Scottish Parliament, 31 May 2012

366 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S4M-03112, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limit indicated, that time limit being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 4: 1 hour.—[Bruce Crawford.]

Motion agreed to.

European Strategy and Minor Rule Changes

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03052, in the name of Dave Thompson, on the European strategy and other minor rule changes. I call Dave Thompson to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The changes to the standing orders that are proposed by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s report support the operation of the European strategy that has been developed by the European and External Relations Committee. The proposed changes put in place a mechanism for the Parliament to communicate its views to the United Kingdom Parliament on European legislative proposals in areas of devolved interest. That gives the Parliament an opportunity to contribute to UK Parliament consideration of whether a proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. When the UK Parliament considers that a proposal does not comply with that principle, it may, within eight weeks of the proposal being transmitted to it, submit to the European institutions a reasoned opinion setting out why the proposal does not comply. Under the strategy, the Scottish Parliament would be required to transmit its own views to Westminster before that deadline was reached.

To that end, a legislative proposal that has been identified within the Parliament as raising subsidiarity concerns will be referred to and considered by a lead committee. If the proposal falls within the remit of more than one committee, the bureau can designate a lead committee. If the committee agrees that the proposal raises subsidiarity concerns, it will be required to report to the Parliament and a motion to reflect the committee’s conclusion will be lodged by the convener for debate. The rules provide for the bureau to allocate such time for the debate as it considers appropriate. If the motion is agreed to, the opinion of the Parliament will be transmitted to the European committees at Westminster. However, it is recognised that the eight-week deadline for Westminster may mean that there is not sufficient time to complete the full procedure that I have just set out. In such cases, the draft rules allow for the lead committee’s concerns to be notified to the Westminster committees. Similarly, provision is made for notification on behalf of the committee to be provided if the Scottish Parliament is in recess for more than four days.

A rule change to require each subject committee and the Equal Opportunities Committee to appoint a European reporter is also included. A reporter would promote the European Union dimensions to a committee’s work and lead on early engagement on any issues emerging from Europe.

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee intends to review the operation of the rules once relevant committees have had an opportunity to put them into practice. To ensure that the standing orders remain up to date, we are also replacing the now defunct term “European Communities” with “European Union”.

I turn to the minor standing order rule changes. The first change is a proposal to remove the requirement to consider statutory instruments that, although laid before the Parliament, are not subject to any form of parliamentary control. That was a consequence of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 and meant that lead committees had to consider instruments that they would not have had to consider prior to the implementation of the 2010 act. The change that is recommended by the committee removes that requirement while still enabling a subject committee to consider an instrument if it wishes to do so.

The second change is to alter the reporting deadline for the Subordinate Legislation Committee in relation to instruments that have a period of parliamentary consideration that is longer than the usual 40 days. On a previous occasion when an instrument with a longer consideration period had been laid, the Parliament decided to suspend rule 10.3.2 in relation to it. So that the Parliament does not have to suspend standing orders in that way in future, the committee proposes a rule change to require the SLC to report within a longer timeframe, subject to the consideration period that applies to the particular instrument.

The third change to standing orders is to remove the requirement for legislative consent memorandums to be printed when they are first published, given that they will in any case be printed as part of the lead committee’s report. By amending standing orders so that LCMs require only to be published, rather than printed and published, the Parliament will have flexibility in deciding whether it is necessary to print LCMs in addition to publishing them on the Parliament’s website.

Fourthly, rule 1.8.3 requires that members are consulted on the terms of a proposed resolution or determination to be made under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. Recent practical use of the rule highlighted that members essentially have to be consulted twice on the same thing. The proposed amendment will ensure that members will be consulted on the substantive content of any resolution or determination, but will not then have to be consulted again on the specific terms of the motion to agree that resolution or determination.

Finally, there are a number of references in standing orders to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That body was replaced by the United Kingdom Supreme Court under schedule 9 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, so the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee proposes an amendment to update those references.

On behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I move,

That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report 2011 (Session 4), Minor Standing Orders Rule Changes (SP Paper 25) and 1st Report 2012 (Session 4), European Strategy (SP Paper 59), and agrees that changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A of the 1st Report 2011, other than those agreed to by motion S4M-01347, and in the annexe to this motion be made with effect from 20 August 2012.

Aileen McLeod (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

As a member of the European and External Relations Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s motion to amend standing orders in order better to permit the Parliament to protect Scotland’s interests in the legislative procedures of the European Union.

As is well known, the policy reach of EU legislation is extensive, and it continues to extend. Many of the EU’s directives and regulations impact either directly or indirectly on a wide range of policy issues that fall within the competence of this Parliament. It is therefore essential that we, as a Parliament, avail ourselves of every opportunity to scrutinise and, where appropriate, influence EU legislative proposals that affect Scotland’s strategic interests and impact on our legislative authority. The motion seeks to modify our standing orders to achieve that result. The context for the modification is the Parliament’s European strategy, which was agreed to in December 2010 and which sets out a new approach for early engagement and scrutiny of EU policy initiatives and legislative proposals by the Parliament and its committees.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of early engagement and how it can make a real difference. For example, last Friday, the European and External Relations Committee brought together in this Parliament the Scottish Government, the UK Government, the European Commission, the European Parliament and key stakeholders from across Scotland’s university, research and business sectors to discuss Scotland’s response to the Commission’s proposed EU horizon 2020 programme for research and innovation. That afforded us the opportunity to contribute to the on-going debate in Brussels on the future of research funding across Europe. Early engagement by the Parliament is important to ensure that Scotland is able to take full advantage of the opportunities.

The key triggers for reconsidering the way in which the Parliament handles EU business are the new provisions introduced by the 2009 Lisbon treaty that require the European Commission to strengthen the role that the principle of subsidiarity plays in determining the reach of EU law. The strengthened subsidiarity protocol is therefore important as a device to restrict the unnecessary acquisition of legislative competences at the EU level and to stem the flow of unjustified legislation from Brussels.

I have made the point in the chamber before, and I make no apologies for repeating it today, that when the EU legislates in a particular area, it is not the powers of Governments that are reduced but the legislative powers of Parliaments, including this Parliament. For that reason, we must ensure that our parliamentary procedures for handling EU business are revised to allow our views on prospective EU legislation to be properly taken into account first by the Westminster Parliament and then in Brussels by both the Commission and our members of the European Parliament.

Although the motion sets out the formal changes that are needed to allow us to play our part in subsidiarity procedure, I am delighted that many of the wider recommendations that were made in the European and External Relations Committee’s report of 2010 are being taken forward. For example, the establishment of the position of European reporter in each of our parliamentary committees has greatly improved the capacity of each committee to ensure that, collectively, the Parliament is aware of the impact of EU legislative proposals on specific subject areas suitably early.

The amendments to the standing orders will help to strengthen the Parliament’s European engagement. Key negotiations are under way in Brussels on the EU budget, reforms to the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy, state aid, financial services reform, EU structural funds and horizon 2020, and it is vital that the Parliament’s voice is heard in those discussions. That requires a more proactive approach from the Parliament.

Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2, which is SP bill 6A, the marshalled list, which is SP bill 6A-ML, and the groupings, which is SP bill 6A-G.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 31A—References to certain entries in the Register of Inhibitions

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I start by declaring my interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. Amendment 6 and amendment 7, which is also in my name, originate with the Law Society. They do not make any political points but rather seek to address a problem that has arisen because the practice of the keeper of the registers of Scotland is out of step with the established understanding of Scots property law.

