Contents
New Petitions
Local Authority Planning Appeals (PE1560)
The next item of business is consideration of three new petitions. The committee will hear from two of the petitioners. The first new petition is PE1560 from John Buston, on local authority planning appeals procedure. Members have a note from the clerk, a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre and a copy of the petition. I welcome the petitioner, John Buston, to the meeting. I understand that you want to say a few words before we move to questions.
I have one or two points that I want to make. Yesterday, I sent some diagrams to the committee—I believe that members have copies. I have set out the basics of the case on the three diagrams. The first flow diagram shows my recommendation. The council complaint procedure should be concluded and the inaccurate report of handling should be corrected right at the start of the process by the planning authority, before it is sent to the ward councillors. Something only becomes a decision by virtue of the fact that the ward councillors do not call it in—in effect, they take a decision before the appeal moves on.
There are two paths that can be taken. On my recommended path, a correct report of handling goes right through the whole system. If members look at the second flow diagram, which represents the current process, they will see that there are two procedures: the review procedure and the complaint procedure. The complaint procedure stops at the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, because the SPSO cedes examination of the facts to the local review body.
The committee can see, on the second diagram, that the report of handling is corrected by the review procedure, which takes place after the decision has been made. When the report of handling, if it is called in, goes before the full council, it is possibly inaccurate—although I would expect the minister to correct it at the next stage.
The third diagram shows what actually happened in the planning application that I identified. It was inaccurate all the way through the process, because the local review body did not review the issue. I picked out one issue to make things simple—there were about 16 or 17—and to use as an example for the whole case that I am making.
I have summarised the situation on the last sheet:
“The LRB are only involved in the planning process by Ward Councillor determination and this involvement may not occur if an accurate ROH were available as a basis for decision. It is therefore inappropriate for them to be involved prior to the ROH being corrected.”
The other thing that I found a bit strange is that the LRB is professionally advised by the planning authority; there are doubts about whether the advice that is received on technical planning issues is sufficiently independent.
On the train coming down here this morning I noticed that members have a briefing paper that looks to be misleading as well, because it misses out the stage at which ward councillors are involved. It is not inaccurate, but it does not show the full picture. I would not expect SPICe to correct things, just as I would not expect the planning authority to correct a report that it has generated. That is the case that I am making.
I had a complaint, which I identified in the report, that was not examined. There must be something wrong with the system if a legitimate complaint is not examined. I am unsure whether it was a procedural or operational failure. I cannot get the answer to that; I cannot get the full picture from the local authority or the SPSO. I have set out the basic facts. If further facts could be obtained, I could comment more on whether the failure was procedural or operational.
Thank you for your presentation, Mr Buston. We will move to questions.
Do you think that this is something that could be dealt with by guidance, as opposed to its requiring a change to primary or subordinate legislation? Could planning guidance from the Government negate the issue?
Yes, it could. The situation would never have arisen if an answer had been provided straight away by the planning authority; I would not be sitting here, having followed the issue through for the last two or three years. To some extent, the way in which the thing was handled was poor. It would be fine if extra guidance were given to ensure that such matters were handled better.
I want to clarify the issue of additional guidance versus legislation. Additional guidance means just that—it is guidance that the planning authority can take note of and apply in the manner that it sees fit.
Part of the issue that you have raised with regard to the SPSO is that the local councillor element is not included. In the local authority that I served in when I was a councillor, the local councillor engagement in cases relating to delegated planning decisions involved the councillor getting a weekly list of planning applications that had been submitted. Further information would be provided only if the councillor requested it. If that information was not requested, or if no request was made for the application to go to a full planning meeting, the application would be addressed by the delegated officer.
There is a need to address the issue that you have raised about local ward members being involved in a decision, and how that might fit into any additional guidance that was given to the local authorities. How do you see that working out?
I would say that the ward councillors have to be involved if they are going to make a meaningful decision about whether to call in a case. They have to consider the facts of the case. I would not expect them to look just at a list before making a decision about whether to call in the report of handling. If that was all that they did, they would not have any idea what the background to the decision was.
As I said, my experience was that the local authority provided basic information to the elected members, and that is still the case—another member in this committee will be aware of the practice in that local authority. You get the planning applicant’s name, the name of the officer dealing with the application, the reference number and a line that says, for example, “Extension to a dwelling house” or tells you that a garage is being added to the grounds. I would say that the majority of those descriptors are simply looked at. Unless one of them rings alarm bells, local elected members do not ask for more information.
