. However, we have to let the review take place and let the processes that are already in hand go through and then maybe come back to consider whether that has answered some of the questions.
09:15
The Education and Skills Committee, on which I sit, took evidence from Fiona Duncan along with a couple of care-experienced young people. That was very impressive and thought provoking. It certainly left that committee far from feeling that those people felt that they simply have to go through the process. It was genuine engagement with people in the care system. Equally, that committee has had a watching brief on the hearings system and in fact produced a report on it recently.
We can probably close PE1675, which is on the importance of having the child or young person taking part, as we have an answer on that. A debate is going on about whether we need to rethink the system, because there is a desire to bring children into care, where they have a very bad experience—I am not sure that I agree with that, but that is the argument—and, as a consequence, we do not invest enough in supporting families who might be in crisis. I am not sure whether that is what is happening, but that is the balance of the argument and it might be interesting to get views on that from the key organisations that are involved. The petitioner’s direct experience might have been very poor, or they feel that it was very poor, but I am not sure that we can extrapolate from it that that is the mindset of everybody who is engaged in the system. I am not sure that that is true, but it would be worth asking some of the organisations that are involved.
Because this is quite a complicated area, which spreads into what we are doing on vulnerable two-year-olds and the early years, there is a big conversation to be had about how we support families and how we prevent children from ending up in the hearings system and in care.
That is a massive issue but, in relation to the petition, we would want to look at whether we are inappropriately bringing children into care because there is not enough support or because there is a mindset that says that that is the solution.
We should contact the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the Association of Directors of Social Work and perhaps some of the other organisations that are involved in the field. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Am I right in thinking that we are content to close PE1675, under rule 15.7 of standing orders, as we have the Government’s view on that and we think that there are enough protections in place?
Members indicated agreement.
Cat Population (Management) (PE1674)
The next petition for consideration is PE1674, by Ellie Stirling, on managing the cat population in Scotland. At our first consideration of this petition, we agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Government, animal welfare charities and veterinary bodies. The petition calls for a review of the code of practice under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, to make neutering, microchipping and registration of owned domestic cats compulsory.
In her submission, the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform notes that any change to the code of practice does not change the law. She does, however, indicate that she will ask the non-native species action group to explore this issue, adding that the group liaises closely with representatives of the Scottish wildcat action plan.
In their submissions, the animal charities and veterinary bodies indicate an acknowledgement of the issue raised by the petition but do not consider that microchipping and neutering of cats should be compulsory. To support their position, they cite issues of enforcement, concerns about unintended consequences such as an increase in cats and kittens being abandoned, and a lack of evidence to support the action that the petition calls for. Members will note, however, that all the agencies that responded have indicated a willingness to work together to deliver and promote an effective public awareness campaign on responsible cat ownership.
The petitioner argues that an assertive approach is required in relation to neutering cats and encouraging responsible cat ownership. She suggests some stakeholders that the committee might contact to address this issue from a conservation perspective. She has also highlighted measures that have been implemented elsewhere in Europe and beyond. In particular, she refers to the model that has recently been adopted in Belgium and suggests that it would be helpful to learn from the experience there.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
To be honest, I found this quite a surprising petition—because I did not know about issues with cats—but it was thoughtful. Perhaps we should do as is suggested in our papers and write to the partner organisations of the Scottish wildcat action plan to invite their views. It would be interesting to know whether this is as big a problem as the petition suggests. We should look at the conservation issues and find out what the thinking is. It is suggested that we write to Professor Anna Meredith, and I think that that is probably worth doing. It is also suggested that we seek an update from the Scottish Government on its five-year Scottish wildcat conservation action programme and establish whether it will publish any interim findings. I think that the suggestions that have been made in our papers are good and we should follow through on them.
The Scottish Government clearly does not think that the petition on microchipping and neutering is the way forward. I would be quite interested to explore what the unintended consequences might be, because I cannot quite see what those would be. It is certainly worth exploring further.
Following on from Brian Whittle’s comments, I think that it is worth highlighting a salient point that the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has made:
“A proposal to make cat neutering legally compulsory throughout Scotland in an effort to protect the Scottish Wildcat does not make sense, cats in the central belt and major cities and towns do not pose a threat to Scottish Wildcats.”
There is clearly an issue there, although the SSPCA is clearly confirming its support for vaccination, microchipping and neutering, and highlighting that more public education is certainly required in this area. I agree that we should contact the partner organisations to the Scottish wildlife action plan to seek their views.
I am struck by the fact that this is one of those things where there is not an obvious answer and there is a genuine argument to be made on both sides. Sometimes, if there is a right and a wrong, you can identify it quite quickly. I am not an expert in this by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems to me that we are more prescriptive about what we expect from dog owners than we are about what we expect from cat owners. I do not know whether that is a very controversial thing to say, but do dogs not have to be microchipped?
Yes, they do.
I think that we would like to explore this further. My feeling—and I think that the committee is reflecting this—is that there is something interesting here. It may be that the solution is not what the petitioner has asked for and perhaps the wildcat issue is really not a problem in the central belt, but I think that it would be worth looking at whether there are other issues in the central belt that affect cats. I think that we are agreed on the proposals that have been identified, and the petitioner will have an opportunity to make a further submission once we have heard the response from the folk we are seeking information from.
Members indicated agreement.
Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012 (PE1676)
The next petition for consideration today is PE1676, by Tony Rosser, which calls for a review of the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Act 2012, in particular with regard to the cadastral map and the provision of supporting materials. Following our initial consideration of the petition, the committee wrote to the Scottish Government and Registers of Scotland.