As members will be aware, an inhibition is a charge that is registered against a property that means that it cannot be sold without the creditor being repaid. It has always been understood in Scots property law that an inhibition would not be effective if it was registered after the date of completion of missives for the sale. That is because the conclusion of missives is in effect the creation of a contract. The subsequent grant of a disposition of the property by the seller is therefore, in effect, an involuntary act. That understanding of the law is confirmed by Professor George Gretton in his seminal text book, “The Law of Inhibition and Adjudication”.

Unfortunately, some confusion was caused by section 160 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Act 2007, which has led the keeper to have a policy of excluding indemnity in land certificates that have been issued to a purchaser where an inhibition has been registered against the seller after missives have been concluded. That has caused problems for purchasers in that situation and their lenders.

Amendment 6 seeks to clarify that section 160 of the 2007 act does not alter the common-law position. Accordingly, inhibitions registered against the seller after missives are concluded remain ineffective, as the seller is already contractually bound to dispose of the property. That will allow the keeper to change the current policy, which is causing difficulties for purchasers and inaccuracies in the land register.

It is important to stress that no one will lose if amendment 6 is agreed to, as the holders of inhibitions would be in no worse a position than they were previously. However, the purchaser will get a clear land certificate, instead of potentially having to face an application to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to achieve that result, which is the remedy that is currently available. As well as the support of the Law Society of Scotland, the amendment has the support of the Council of Mortgage Lenders in Scotland.

I have pleasure in moving amendment 6.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I, too, am a member of the Law Society of Scotland, albeit as a non-practising solicitor.

Amendment 6 would have the effect of barring the keeper from reflecting in the title sheet, when registering a disposition, an inhibition dated later than the date on which the missives were concluded.

Murdo Fraser said that the amendment is necessary because of the problem created by section 160 of the 2007 act. The issue is whether section 160 replaces the common-law rule that an inhibition strikes only at voluntary dealings with the inhibited land by a debtor. A sale by a debtor under missives that were concluded before an inhibition was registered is not a voluntary dealing and so is not affected by the inhibition. To be fair, I think that Mr Fraser made that point. However, the amendment does not affect or clarify whether such an inhibition is effective against the disposition. It simply instructs the keeper to act in a certain way, regardless of the underlying legal position.

One of the purposes of the bill is to bring registration law into line with property law by, for example, removing the complex structure of bijuralism created by the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. Bijuralism is the term used by the Scottish Law Commission to describe the simultaneous application of two different systems of law: the special rules of registration of title and the ordinary rules of property law. Instead, the bill tries to simplify the position by requiring the land register, where possible, to reflect the property law position. Requiring the keeper to ignore certain inhibitions is undesirable, as it risks reintroducing the confusing principles of bijuralism that the bill seeks to eliminate.

In addition, I do not believe that amendment 6 will help conveyancers or those who use the land register for other purposes. Indeed, it may well hinder the conveyancing process. An inhibition or other entry in the register of inhibitions will be effective, or ineffective, as a matter of law, whether or not the keeper notes its existence on the title sheet. To make that change would go some way towards undermining one of the main purposes of the land register: that of keeping relevant information about the title on the title sheet where necessary. The place to deal with section 160 of the 2007 act is in a bill about diligence, not this bill.

Part 4 of the bill, on advance notices, already provides a practical solution to the issue that Murdo Fraser raises. As a result of section 58B, an advance notice will protect a named deed from, among other things, inhibitions entered in the register of inhibitions during the protected period. An advance notice granted on the conclusion of missives, or a day or two before, will protect the grantee from an inhibition registered before registration of the disposition for 35 days. A further advance notice may be used if the protected period is coming to an end. As such, the grantee of such a disposition will be protected by the advance notice without the uncertainty introduced by amendment 6.

However, I say to Mr Fraser that the Government will continue to monitor the issue. I respect the fact that the Law Society has raised the issue. I have given the technical arguments for why we do not think that amendment 6 is the correct way to deal with it and outlined how we believe that it can be dealt with through another route.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I would like to put the issue beyond doubt. Is the minister confirming that, in the absence of amendment 6 being agreed to, innocent purchasers will continue to be in doubt—even after the conclusion of their missives—about whether and when they can get a clear title?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I think that Annabel Goldie is asking me to speculate on what is in the mind of purchasers. I am not sure how I can answer that question. However, I can say that the law, as I have set out, is fairly clear that an inhibition after the conclusion of missives would not vitiate the transaction, because inhibitions affect only voluntary grants, and therefore an inhibition after the conclusion of missives would not be effective. However, I cannot be expected to know what is in the mind of purchasers.

We will continue to work with the Law Society of Scotland. If it becomes clear that there is a continuing problem and that advance notices have not in practice removed any difficulties in this area, the Scottish Government will, as is appropriate, look for an opportunity to consider making appropriate provision in the law in this area in other legislation. Amending the bill is not the appropriate means of so doing.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot support amendment 6 and ask Mr Fraser to withdraw it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to the minister for his detailed response. He rather argued against himself, because he accepted and, I think, understood the point in law that I made about inhibitions being ineffective after the date of conclusion of missives, but he did not justify why the keeper’s practice does not reflect that understanding of Scots law.

Having said that, I welcome the minister’s assurance that he will work with the Law Society of Scotland to try to find a solution to the problems. In drafting the amendment, the Law Society took academic opinion from Professor Robert Rennie, who I am sure the minister will know is an expert on such matters.

In view of the minister’s assurance that he will try to find a way forward, and given that the amendment does not have the Government’s support, I ask to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 6, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 111—Land register rules

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In speaking to my amendment, I make it clear that I believe that all land ownership in Scotland should be open and transparent. Knowledge of land ownership and beneficial ownership should be in the public domain.

I heard with interest what the Government said about my stage 2 amendments on the issue. The Government did not agree with those amendments because it was concerned about bureaucracy and increased staffing and cost requirements. Rather than amend the bill in the way that I previously proposed, I now seek to amend it in a practical way that I hope would deal with the problems that the lack of transparency causes.

Land in Scotland can be owned by offshore companies or trusts. That in itself does not cause a problem, unless such a landowner acts irresponsibly and refuses to enter into discussion with tenants and crofters. I have dealt with cases in which crofters and tenants wished to develop projects that would lead to jobs and an economic boost in their areas, but such projects fell because permission could not be obtained from landowners.

My amendment 1 would allow the Government to make regulations that would permit tenants and crofters to discover the true identity of landowners. The amendment is narrowly drawn, as not all landowners would be required to provide the information that is referred to.

If a company were publicly floated, it would be impossible to identify every shareholder. However, the names of the organisation’s decision makers would be publicly available and the company would be required to hold an annual general meeting. Those are mechanisms that a tenant could use to make contact. It would be allowable and desirable not to require such companies to give the information mentioned in the amendment.

The beneficial owners that I wish to be identified are those who abuse their position and hide behind offshore companies. The amendment is so narrowly drawn that it does not include all offshore companies and the like; it would cover only those in relation to which someone with an interest, such as a tenant, had applied to the keeper for information.

Amendment 1 is a simple amendment that would solve the problem, although it is a long way short of the amendment that I would have wished to lodge.

I move amendment 1.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I refer to my registered interest as a member of the Faculty of Advocates.

I have the disadvantage of not being a member of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and not having heard the evidence, but I thought that the bill’s primary aim related to registering title and completing the existing land register. It is, of course, about title to land, not who might have a beneficial or financial interest, which is a much wider issue.

Amendment 1 seeks to amend section 111. I accept that the minister directed members to that section at stage 2, which might be considered a bit of an own goal. I am not convinced that we should tag on to that section something that is a great deal more complicated than Rhoda Grant gives it credit for being.