Do you think that it is correct that we have delegated authority to officers to deal with planning applications and that they therefore do not have to go through the full planning process?
I would have assumed that, because ward councillors have to make decisions about whether to call in a report of handling, they would want to have a look at the report. The bare bones do not tell you anything beyond the fact that there is, for example, a planning application for a three-bedroom house in a certain spot and that there have been no objections. I think that they have to go a little bit deeper in their capacity as ward councillors.
Just to correct you, I say that ward councillors can only request that the application be heard by the committee; they cannot make decisions on the merits of applications. As we all know from the history of planning applications in Aberdeenshire, localised planning hearings are held there to determine the planning applications, if they go through that process.
I am trying to work out a way in which we could deal with this petition so that we can satisfy you and also bring about changes that might impact on other planning authorities in Scotland.
It is a big decision. I would prefer my case to be heard by the minister, who could take an independent view. Planning advice notes are produced by the minister, but I think that in my case they were disregarded by the local planning authority. I would have got a better hearing on the opinions in my case if it had gone through the full council, which might have accepted it, and then moved up to the minister, because it would have been assessed professionally by people who issue the overall Scottish guidelines.
Your petition calls for the Scottish Government either to eliminate or amend the notice of review period of three months. If we were to eliminate it, might there be concern about the impact of that on other areas, neighbouring properties or new developments?
That would depend on the timing. My experience was that it took three months to get the council to see the case. In fact, the council response came after the application date for a local review meeting and the SPSO response came six months after the issue was raised. I think that the time that was taken was partly because it was a fairly unusual case. If there was a limit of a year or of six months with caveats, that would be fine.
The planning system currently operates independent of local authority complaints procedures. Would you like to see them being linked?
No—I think that there is a case for separation. I am asking for the integrity of the report to be examined by the council complaints procedure. If that were the case, it would go through the local authority, move on to the SPSO, which would give a decision and that would be fed in right at the start. The SPSO would say what it thinks is wrong or misleading and the local authority would then, I hope, amend the report of handling. The application would go back to the start and the planning process would continue with an accurate report of handling. I am not saying that the planning method should change; I am saying that it should start from an accurate base because the system is weak if inaccurate ROHs are getting right through the system.
I take it from your answers that rather than see the process eliminated, you would like to see it amended. You mentioned an extension to between six and 12 months. Is there any area where you think that that might be a wee bit too long and where a four-week extension might be more helpful?
I think that the period could be longer. There could be a caveat that there should have been an application bid through the council complaints procedure, which should allow the council complaints procedure to finish. I understand your concerns about making the extension too long, because there would then be a backlog of business on the hands of the council.
As there are no further questions, what action would the committee like to take on the petition?
We should write to the Government because I think that there is an issue. I find it very complex and technical and we are all keen to avoid a change that would then create more delays. It is about how the processes all work together. That is why I asked whether the issue could be dealt with without legislative change, which would be problematic. We should write to the Government to ask whether it thinks that there is an issue, because there seems to be something amiss and, if so, ask what plans it might care to draw up.
We could also perhaps write to Heads of Planning Scotland to get a better feel for the situation.
I agree with those two recommendations. I suggest that we also write to Planning Aid Scotland and Planning Democracy, because those two organisations have an interest in the planning process, just to get an alternative perspective from those who are out there working and advising in planning.
Does the committee agree with all those recommendations?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Buston for attending. I suspend the meeting to allow the next petitioner to take a seat.
10:24 Meeting suspended.10:26 On resuming—
Animal Welfare (Rabbits) (PE1561)
The next petition is PE1561, by Karen Gray, on behalf of Rabbits Require Rights Scotland, on pet rabbit welfare. Members have the clerk’s note and a Scottish Parliament information centre briefing.
I welcome Karen Gray to the meeting. I invite her to explain what her petition seeks in no more than five minutes, after which we will move to questions.
First, thank you for having me here and for taking the petition seriously. I am not the most confident speaker, so I will try not to rabbit on too much.