In its submission, the Scottish Government indicates that it has no current plans to review the use of the cadastral map. It states that powers are available to ministers under the act to make an order to change the mapping system, where there is sufficient evidence that there is a better alternative. It indicates that it is not aware of a better alternative. The keeper of the registers of Scotland confirms that Registers of Scotland has “no capacity issues” under the current system but considers that it would be
“impractical and extremely resource intensive”
for it to take its own view on the accuracy of updated information provided by Ordnance Survey.
In response, the petitioner argues that, under the current system, the potential for errors to be made remains, with no opportunity for owners to approve the changes. In response to the views presented by the Scottish Government and Registers of Scotland in relation to costs and resources, the petitioner states that
“significant costs and delays are borne by property owners at present”,
and suggests that those should be borne by the Scottish Government and Registers of Scotland.
In relation to the provision of supporting materials, the Scottish Government notes that the act requires solicitors to take reasonable care to ensure that all information is accurate and up to date but states that this is an operational matter for Registers of Scotland. The keeper of the registers of Scotland indicates that Registers of Scotland does not consider it necessary to ask solicitors to provide supporting materials, such as death certificates, as the solicitors are
“under a professional duty to act in the best interests of their clients”.
The petitioner reiterates his position that provision of supporting materials
“negates the possibility of error and, in extreme cases, could prevent fraud”.
The act will be included in the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee’s work on post-legislative scrutiny.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Given that the act is going to be reviewed by the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, would it not be sensible to just send it to that committee for it to look at as part of its work?
I agree with Michelle Ballantyne.
Agreed.
This is clearly an issue that has concerned the petitioner greatly. If he wants a review of the act, we can refer the petition formally to the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee for it to consider as part of its programme of post-legislative scrutiny. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
We thank the petitioner for presenting the petition to us. He will have the opportunity to follow the considerations of the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee in that regard.
Welfare Cuts (Mitigation) (PE1677)
The next petition is PE1677, by Dr Sarah Glynn, on behalf of the Scottish Unemployed Workers Network, on making more money available to mitigate welfare cuts. We first considered the petition in February, when we agreed to invite the Scottish Government to address three points: to what extent it had considered mitigating welfare cuts as part of its budget consideration; whether it had considered redirecting expenditure to enable more funding to be made available for mitigation; and whether it had considered increasing the Scottish welfare fund and the support that is available to help people access their benefits.
The Scottish Government’s submission is set in the context of the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms, which it says will result in a reduction of approximately £4 billion in welfare spend by 2020-21. It reiterates its
“on-going commitment to continue to mitigate alongside the work on delivery of devolved benefits devolved under the Scotland Act 2016”,
and lists the areas that it has allocated over £100 million to for 2018-19. It also identifies a range of other policies and measures, including the best start grant, carers allowance and others as identified in the clerk’s note.
The petitioners refer to that as “simply a reiteration” of what the Scottish Government has already announced or is already doing. They argue that the Government’s submission does not address their concerns about, among other things, discretionary housing payments, child benefits, a living wage for carers and the Scottish welfare fund.
The Scottish Government states that it considers the Scottish welfare fund to be a “vital lifeline”. The petitioners refer to the UK Government’s recent reversal of its policy on the provision of housing subsidy to 18 to 21 year-olds on universal credit. They suggest that any money that the Scottish Government had set aside within the Scottish welfare fund to budget for support in that area
“can be used for other welfare mitigation”,
and seek confirmation from the Scottish Government that it will keep the money for welfare, and they ask what other help it plans to give.
Members may also be aware that the Social Security Committee is expected to undertake some inquiry work on the Scottish welfare fund from 17 May.
Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
Given that the Social Security Committee is about to undertake some of this work, it seems logical that we feed the petitioners’ thoughts into that inquiry. I would quite like to see the petition referred to the Social Security Committee.
I agree. Given that the Social Security Committee’s work on this is imminent, we should send the petition to that committee directly to help with its deliberations.
I agree with Angus MacDonald and Brian Whittle. It is a good fit for the Social Security Committee. It is quite timely that it is going to be doing an inquiry on this, so we should send the petition to it.
If, as is highlighted, money had been set aside to mitigate the policy of not giving housing support to 18 to 21-year-olds, and that policy has changed, it would be interesting to know whether the Scottish Government will direct that money elsewhere within the welfare budget. We cannot direct what the Social Security Committee looks at, but I think that we would want to flag up that issue, as well as the question of the size of the Scottish welfare fund relative to the many calls on it.
I am sensing from the committee that there are big issues on both sides of the argument about whether the UK Government has taken the right approach and whether the Scottish Government is doing enough to mitigate the impact, but I think that the question of how that budget is spent, and what size it is, is one that the Social Security Committee is looking at.
It will certainly be interesting to ask what the Scottish Government is going to do with that money that was allocated and then not required. It will be quite interesting to find out what it is going to do with that.
We could decide not to refer the petition and get that question answered first, but I suspect that, if the Social Security Committee is doing this work now, it would be helpful to feed in the views of the petitioner, what has been provided to us already, as well as the questions that have been prompted by it, if that is agreed.
Members indicated agreement.
In that case, we will refer the petition to the Social Security Committee for consideration as part of its inquiry into the Scottish welfare fund and as part of its wider work on managing the implementation of the Scotland Act 2016.
09:31 Meeting suspended.09:32 On resuming—
Next
New Petitions