In the case of a publicly owned company, interests would be likely to change frequently. Foreign companies might have diverse ownership structures, which would raise issues of property taxation and company law that are outwith conveyancing practice. I am not sure what evidence the committee has taken on the issues. Any such regulations may have an impact on the market for land, and proper expert evidence in that respect should be considered.

To my knowledge, there are no such requirements for land registration elsewhere in the United Kingdom, although Andy Wightman made certain critical comments to the committee in that regard.

There may also be unspecified costs on and expense for the keeper. I therefore strongly suggest that much more thought and consideration is required before we agree to such regulations being made, and that provision for them ought not to be part and parcel of the bill at this time. I recommend that we reject amendment 1.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The committee took evidence on the issue at stage 1 and considered a number of different options for addressing it at stage 2. Although there is something in what Roderick Campbell says, the recurring theme is that the criticisms of the bill are not so much about what is in it as what is not. The Government has made a policy decision not to address certain wider issues, which is part of the problem that the bill’s critics have with it.

I endorse some of Rhoda Grant’s comments and her amendment, and point out once more that paragraph 219 of the committee’s stage 1 report, which we agreed unanimously, states:

“We consider that the Scottish Government should reflect further on options for ensuring that the land registration system reduces the scope for tax evasion, tax avoidance and the use of tax havens, and that the Government should explain prior to Stage 2 what additional provisions can be included, whether in the Bill or otherwise, to achieve this objective.”

I am not sure that the Government has properly considered those options, and I am concerned that it seems to continue to consider the use of tax havens in particular as unproblematic and as something that it has no responsibility to address. I accept that we cannot control the tax system and define what tax havens are, but we can use other means to create barriers to the exploitation of those immoral loopholes, and I regret that we are not taking the opportunity to do so in the bill.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I support amendment 1 in the name of my colleague Rhoda Grant, and echo the sentiments that Patrick Harvie expressed. There is no point in pretending that the bill has created widespread excitement among the general public, but the issue of beneficial ownership of land and the concerns about greater transparency around who owns land and property in Scotland have engaged slightly wider interest.

It is clear from the committee’s deliberations and findings in its stage 1 report that there was a lot of sympathy among committee members for the need for further measures to promote the accessibility and transparency of the register. I understand why the committee could not accept Andy Wightman’s suggestions at stage 2, but I believe that Rhoda Grant has come up with an alternative and fairly tightly drawn amendment that would provide further information on proprietors, which I hope the Scottish Government is minded to accept.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Amendment 1 aims to reveal the beneficial owners of land, which is a laudable aim if unforeseen consequences are avoided, and if it adds to the effective work of the keeper of the register in carrying out the duties that the bill delivers to him, at an acceptable cost to the country.

Members will be aware of the difficulties in the area of farming payments. The European Union has precluded ministers from revealing the names of individual recipients; only companies can be revealed. There is therefore a problem with revealing who gets such money.

We might want to address that question in another way, and members on all sides of the chamber might wish changes to be made in that regard. That is a fact. However, amendment 1 is more of the heart than the head. The case has not been made for the proposals—indeed, section 111(1) of the bill allows Scottish ministers to make specific land register rules. For example, section 111(1)(e) states that rules can be made

“requiring the Keeper to enter in the title sheet record such information as may be specified in the rules or authorising or requiring the Keeper to enter in that record such rights or obligations as may be so specified”.

Amendment 1 is therefore not necessary. I encourage Rhoda Grant to join us in deciding what the aims of land reform should be, rather than making imperfect amendments to a limited land registration bill that relate to beneficial ownership.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I thank members for their contributions to this debate on an issue that was debated at great length during stage 2.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 1 is similar to amendments that she lodged at stage 2, which the committee rejected. I understand the sentiments behind amendment 1, but it is as unworkable and undesirable as I suggested that her stage 2 amendments were. I will say why that is the case.

The land register is, of course, open and transparent and shows who owns land in Scotland, as does the register of sasines, albeit not in the same modernised, map-based form. The land register is for registering titles. It allows for the creation of real rights in land and publicises key information that allows the conveyancing process to operate. I reminded myself this morning that a body no less august than the United Nations commended the importance of countries having a land register for economic development purposes. Such a register is important so that trade can be conducted and securities over land can be created. I am sure that members will recall that that is stated in the bill’s policy memorandum. The purpose of the land register is not to allow every piece of information relating to an area of land or its owner to be public knowledge. Its primary purpose is to allow trade to be conducted, property rights to be acquired and economic development to be pursued.

I think that amendment 1 is intended to allow certain as yet unspecified extra information to be entered on a title sheet at the request of a third party with no interest at all in the land, but it does not specify in any way whatsoever what that information would be. As Rob Gibson correctly pointed out, section 111(1)(e) already provides for the keeper to require information to be provided on the title sheet.

The result of the amendment would be a disincentive to people buying and selling land in Scotland, and it could add quite considerable costs for people who use the land register. In other words, it would put up the costs of buying or selling property in Scotland. I respectfully submit that that is the very last thing that we would wish to do at a time when it is very difficult for first-time buyers to get into the property market.

During the previous stages of the bill, we debated the importance of the completion of the land register. In a later speech, I will outline the significant progress that we will make towards that end as a result of the bill. I mention that because, if the keeper were required to do all the extra work of an unspecified nature to enter on the title sheet details of the shareholdings of every property owned in Scotland and to keep track of that—I presume that that would be on a daily basis, as shareholdings are transacted on a daily basis—no matter how that was dealt with, there would be an additional burden. That burden would be imposed on the keeper’s staff at a time when the Parliament will, I hope, support the principle that we want the keeper to extend the land register to cover as many properties in Scotland as possible and to focus the resources of their excellent staff on that task rather than on unspecified tasks that would confer very little, if any, real benefit.

I understand and respect members’ sentiments and confirm that we looked carefully at options that were theoretically available to us. However, for the reasons that I have given, I cannot support amendment 1, and I respectfully ask Rhoda Grant to seek to withdraw it.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I wind up with a degree of concern because my amendment has been misrepresented. The minister said that it would lead to higher costs. It would not, because it is narrowly drawn and it leaves many powers to the minister to use in coming forward with subordinate legislation on the practicalities of how the proposal would work.

Unlike the provision in section 111, which the minister says does the same thing, the amendment is not blanket legislation. It would require certain companies to give information at the request of certain interested parties. Those interested parties could be Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, in the case of tax evasion, or they could be tenants, crofters or neighbours. The provision could be so narrowly drawn that there would be perhaps one or two occurrences of its ever being used. It would not create a new bureaucracy or impose additional costs. Indeed, if HMRC made a request, it might save the public purse a huge amount of money.

Another misconception is that there would be a need to list the names and addresses of all shareholders. That would not be the case. When such information was publicly known and available, that type of company could be excluded. The amendment would not lead to huge bureaucracy and it would not be expensive.

Rob Gibson said that amendment 1 was more about heart than head. As I said, if this was about heart I would be taking forward a totally different amendment. This is about head—it is about having a practical solution to a difficult problem that occurs every day. We need to ensure that loopholes are closed and that is what amendment 1 does.

The amendment does not create a bureaucracy, unlike the provision in section 111. The minister argues that that provision does the same thing as amendment 1—I argue that it does not. The amendment says that ministers “must make regulations”; section 111 allows ministers to make regulations at their own behest if they so wish. Section 111 also ensures that every property will be subject to those regulations and that anyone can request the information. The amendment narrows that down to cover only certain types of property ownership and certain types of interested people.