I know that people’s views of rabbits are not always great. We have seen a million recipes for rabbit stew; people hunt them; and they are a pest in the wild. However, domestic rabbits exist in large numbers, and the fact that there are no breeding controls has a knock-on effect on welfare standards. The breeders are unlicensed, and no one visits them to see what their set up is like or to ensure that they are providing a proper diet, veterinary treatment and so forth for the rabbits. Overbreeding and crossbreeding cause health problems; there is a lot of disease and there are even genetic defects, with dental issues, for example, becoming a big problem.
Although the European Union is introducing an animal health law that will ensure that breeders and sellers are registered from 2020, it does not mention rabbits. Scotland could set a standard by implementing new legislation or including rabbits in the existing legislation—the Licensing of Animal Dealers (Young Cats and Young Dogs) (Scotland) Regulations 2009—to give them welfare protection. There should also be a ban on pet shop sales similar to the ordinances that protect rabbits in northern USA and Canada. It is not that we want pet rabbits to disappear from pet shops, but the selling of them is out of control.
People view rabbits as cheap, easy, cuddly and child friendly, but they are far from that. They are one of the most difficult pets that I have ever had. They have needs specific to their species. They are neither cheap nor cuddly; in fact, they do not even like being picked up. Of course, they look cute but, to be honest, they are just like little furry monsters wrapped in fluff.
Basically, the pet industry is doing very little to change people’s views of rabbits. Recently, a Kilmarnock pet shop has been using Facebook to advertise rabbits for sale—I have included a picture in my submission—and it is just one of many companies doing so. A lot of companies use Facebook and suchlike to advertise their businesses, but the owner of this pet shop is basically saying on his Facebook page, “Rabbits are great for kids. Kids would love a bunny for Easter.” That is like advertising puppies for Christmas. Why is it still allowed? Such an attitude leads to high levels of neglect.
People do not realise that rabbits are driven by their need to breed; they are constantly breeding, because of the predators out in the wild, and domestic rabbits are no different. Depending on the breed, they can reach sexual maturity from around 16 weeks. In other words, you are taking a highly agile, active animal that is raging with hormones and sticking it in a hutch. People say that rabbits are aggressive, but that is not the case; they are just being denied their natural behaviours. Basically, you are locking them in a prison. They are fearful of the humans that come near them and they get mishandled. Kids are noisy. As I have said, they make a good family pet, but they are not for kids—certainly not on their own.
10:30It is estimated that there are about 1 million rabbits in the United Kingdom. According to the website Pet Business World,
“Rabbits ... have maintained their numbers at one million”.
That figure comes from pet shop sales alone and does not take into account private adverts and online sales. If those are taken into account, we are looking at approximately 1.3 million rabbits.
There are a lot of surrenders, because people misunderstand what they are taking on, and pet rescues are struggling. The issue is not just the financial burden of taking the animals in; they also come with health problems, because they have been fed the wrong diet. They might have muscle wastage, they have not been to the vet or they have dental issues such as abscesses. The waiting lists are excessive. It is hard to find homes for them. Rescues have to ensure that people can provide the correct welfare and give the rabbit a good home; after all, they do not want to send it back to another situation of neglect. All the while, pet shops, online traders and so on are continuing to breed and sell rabbits or even give them away.
Around about last September, Pets at Home began a microchipping scheme; already, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is seeing microchipped rabbits in its care and assumes that they have been chipped at Pets at Home. In America, the House Rabbit Society believes that chipping works well and tackles the welfare issues, although the practice varies from state to state and from city to city. The society would like the practice to be spread out further.
As for the issue of minimum standards, I have a picture of a hutch that I bought not long ago in order to make a point. The company has ignored my complaints; the box was supposed to be 3 feet long but internally it is only 2.7 feet. Because it slopes down, it is 1.4 feet high at one end and 1.1 feet high at the other, and it is only 1.4 feet wide. I put one of my rabbits in it just to get a photo of him; even though he is of average size, he could not sit up properly. Your average-sized rabbit needs at least 2 to 3 feet to fully stretch out and lie down to rest, and 2 to 3 feet again just to stand up fully and stretch its body. Rabbit welfare studies for the a hutch is not enough campaign estimate that about 6 to 7 feet is needed for one rabbit just to take three hops. It is cruel to confine such a highly agile animal.