I press amendment 1.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

These minor and technical amendments are all related to commencement. Amendments 2 and 5 form a pair and seek to split the commencement of section 110’s subsections (1) and (2). Currently, all of section 110 will come into force on the day after royal assent. That is usual practice for definitions of the type that is contained in section 110(1), and amendment 2 seeks to ensure that that subsection can be commenced on that day.

However, as section 110(2) is not merely a definition, but a gloss for construing references to “registering” elsewhere on the statute book, it might have an effect if commenced on the day after royal assent. Accordingly, amendment 5 seeks to ensures that section 110(2) comes into force on the designated day along with the bill’s other main provisions, in particular sections 30 and 31 on registration.

Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that certain delegated powers in the bill can be commenced by order so as to be exercised before the bill’s main provisions come into force on the designated day. It is important that ministers have that ability to ensure that the necessary implementation work can be undertaken ahead of the main parts of the bill coming into force.

I move amendment 2.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendments 3 to 5 moved—[Fergus Ewing]—and agreed to.

Schedule 5—Minor and consequential modifications

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Amendment 7 is another that has originated with the Law Society of Scotland and, like amendment 6, it seeks to clarify the law to deal with a situation in which the keeper’s policy causes purchasers undue problems. It seeks to provide clarification that section 26 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 will operate to remove from the title sheet any remaining prior ranking or pari passu securities following a sale of repossession, even if the calling-up procedure did not comply with the interpretation of the statutory requirements in the Supreme Court decision on RBS v Wilson.

In Scots property law, the established position has always been that where a standard security is called up and the property is repossessed, then subsequently sold by the first security holder, subsequent or pari passu securities are treated as having been automatically discharged.

However, the keeper’s current policy when processing applications for registration of a dealing that is affected by the decision in RBS v Wilson is not to remove from the relevant title sheet any additional securities on the property that rank as pari passu with, or postponed to, the security that has been called up, unless they have been formally discharged.

It is also the keeper’s policy to expressly exclude indemnity in respect of loss arising from rectification to delete such securities, or from the subjects being found not have been disburdened of them under section 26 of the 1970 act.

The consequence of that policy is that land and charge certificates that are issued to the purchasers in such circumstances indicate that the title is still subject to pari passu or postponed securities granted by the previous owner, and that such securities rank ahead of any new security that is granted by the purchaser, for example for a mortgage. That situation causes serious difficulty to purchasers, lenders and solicitors.

There is academic opinion that states that the keeper’s policy is incorrect, but if amendment 7 were to be agreed to, it would put the matter beyond doubt and would allow the keeper to change policy to ensure that the purchasers of repossessed properties are not put at a disadvantage.

Amendment 7 has the support not only of the Law Society of Scotland but of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which is keen that the issue be resolved. I also record that if a property that has been repossessed is sold, any excess sum that is left over once the first security holder has been paid will be accounted for by the second, or subsequent, security holder. As a result of that, no individual or institution would suffer any loss.

Amendment 7 will represent a real benefit to many purchasers who are caught in this unfortunate situation as a result of the RBS v Wilson judgment, which suggests that the keeper’s practice is unfortunately out of step with general understanding of Scotland’s property law.

I have pleasure in moving amendment 7.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I fully understand the difficulty that has arisen for conveyancers, lenders and home owners as a result of the clarification of the procedures in relation to power of sale by the Supreme Court in the case of RBS v Wilson.

However, I cannot see quite how amendment 7 would help to resolve the mischief that is at the root of the issue. Conveyancers and lenders are now fully aware of the decision in RBS v Wilson and have, I understand, amended their procedures accordingly; practitioners are to be praised for their swift action. As a result, amendment 7 is unnecessary because proper procedures are now clear and are being followed.

There remains a possible difficulty for a relatively small number of cases that were completed or were on-going at the time of RBS v Wilson. Technically, the change that amendment 7 proposes may not be a retrospective change to the law, but it is not clear how it would work. Crucially, it could remove the rights of those who might be adversely affected by the subsequent sale to seek redress in line with their rights as declared by the Supreme Court.

If amendment 7 is intended merely to clarify the law, it appears to the Government that it would go much further than is necessary. The difficulty in the existing cases is limited to the failure to issue a calling-up notice. Amendment 7 would operate on any and all failures by the creditor to follow the law on calling-up procedure. That would be a quite extraordinary result, and the potential for unintended consequences is considerable. In the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010, Parliament passed legislation that is designed to offer protection to home owners, which is absolutely crucial in the current climate. Therefore, I cannot support an amendment that risks cutting across such protection.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister fairly identified that there is a problem that is a result of the keeper’s interpretation of the consequences of the RBS v Wilson case, which I believe affects the purchasers of several hundred properties. Can the minister assure me that he and his officials will work with the Law Society of Scotland and with the keeper’s office to find a resolution to the difficulties that have been presented to that group of individuals?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes—I will be pleased to do that. Murdo Fraser has quite properly brought to Parliament a matter of particular significance and importance to a number of people in Scotland who may be affected by the RBS v Wilson case. I do not think that a legislative solution is appropriate, but I will take up Mr Fraser’s suggestion. In discussions with my officials yesterday evening, I was minded to act in such a way. I have instructed my officials to work closely and promptly with the Law Society and others, including the Council of Mortgage of Lenders, to see what assistance, if any, the Scottish Government can provide to progress the relatively small number of cases that are affected. I am happy to provide that assurance to Mr Fraser and Parliament.

I cannot support amendment 7 for the reasons that I have outlined and which I hope Murdo Fraser will accept, so I respectfully ask him to withdraw it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I very much welcome the assurance that the minister has given me. The purpose of amendment 7 was to resolve a difficulty that has arisen because of the keeper’s practice. The minister has fairly indicated that he and his officials will work with the keeper and the Law Society to find an alternative way of resolving the difficulty. In view of that, I do not intend to press amendment 7.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-03070, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill.

As the bill contains provisions that require Crown consent, I call on John Swinney to signify consent under rule 9.11 of the standing orders.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Thank you for your generosity, Presiding Officer.

I am pleased to open the stage 3 debate on the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill. First, I thank the members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Subordinate Legislation Committee, and the Finance Committee for their hard work and careful scrutiny of what is, in essence, a technical bill. I also thank all the organisations and individuals who provided oral and written evidence to the committee, and briefings for members on the bill’s provisions.

I also pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission for the work that it has carried out since 2002 in developing most of the policies that appear in the bill. I particularly thank the officials, especially the keeper of the registers of Scotland and her staff—many of whom I had the pleasure of meeting earlier this week—for the hard work and dedication that has gone into the preparation of the bill.

The bill seeks to provide the people of Scotland with a land register that is fit for the 21st century. It will place on a statutory footing many of the sound policies and practices that have been developed by Registers of Scotland since the introduction of the land register in 1981. I remember that event because it occurred towards the end of my apprenticeship.

The bill will also provide for a fairer and more balanced system of land registration. It is recognised internationally that an efficient and secure system of land and property registration is fundamental to the operation of the economy. Registers of Scotland and the land register are a key part of that process and they support the Scottish economy by underpinning a property market that can be worth more than £24 billion each year. Registers of Scotland sets the standard in how information about land and property is captured, held, analysed and made available to the people of Scotland. I believe that emerging evidence shows that our system of land registration is increasingly of interest to other countries with whom—as I learned earlier this week—the keeper’s staff are regularly in contact. That is an accolade to the quality of our land register and our system.

Recent evidence of the importance of the role of the land register is shown by the purchase of Grangemouth oil refinery. The new owner, which is based outside Scotland, sought the surety of having title held on the land register. I am informed that, hitherto, the oil refinery’s title was based on a large number of farms that existed before the refinery was set up. The new owners sought a land-register based title and Registers of Scotland carried out that voluntary registration rapidly so that the transfer of ownership could be completed. I mention that because it is the kind of act that one does not read about in the newspapers, but it plays an important part in helping to promote economic development in Scotland.

By bringing registration law more closely into line with general property law, the bill addresses legal tensions that have caused confusion and uncertainty for property owners since the introduction of the land register. The changes will ensure that the land register continues to underpin the Scottish economy.

The bill also provides the legal framework that will allow the land register to be completed. There has been much debate in Parliament on this topic, including in this morning’s proceedings. I note and understand the eagerness of members of all parties that the land register be completed as soon as possible. So far, about 55 per cent of titles and about 22 per cent of the land mass of Scotland have been registered. The keeper is keen to expand coverage of the land register and plans are being put in place to take advantage of the power that is contained in the bill for keeper-induced registration in order to expand the title coverage of the land register.

Research that has been carried out by the keeper indicates that some 700,000 properties, for which her staff have carried out some form of preliminary title examination, are not yet on the land register. The keeper is exploring options for bringing those properties onto the land register within this decade, and aspires to have the titles registered by 2017, to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the general register of sasines. Doing so would increase the percentage of titles on the land register from 55 per cent to almost 80 per cent, which would be consistent with my previous commitment in Parliament that there will be no keeper-induced registrations of large and complex titles during this parliamentary session. We do not want a system of compulsion; we want a system of increased triggers for registration, which includes keeper-induced registrations where appropriate, but which also includes the use of voluntary registration.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) rose—

Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green) rose—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I may have beaten Mr Harvie to asking the same question.

The minister hopes that 80 per cent of properties will be registered by 2017. What proportion of the land mass of Scotland does that represent?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I suspected that members might be interested in the answer to that question, so I consulted officials about it yesterday evening. Most of the 700,000 properties that we anticipate would be appropriate subjects of keeper-induced registrations are properties such as the last flat in a tenement block of six flats—in other words, the flat that is preventing the transfer of the whole block to the land register—or the last house in a modern housing estate of 30 or 40 houses. In such cases, completion of the land register requires removal of the whole estate or tenement from the register of sasines. They are the kinds of property, by and large, for which the keeper anticipates that keeper-induced registration will be used in transferring properties from the register of sasines to the land register.

Let us not forget—I know that Mr Fraser would never forget this—that transferring properties to the land register means that processes will be simpler, clearer and cheaper. Those are three pretty good benefits.

Patrick Harvie rose—

I do not know whether Mr Fraser and Mr Harvie have the same question to ask; it would be a parliamentary first. Let me not be accused of dodging any question in this chamber. I will come to Mr Harvie in a moment: I have not quite finished with Mr Fraser.

We do not expect coverage by area to advance as significantly. The answer is that it is likely to increase by a few percentage points. Nonetheless, moving from 55 per cent to 80 per cent of properties would be fairly solid and impressive progress.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

My question is related. The minister is talking about moving from 55 per cent to 80 per cent of titles being covered but says that there is likely to be only a very small increase in the overall proportion of Scotland’s land that is included on the land register. He therefore has another question to answer. Under the voluntary approach that he is taking, when does he expect the principal policy objective of the bill, which is stated as being completion of the land register, to take place?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We have made it clear that the process cannot happen overnight and will take many years to complete. Mr Harvie is entitled to suggest alternative approaches. Any alternative approach would involve compulsion and additional costs. We feel that that approach would not have been correct—especially in a recession, when the imposition of additional costs is not justifiable and would likely have caused considerable outcry, on the basis that the money might be used for better purposes, such as the creation of more employment.

We think that the voluntary approach is correct, and I inform Parliament that it is working. It is working in relation to the Forestry Commission, which has excellent plans to include much more of what it owns on the land register, which will, over time, be a significant step in respect of the proportion of land that is shown on the register. I encourage public sector bodies, including local authorities, to follow the Forestry Commission’s example. I am sure that many public bodies are considering that.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given that our system of conveyancing is based on mutual trust and professional obligation, what consideration was given to safeguards against criminal and fraudulent activity? What guarantees, over and above the master policy, were considered?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The point of land registration legislation is to provide a state guarantee to title; the bill extends that protection. The protection of the public is also secured by the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and by the requirement that every solicitor have professional indemnity and fidelity insurance. The protections are substantial.

To address Jenny Marra’s question directly, I will comment on the offence provision, which has caused controversy, but which we believe is absolutely essential. The level of fraud in Britain is extremely serious; it rose last year from £33,000 million to £73,000 million. In response to correspondence from me, the Law Society of Scotland has indicated that, sadly, there have been instances of mortgage fraud. The Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency has identified no fewer than 291 individuals—including lawyers, financiers, security experts and accountants—who are professional facilitators and specialists who are providing advice and support to organised crime groups. The problem is serious, which is why the offence provision is in the bill.

I acknowledge that the Law Society of Scotland has concerns about the provision, but we addressed some of those concerns at stage 2. We believe that it is absolutely right that Parliament tackles fraud in every possible way. We are following the advice of the Lord Advocate—as given clearly to the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee—and we believe that the measure will be effective.

There are matters that I have not covered, but with your forbearance Presiding Officer, I might have the opportunity to do so in my closing speech.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

As I suspect all members will do today, I begin by welcoming the reforms in the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill and the improvements that we hope the bill will introduce to the system of land registration in Scotland. Our country has one of the oldest public registers of property and land, which dates back almost exactly 400 years to 1617 and the establishment of the register of sasines, which is the original national register of property deeds. I was slightly worried when Mr Ewing seemed to suggest that he can remember the old system. A replacement for the register of sasines was introduced in 1979 with the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979. We hope that the passage of the bill today will improve further on that modernisation process.

Before I go further, I thank all those who have been involved in introducing and working on the bill: the Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism and his team; members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and their clerks; the researchers at the Scottish Parliament information centre; all those who gave evidence or responded to the consultation, including the Law Society of Scotland; and of course the Scottish Law Commission, whose original report and recommendations were the basis for this reforming bill.

There are a number of reasons why the bill is necessary and welcome. An effective system of land registration is important to any modern economy. To give an idea of that importance, it is worth mentioning that the Scottish property market, including mortgages and remortgages, was worth more than £24 billion in 2009-10.

The new land register of Scotland was introduced in 1979 to replace the register of sasines. It was gradually brought into operation and, since 2003, it has applied across the country. In fact, I note that Renfrewshire, in my constituency, was first to use the new register. Unlike the old register of sasines, which often only contained a written description of the legal boundaries to a property or a poor quality plan, the land register describes the property by reference to the relevant part of an Ordnance Survey map.

The land register is a register of title, not of deeds. For example, on the one hand, a person who buys land on a register of deed has to verify the seller’s legal title by examining the sequence of prior deeds, which is a complex task. On the other, if the land is on a register of title, it is only necessary to check that the seller is the person who is listed on the register as the owner. I note that the documentation accompanying the bill stated that that job could therefore be carried out by a paralegal, rather than by a trained lawyer, which means that the process should be much cheaper for all involved. I am not sure whether that saving has been necessarily passed on yet, but I look forward to that happening under the new system.

There have been big improvements, but until now a number of concerns have remained about operation of the new land register, which the bill will address. The main concern is that, despite the register’s having been operating for more than three decades, only 55 per cent of Scotland's more than 2 million property titles have been switched to the new register. In terms of area, that represents only 21 per cent of the land mass of Scotland. As members know, that is because land belonging to the Crown, local authorities, the churches, and some of the larger estates is rarely sold.

The bill addresses that concern and the other key weaknesses with four specific measures that are designed to ensure the eventual transfer of all property in Scotland to the land register, and the subsequent closure of the register of sasines.