We need to set standards. The minimum recommendation is a hutch measuring at least 6 feet long, 2 feet wide and 2 feet high that is attached to a run of at least 8 feet so that the animals can come and go as they please and carry out their natural behaviours. They are most active in the mornings and evenings, so it is not just a case of remembering to let them out to give them a wee run around. It is not enough just to give them a couple of hours of exercise.
Hutches can be even smaller than the one that I have described. Even if you buy one that is 4 or 5 feet, it is still not enough. Rabbits get lonely, bored and frustrated; in fact, they have been shown to develop osteoporosis after only six months of being kept in a small cage. Because of their light and fragile bone structure, they can get thinning of the bones, which can break and fracture more easily. Muscle wastage is another issue.
We need to improve welfare and ensure that good products are available, and the same goes for the dietary stuff. There is too much overfeeding on commercial foodstuffs. Rabbits’ mainstay diet should be hay and grasses, but they are eating pellets and commercial food; because those things are soft, they are not wearing down their teeth, which grow unnaturally as a result.
People who go into pet shops see bad standards all the time. For them, such shops are supposed to be the main experts, and when people see the bad examples and products, they think that that is just normal. Basically, we are being sold neglect with regard to rabbits, because not enough knowledge is being passed on to customers. It comes down to the kind of licensing—
Although I appreciate that you might have a lot more to say, I must ask you to come to the final point of your presentation. After that, we will move to questions.
That brings us to the licence laws. The situation really varies between local authority areas. Licensing is based on the Pet Animals Act 1951, which is old and outdated legislation; moreover, the wording of the licences is pretty basic, and there is no actual enforcement. We are talking about a lack of knowledge, inadequate training and financial restraints. We have been complaining about the conditions that we have found, but nobody is really following up on them. For example, a rabbit that I bought at a pet shop—which is not something that I would condone—cost me £1,285 in veterinary fees over the following four months. South Ayrshire Council ignored the complaint, but the fact is that I was sold a sick rabbit, against the terms of the licence.
Thank you very much, Karen—you did really well. I invite questions from members.
You are referring to some form of regulatory regime with regard to sale and possession. Who would be best placed to carry out such a regime, with monitoring and guidance? Would it be the local authority or an animal welfare charity?
When we recently met Mike Flynn and a couple of other people at the SSPCA who oversee the licence conditions in Inverness, they seemed to feel that the system worked well. It is for the SSPCA to decide if it is willing to carry out this work.
I complained to the licensing authorities and the SSPCA about the pet shop where I got my rabbit, and the licensing inspector went in with a vet. However, we do not know what the vet’s background was—and that is another issue. As rabbits are an exotic species, vets might not have up-to-date training on their health problems. If I had left my rabbit with the vet, all they would have seen was a fat rabbit.
The licensing people said that there were no problems with the shop, but this is—I am sorry to say—one of the dirtiest, most horrible and most run-down pet shops. It is just dismal going in there. The licensing authority said that it could not find any problems, and the SSPCA inspector’s hands were tied, so they could not really deal with the matter further.
You obviously have sympathy with and an affinity for the species. I have to say that I know really nothing about rabbits but, like everyone else, I see them.
That said, I am interested in this issue. I suppose that, in so far as I have ever known anybody to have a rabbit, your caricature of the appeal of rabbits and the way in which they are marketed to children has usually been the case: those people have had a rabbit because they have children. We might also include guinea pigs here. I am certainly far less aware of rabbits as pets in houses without children.
You said—or I understood you to say—that, in many respects, rabbits are not suitable pets. For example, they do not like to be picked up and cuddled and are intimidated by the presence of humans. What, then, is the appeal of a rabbit as a pet?
I am fairly new to this. I have to admit that I got my first rabbit on a bit of a whim, and I did not realise what I was taking on. My rabbits are all house rabbits, but that is only because I do not really have space out the back.
Rabbits are funny, active, cheeky and mischievous; I cannot eat a Hobnob without a rabbit hanging off the end of it. They are really affectionate. They will jump up and snuggle into you. However, they are a prey, and as soon as you pick them up off the ground, they are instantly in a state of fear.
Of course, an owner has to handle a rabbit in order to groom it and clip its nails, but it is necessary to get it used to being handled. Kids just want something to mollycoddle. I am not saying that rabbits do not make good family pets, but young children do not know how to handle them. It is different when children are older and more responsible. It is up to the adult to teach their child about the rabbit’s welfare rather than get them a wee cute thing that they can put in a cage and—I am sad to say—terrorise.