The bill improves the law relating to rectification of inaccuracies in the land register, and operation of the state guarantee of title, which was criticised for being legally complex. The bill rebalances the law towards the true owner of the affected property, rather than the person who acquires the property.

However, the bill does not do everything. There has been criticism of the mapping system that is operated by Registers of Scotland. That issue has not been addressed by the bill, although I note that Registers of Scotland has set up a mapping forum with the Law Society of Scotland and other interested bodies.

I confess that I found the bill—or, at least, the informed briefings that have accompanied its parliamentary passage—to be very educational. I admit that I was one of those who thought that, following the initial missives, the exchange of keys to a property, accompanying the settlement, marked the transfer of ownership. I am reliably informed that ownership transfers in law only when it is registered in the land register. Of course, there is typically a delay between receipt of an application and its registration. Part 4 of the bill introduces a new system of advance notices that are designed to protect the buyer of the property from the risks that he or she is exposed to in the short gap between handing over the purchase price and receiving legal title.

The only major disagreement or, rather, disappointment with the bill is that it misses the opportunity to move the land reform agenda on apace. The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism made the point at Stage 1 that the bill is not about reform of the law on property, but about reform of the law on registration of property. The trouble with that argument is that there are issues that are to do with registration alone and, in particular, to do with access to information and transparency, which would help communities across Scotland.

The minister, in rejecting Rhoda Grant’s amendment 1, suggested that the land register is sufficiently open and transparent. He argued that the point of the register is simply to establish or validate ownership. The argument that I and many others who have an interest in wider land reform in Scotland share, is that there are still plenty of murky practices and a great deal of obscurity about who owns land and property. The best way for us to end that unwelcome state of affairs is simply to shine a light on the matter. People and companies who operate openly and are potentially subject to wider public scrutiny are far more likely to act in the wider public interest than in self-interest.

I believe that we have a choice: we can simply allow the land register to be used by any and all property owners to secure their own interests, or we can use the register as a tool of public policy that is designed to encourage beneficial ownership. I am disappointed that we have not taken the opportunity to pursue the latter option, and I hope that the Parliament will have the opportunity to come back to and address that issue.

As many others are, I am particularly anxious that people in urban areas and not just those who live in rural Scotland become more aware of their own environment and exercise greater responsibility over that space. How many of us as constituency MSPs have been approached over the years about land ownership issues? Such issues include, for example, local eyesores or patches of ground for which no one seems to claim ownership and which become magnets for refuse and litter. Finding out who owns and is responsible for maintaining land in Scotland should be simpler and more straightforward. On that point, I am pleased to see the measures in part 10 of the bill that will make use of electronic documents easier.

Despite our achievements early on in this Parliament in abolishing feudal tenure, guaranteeing the right to roam and introducing the right for some communities to buy their land, Scotland still enjoys the most inequitable distribution of land ownership in Europe. I believe that there is a clear majority in the Scottish Parliament in support of further land reform, so I am anxious because today is a bit of a missed opportunity. Having said that, I am pleased to welcome the measures that the Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill will introduce and I hope that they make a marked and welcome difference to our 400-year-old system of public land and property registration.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare my interests as a member of the Law Society of Scotland and the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which was responsible for stage 1 scrutiny of the bill.

I acknowledge that many of the issues that the bill deals with are highly technical. Even though I have a background in property law, on more than one occasion I struggled to grapple with some of what we had to deal with. I therefore pay tribute to all my fellow committee members, some of whom are in the chamber today and none of whom had, unlike me, a professional background in law. Nevertheless, they all did an excellent job in producing the stage 1 report and dealing with the bill at stage 2. I put on record my thanks to our team of clerks, to SPICe and to our committee adviser, Professor Kenneth Reid.

It is fair to say that this has not been the most exciting piece of legislation that we have ever dealt with, nor is it the most politically controversial. The bill represents a much-needed update to, and extension of, existing legislation. As the minister pointed out, the bill will allow faster completion of a land register and eventually the closure of the register of sasines so that we will not have two parallel systems of title registration in Scotland, as we have had since 1979. As the minister pointed out, that should mean a simpler process for the conveyancing of property.

The minister also said that the legislation would lead to a cheaper system. I know from my experience of lawyers—I am sure that the minister would agree—that while that might be true in theory, it remains to be seen whether it will necessarily be the case in practice. As many people involved in the legal profession know, most of the costs that are involved in property transactions are around not the title transfer, but the conclusion of the missives and negotiating the terms of the sale. The transfer of the title represents a very small part of the work involved in a property transaction. However, I share the minister’s high hopes that the bill will lead in due course to a reduction in costs for the consumer.

The bill permits modernisation of procedure, such as an acceleration of the move to e-documents. Ken Macintosh made a fair point about the increasing use of new technology. It is something of an irony that we can now go on the internet and look up Google Earth or similar websites and see an excellent aerial view of virtually any property in Scotland. We have not really kept up with that technology when it comes to producing title documents.

The committee was concerned about a number of issues, which it addressed in its stage 1 report. Probably the most controversial of those was around section 108, which is intended to tackle mortgage fraud. The Law Society of Scotland was extremely concerned that the section was too broad in its scope. I lodged a number of amendments at stage 2 to try to address that but, unfortunately, I was unable to attract much support for them from my committee members. Despite that, there are still concerns about how the provisions in section 108 will operate in practice. I hope that the minister will ensure that there is very close engagement with the Law Society on how the provisions will be implemented. It is important that the new offence will not mean that those who simply make a genuine mistake will find themselves on the wrong side of the law.

Another issue that was dealt with at stage 2 was the settlement of boundary disputes. From their casework and surgeries, all members will be familiar with disputes over property boundaries, in which just a few feet or inches can cause a great deal of heat between the parties involved. At present, the only way in which to resolve such issues is through the courts, which is a very expensive way of addressing the matter. At stage 1, the committee recommended that the Lands Tribunal for Scotland should have a greater role in resolving such disputes, in an effort to reduce costs to the parties involved. Mike MacKenzie lodged an amendment at stage 2 to that effect, which was agreed unanimously. That is a great improvement to the bill and will mean that, in the future, we will have greater scope for using the Lands Tribunal to settle such matters. There will, however, be a resourcing issue for the Lands Tribunal, and I hope that the Scottish Government will consider that.

Earlier this morning, I spoke to two amendments originating from the Law Society, which tried to deal with situations in which the keeper’s practice has become out of step with the established understanding of property law. Although I did not press those amendments to a vote, they deal with issues of serious concern and I welcome the minister’s assurance in both cases that he and his officials will consider how those matters might be resolved. There is also concern among some in the legal profession about the keeper’s approach to a number of similar issues. There is a perception that she is a law unto herself in the way in which she interprets the law and devises her practice accordingly. The keeper will obtain her own legal opinion on matters and refuses to share that with others. I understand that that is the policy across the Government as a whole. Nevertheless, when legal opinion from learned professors of conveyancing takes a different view it is disappointing that the keeper appears to be digging herself in on issues. I hope that we will see a more open approach in the future.

The bill will be welcomed not just by property lawyers, but by all those who have an interest in the ownership of Scotland’s land. With a complete land register, eventually, it will be far easier to identify who owns Scotland, which will no doubt make my good friend Andy Wightman very happy. However, the committee was not able to support at stage 2 amendments to change substantially the law on prescription, in which I know that he has a particular interest, so perhaps his joy will be a little muted.

Despite our minor misgivings, this is an important, welcome and necessary piece of law reform, and the Scottish Conservatives will be pleased to support the bill at stage 3 at decision time.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

As deputy convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, I sat through a number of evidence-gathering sessions and read a number of the written submissions that were made to the committee in its examination of the bill. The bill builds on the previous legislation, which dates back to 1979. It attempts to bring a degree of modernity to the law and restates the law on the registration of rights in the land register.

It was clear to me and probably to other committee members that, since the introduction of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, progress on land registration has been uncomfortably slow. I welcome the minister’s statement today that the keeper hopes to have around 80 per cent of property titles registered by 2017. Nevertheless, there are still concerns regarding land registration and when we will see a complete land register of Scotland, which committee members made known at the committee. We attempted to get some dates or timetables into the bill towards which the keeper could work, and I am glad to hear from the minister that the keeper hopes to have the registration of land ownership and title up to 80 per cent by 2017. I welcome that advance.

One of the bill’s key objectives is to create the fastest possible method of efficiently completing land registration for the whole of Scotland, with sufficient safeguards being built in, in order to strengthen the overall process. There has been concern that the current procedure is overly bureaucratic and it has been argued that confidence needs to be developed, so the introduction of electronic conveyancing is a welcome move in developing new processes.

There is a human cost to these matters that needs to be reflected upon. I hope that the bill will go some way towards tackling disputes about land ownership and registration. As Murdo Fraser intimated, examples of disputes about land ownership and boundaries were brought to the committee during our evidence sessions, and members were able to give examples from their postbags of constituency inquiries that they have received regarding title and ownership of land and property. In some cases, new owners have found that they do not actually own the property that they thought they owned.

As I stated when the bill was debated in the chamber at stage 1, a key aspect of the proposals is the creation of a statutory offence of making a materially false or misleading statement to the keeper. I know that the minister and the Solicitor General for Scotland believe that that measure is a vital part of the bill as it will give them legal powers to deal with organised crime. The committee received a written submission from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland that supports section 108 of the bill.

I recognise that there is a significant problem, and the bill attempts to address some of the concerns about the process that have been identified, particularly in relation to the tackling of fraud. The oral evidence that the Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson, gave to the committee, which was reflected in its stage 1 report, highlighted the importance of the creation of an offence to deal with organised crime.

I am aware that officials from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Scottish Government met the Law Society of Scotland to discuss the scope of the offence in section 108. It is desirable that the Solicitor General ensures that there is regular dialogue with the Law Society on what further guidance and advice can be provided to solicitors once the bill has become law.

I welcome the stage 3 debate and the wide-ranging principles that are contained in the bill. I was glad to hear that the committee convener found our consideration of the bill an education. I think that all members of the committee found it an education, either as home owners or landowners. I thank all those who provided oral or written evidence to the committee. In particular, I thank Andy Wightman for his insight into the land ownership issues that arose in the debate. I also thank the committee clerks and SPICe for their support and assistance, as well as my colleagues on the committee for their work in enabling the bill to reach this stage of the legislative process.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I echo the sentiments and words of John Wilson on the work that the committee clerks and other parliamentary staff did on the bill. The bill is technical in nature and a considerable amount of work went on behind the scenes to enable committee members to draw up our stage 1 report and scrutinise the bill as effectively as we could. I think that we did that.

Murdo Fraser said that the bill is not the most exciting piece of legislation that he has been involved in, but I actually found it quite exciting. That might be a reflection of how dull my life is, but I found it very interesting. We moved from debating the policy issues to coming up with proposals that will make a difference, and consideration of the bill was a worthwhile process for everyone who was involved.

I had not intended to say anything about section 108, but I note John Wilson’s suggestion that we should consider the concerns that were highlighted to the committee and ensure that the policy decisions that are taken address the practicalities and the concerns that people have. That suggestion is important, because we need to build confidence. Certainly, as someone without a legal background, I understand some of the commonsense concerns about section 108. John Wilson’s suggestions are valid and very important to help ensure that we get something that delivers what it was designed to do.

The minister said that the bill is about developing a land register that is fit for the 21st century. That is why the e-conveyancing and e-documents that we discussed are important. They will ensure that the land register reflects how people live their lives these days—how they perform various financial transactions and how they gather information predominantly from the internet. In that regard, there is a bit of catching up to do on how the bill may work. However, the provisions in the bill will ensure that there is confidence to develop electronic services such as e-conveyancing, to ensure that the bill makes a difference in that area.

Consumers, individuals and communities will be able to engage with the system in the same way that they can with many other organisations, for example in the financial services area. That is important. I have worked with community groups that try to identify people who own land, get involved in proposals and work to develop proposals in their areas that will make a difference to their communities. Such groups are hindered by the inability to access the information that they need, and it is important that the committee considered that in its scrutiny of the bill.

I hope that the Lands Tribunal proposal, which was agreed to at stage 2, will make a fundamental difference. With that in place, some of the issues that we read about daily or which, as Murdo Fraser said, we deal with in our constituency casework, will be able to be tackled in a way that is cost effective for people who may previously have been excluded. I have a concern on one issue, or rather a request for some clarity from the minister when he winds up. Obviously, some people are already in the dispute system, while others are on the cusp of that system. Regarding the policy development that will flow from the bill, it would be helpful to know the Scottish Government’s view on how to deal with those who may have problems retrospectively. I have a constituent in Newburgh with an on-going case who would find that helpful.

There is expertise out there, which helped the committee to form opinions. That expertise deserves some policy development, going forward from the bill, which reflects our aspirations and concerns. I hope that the process will deliver that.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I compliment my fellow members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for their considered and intelligent scrutiny of the bill, and the clerks, who provided their usual high standard of support. Most of all, I want to record a personal thanks to Professor Kenneth Reid, who provided us with specialist legal advice. It is a great tribute to him that he did so in a way that facilitated our understanding, as lay people, of some fairly technical issues with both humour and patience. I also thank the many witnesses who gave evidence, and the people who wrote to me and took an interest in the committee’s work.

We all agree that the bill’s general thrust and focus is to be welcomed. Completion of the land register is itself a worthy goal. Smoothing and rendering more efficient the processes that pertain to property transactions are equally worthy objectives. However, my concern throughout has been that, in our bid to complete the land register, we do not sacrifice quality for speed and that we recognise some of the problems of the system and attempt to deal with them, so far as we reasonably can.

I am therefore glad that Mr Ewing, the minister, engaged constructively with the committee and with the various stakeholders. He listened carefully and responded to suggestions for improvements to the bill when it was wise to do so. For example, in section 42, on prescriptive acquisitions, he reduced the period of abandonment of land from the originally proposed seven years. That is only one example of a practical and wise judgment being made when it had to be made.

A certain amount of idealism was displayed in the amendments that were lodged by some of my colleagues on the committee. Idealism, of course, is a fine thing and I am glad that the spirit of idealism is alive and well in the Parliament. However, we must never enforce our idealism when it will cause harm and difficulty, when ordinary people going about their business will be victims of that idealism, or when the practical difficulties far outweigh any benefits that the idealism might bring. I therefore hope that Mr Harvie and Ms Grant will understand why I felt unable to support their amendments.

However, even the best of systems can never be perfect. Despite the keeper’s reassurances that all was well, I felt that it was important that a more efficient and perhaps more cost-effective mechanism than the courts ought to be available for resolving mistakes or disputes. I was therefore glad to be able to lodge an amendment at stage 2 that will have the effect of allowing the Lands Tribunal to provide such a mechanism. The unanimous support that the amendment achieved in committee was due much more to the common sense of my colleagues and the compelling evidence that we had heard than to any persuasive ability on my part.