Are there pet dealers who handle the sale and care of rabbits more appropriately? Is there a variable lack of awareness or is it universal?
Do not get me wrong—I have come across a good few knowledgeable people in pet shops and so on. Largely speaking, though, I think that the situation is pretty poor. When you try to complain, people get defensive. That is fair enough, but you are simply making a polite complaint. I was told in a pet shop in Troon, “I am not listening to you. That man has money in his pocket—away you go.” He had the rabbits in a tiny wee pen at eye level instead of their being in the big pen on the ground. That is against the rules on stocking density and the licence terms for the space that rabbits are allowed in a cage. I am sorry to say that that is the general attitude.
Your petition seeks the introduction of measures to enhance the welfare of pet rabbits. I am sure that most people would agree that there should be minimum standards. Such standards are achieved for other animals through codes of practice, which apply to animals that are kept as pets and to animals that are used for meat production. Rabbits come under both those categories. How would that affect a code of practice? Should it apply in both circumstances?
I am not saying that there is no place for a code of practice, but initially we need to set minimum welfare standards. Mike Flynn has said that it would be helpful for the SSPCA to have a clear code, so that it knew what checks to make and could enforce improvements that owners were required to make. As things stand, as long as a rabbit has food and water in its hutch, the SSPCA can do very little, unless there is cruelty or neglect. Unless the hutch is really tiny, the SSPCA cannot say that the hutch is too small. If an SSPCA officer sees a hutch that measures 3 or 4 feet, and the owner says that they give the rabbit an hour out every day, their hands are tied.
A code of practice would be helpful for the SSPCA to enable enforcement, but the issue is to get the welfare standards for rabbits up to the same level as those for cats and dogs. Rabbits are the third most popular pet in the UK, but they are the most neglected because they are so freely available, people do not understand them and the products that people can buy are detrimental to their health.
Given that the code of practice could cover pet rabbits and rabbits used for meat production, should there be a differentiation in it?
I believe that there is a code for farmed rabbits but not for domestic ones. It is weird that better welfare standards are in place for farmed rabbits and laboratory rabbits than for domestic rabbits, which have none. Something should certainly be in place.
I have a final question. You said that you have house rabbits. Do they prefer lettuce or a Hobnob?
Unfortunately, the rabbits should not be eating my Hobnobs. They do not get fed lettuce, as it is bad for them. Their diet is about 80 per cent hay, as that is their mainstay, and they also get fresh greens, kale, parsley and watercress. They are better fed than me, that is for sure. However, given half a chance, they will try to pinch my dinner.
Once a pet has been sold to someone, how is the situation monitored and policed? As you have indicated, most of the rabbits that are sold are for children. The pet’s lifetime will be spent with a child.
If that is the case, how do you suggest that the policy would be policed? The child will be the one who is with the pet most of the time, and I am sure that they will be unsupervised on many occasions. How would you protect the animal?
10:45
I would do that by introducing ordinances similar to those in America to stop rabbits being sold as freely in pet shops. In America, selected pet shops—not all of them, obviously—work with rescue centres, which do the checks. People are given a cooling-off period to do research. They are given all the literature and then matched up.
It is a matter of reducing the numbers that are being sold. Rabbits will never disappear and we do not want them to disappear. We want them to be protected and we want people to stop breeding them and selling them like sweeties, which is happening. Most independent rescue centres will work with owners to ensure that they have good welfare in place, have proper housing for the rabbits and understand the rabbits’ diet and veterinary needs.
I do not think that you answered my question, which is: how would we police the situation? The rabbits end up in households and with children most of the time. On many occasions, the children will be unsupervised. How do you propose that that situation would be policed?
I suppose that it would be for the rescue centres to do a home check.
We need to give people guidance. We cannot just throw the responsibility to somebody without advising them of the measures that are available to them. It is not like television licensing—it is not as if we can have a van outside to detect the presence of a rabbit in a house.
Oh no—I did not mean that.
We need to be practical and the question is serious. If a child has a pet rabbit, how do you propose to monitor their treatment of the animal?
It is the adult’s responsibility to teach the kid what good welfare is. We cannot monitor people with cats and dogs, either.
So the situation is similar.
Yes.
You are not looking for anything different from what is already in place, with the exception of the measures on sales.
As I said, reducing sales is about welfare.
However, there is no guarantee that the sales would be reduced. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Do you not think that they would be reduced?
No. How do you propose to reduce them?
By not having rabbits available in every pet shop.
Good morning. You have not asked in your petition for accurate information and advice to be given to potential owners. My daughter always wanted a rabbit, so we went to one of the rescue centres and got a couple of rabbits. The rescue centre told us the history of those rabbits and their medical needs. Therefore, I know the issues. I also know about the inoculation regime that rabbits need, which many owners do not understand.
In the information with your petition, you referred to veterinary advice and making sure that rabbits get regular check-ups. You mentioned that, if they are house rabbits and are not outside, they need their toenails clipped regularly, because they do not have the natural instinct to scratch in the ground.
I was surprised that, as well as not asking for a complete ban on the sale of rabbits in pet shops, you said nothing about ensuring that appropriate advice, information and guidance are given. That would include advice on the health implications of maintaining a rabbit, which are particularly important, and on a rabbit’s potential lifespan.
Many people think that, like cats and dogs, rabbits can last 10, 15 or 20 years. Unfortunately, they have a shorter lifespan than that, and we should try to get that message over. There is an issue with how that message is put across in the sale of a rabbit and with whether appropriate sales are taking place. You mentioned that one pet owner said, “That man’s got money in his pocket—I’m going to sell my rabbit.” How do we stop that?
Within their licence terms, pet shops are supposed to provide people with care advice at the point of sale, whether it is on a sign, in a leaflet or given verbally. Advice is—allegedly—in their licence terms already, but there needs to be more education and awareness, because that is key. For example, Dobbies Garden Centres had a sign that said that rabbits have only a four to five-year lifespan, but rabbits can live up to 12 years and possibly more, depending on the breed. Even existing advice is not consistent. As I said, pet shops should be implementing their licence terms according to what is in the “Model Conditions for Pet Vending Licensing 2013”, which has set requirements or conditions on how rabbits are handled, housed, fed and so on in the pet shop and on giving full and correct care advice.
As members have no further questions, what action do they want to take on the petition?
I think that there is an underlying issue. I was taken by the comment about rabbits being classified as exotic pets. Having been round SSPCA welfare centres, I know that they deal with not only pets such as rabbits, cats and dogs but with chinchillas, salamanders and exotic birds—you name it. We now live in a globalised world in which exotic animals are openly traded and sold.
I do not necessarily know what the solution is, but I think that the petition raises a valid issue and that it is appropriate to ask the Government for its thoughts on pet rabbits and perhaps even the wider issue, although that is not part of the petition. We should certainly also raise the petition with the SSPCA and the Pet Industry Federation.
There is an issue, although I do not know what can be done about it. There is a difference between monitoring the conditions at the point of sale and monitoring how people look after their pets. I presume that the SSPCA can use statutory powers on animal welfare to flag up issues around the sale of pets, given that it seems to have become more commercialised and that it involves not only small firms but big firms.
I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to write to the organisations that you mentioned before we write to the Scottish Government, because we could then give the Government a fuller picture of what the industry is saying.
That is sensible.
Do members agree with the suggestion?
Members indicated agreement.
Thank you, colleagues. I thank Karen Gray very much for attending and giving her presentation.
10:52 Meeting suspended.10:53 On resuming—
Fatalities (Investigations) (PE1567)
The final new petition is PE1567, by Donna O’Halloran, on investigating unascertained deaths, suicides and fatal accidents. Members have a note by the clerk and a SPICe briefing. The petitioner did not want to attend the meeting, so I invite the committee to say what action it wishes to take on the petition. The note by the clerk suggests a course of action and I understand that the petitioner is keen for the petition to be referred to the Justice Committee. What are members’ views?
It would be sensible to refer the petition to the Justice Committee. That committee is considering the Inquiries into Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths etc (Scotland) Bill, so Ms O’Halloran’s petition is opportune. It would be inappropriate for us to do anything other than refer the petition to that committee and ask it to consider the petition as part of its wider discussion of Lord Cullen’s work on the issue, which has been outstanding for some time.
Do members agree to take that approach?
Members indicated agreement.
Next
Continued Petitions