The bill has been much improved in its course through the Parliament. I have been pleased to play my own small part in the process and I hope that members throughout the chamber will support the bill.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I echo the thanks that have been expressed to my fellow members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, to our clerking team, to the officials who supported the process, to our adviser and to all our witnesses.

Murdo Fraser reminded us that he was the only lawyer on the committee and that that gave him a perspective that, perhaps, a few of the rest of us found difficult to keep up with. He seems to have been on the receiving end of some rather cutting remarks about lawyers during recent committee meetings, so perhaps the rest of us should be grateful that we have been protected from those.

Whatever approach the Government took to the bill, there was bound to be a lot of technical content and a lot of expectation on members to deal with that. My regret, which I spoke about during the debate on Rhoda Grant’s amendment 1, is that the minister seems to regard this purely as a technical bill. Its weakness is in the policy content that is not there, rather than in what the Government has chosen to do.

Members may know that I drew most heavily on one witness in particular and I will cite him again. Andy Wightman’s written evidence to the committee pointed out that

“This is the first time in the history of Scotland that a democratically-elected Scottish Parliament has considered the statutory basis for sanctioning who owns land in Scotland and providing the benefits that accrue to landowners with a recorded title. It is therefore vital that Parliament consider some wider questions of public interest that come within the scope of the Bill.”

That is what has not been done and that is the opportunity that has been missed. It comes down to the purpose of the bill. In the policy documents that accompany the bill, its principal purpose is stated clearly:

“Completion of the Land Register”.

However, to listen to the minister’s remarks, both in committee and today in the chamber, it would seem that the bill’s purpose is purely transactional and that it is, in fact, just about facilitating sales, protecting landowners’ interests and promoting economic development.

Questions about the wider public interest and about what the public gain from having an effective and modern land registration system have been missed. A number of those aspects were addressed in stage 1 discussions and in stage 2 amendments, and it became clear that the Government had decided that it was determined not to budge on those issues.

I will address the idea of including a target date for completing the land register. If we believe the assertion that the bill’s principal policy objective is completing the land register, it is odd that the bill does not include a target date—even an indicative target date—as is set for a host of other policies, such as the eradication of fuel poverty. In many areas, we set a target date and give ministers a duty to act in the way that is best calculated to achieve the aim by that date.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

If a target such as the member describes was set, what mechanism could the Government use to ensure that it was achieved?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

That goes back to the minister’s response to my earlier comments. He said that an alternative to the purely voluntary approach, which we know will not achieve completion of the land register, would involve compulsion. The Government has set out the mechanism by which keeper-induced registrations can take place. The question is simply about the context in which we would choose to use that mechanism.

The minister talked about the costs that would be incurred. Let us remember that some of those who will dig their heels in most determinedly and who will not register will be the largest estates. We are talking about very wealthy people who can well afford to bear the costs. Why should those who choose to register or who comply with the expectation to register meet all the costs, while those who dig in their heels have the costs met by the taxpayer? I do not accept that.

As there is not a target date or even a prediction or expectation from the minister in the chamber about when the register will be complete, it is clear that he does not know when that policy objective of the bill will be met. I can conclude only that that is not the bill’s real policy intent and that the policy intent is to deal with the purely transactional issues that I mentioned.

Other specifics relate to the beneficial ownership arguments that Rhoda Grant expounded, prescriptive claims issues and community land questions. I regret that the Government decided not to give way to any amendments from Opposition parties throughout the bill’s passage. In reply to Mike MacKenzie, I suggest that the bill is the victim of a lack of idealism and that we could have done a great deal better.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

As one of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee members who scrutinised the bill, I am happy that it will provide an improved framework and experience for all stakeholders.

In the stage 1 debate on 14 March, I highlighted my “sense of trepidation” at the beginning of the bill’s progress through Parliament. However, the bill has been extremely interesting, in contrast to what Murdo Fraser said. I do not know whether he takes his view because he is a lawyer—the only lawyer on the committee. The bill has been extremely interesting and it is important, because it will bring an element of public and private life up to date.

A number of issues were raised during the bill process. I took a particular interest in the automated registration of title to land system and the use of information technology under part 10. In this day and age, there is absolutely no reason whatever why the use of electronic means—or, to coin a phrase, electronic wizardry—should not be increased.

In paragraph 103 of our stage 1 report, we suggested that the keeper should “consult and test widely” to get improved buy-in from the sector for e-registration. I am content that Registers of Scotland will undertake appropriate consultation and testing with stakeholders and end users in developing new or upgraded electronic registration systems. However, I reserve the right—I am sure that every member in the chamber would do the same—to challenge the Registers of Scotland if it does not undertake those actions.

We all understand that public consultations sometimes do not get full backing. In listening to some of the evidence throughout the bill process, it was clear that there was a level of scepticism towards the keeper, particularly with regard to consulting and listening to practitioners. I hope that the process of consultation and testing will continue once the bill is enacted. I am sure that an improved dialogue will take place, and I hope that the end user will obtain a better experience.

A key aim of the bill is to bring land registration into the 21st century. However, a further key aim is to use land registration as an economic driver, as the minister highlighted earlier. The SPICe briefing for today’s debate highlighted the challenge that we as a Parliament face in progressing registrations. There are 2.6 million units of property in Scotland, of which 55 per cent have switched to the land register, and 21 per cent of Scotland’s land mass is on the register. That has come about since the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 was passed.

The bill will have a positive effect on the number of registrations, and on the percentage of land mass that is registered. However, I hope that the Parliament will return to various land registration issues in the future. Patrick Harvie mentioned compulsory registration, which the minister indicated that he does not wish to include in the bill.

I agree with the minister’s comments on the economic potential of the bill and the economic driver theory behind it. However, future Governments will need to continue to scrutinise the progress of land registration. If that happens, the land register will indeed be completed. The Parliament has not undertaken much post-legislative scrutiny since it came back into being because it has had so many other issues to deal with. However, regular scrutiny would allow future Governments the opportunity to act swiftly if the bill’s aims were not being achieved.

I will back the bill tonight, and I thank my colleagues on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for the way in which they have scrutinised it. I also thank the clerking team, the SPICe team, the committee adviser and the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee.

I have enjoyed the bill process, and I have learned a tremendous amount. I am sure that when the bill is enacted, it will bring about an improved level of land registration. I am convinced that we will reach the 100 per cent registration target in future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

As I mentioned at stage 1, I am now a retired solicitor, but when in practice I undertook conveyancing work over many years. As my colleague Murdo Fraser commented, the issue is extremely technical, and I realise that neither the subject matter nor myself is likely to set the minister’s heart a-beating. However, I hope that he may heed some of what I have to say in my subsequent observations.

Like other members, I thank Murdo Fraser and his fellow committee members for their thorough work in scrutinising the bill. That scrutiny, coupled with subsequent amendments, has ensured that the bill is in a better state now than it was at the beginning of the process.

The bill’s purpose is to ensure that the registration of title to land in Scotland is fit for 21st century purposes, and that the transition from sasine to land register title is accelerated so that, in the not-too-distant future, all titles will be registered. That is a sensible aspiration, and the bill maps out the route to achieve it.

However, under what may look like a calm surface, there are still some reefs in the water that require careful navigation. At stage 1, I expressed a slight misgiving about how rapidly voluntary registrations would proceed without some encouragement to the landowner in the form of reduced fees. I see that the minister has been entirely unmoved by my entreaties, so, aside from a strong sense of personal slight, I will just have to endure his indifference.

On a serious note, as the whole purpose of the bill is to make sasine titles a thing of the past, will the minister at least instruct the keeper to monitor progress over the next five years? I was interested in the minister’s remarks in his speech about the target for 2017. If we do not see the necessary pace of change on the numbers of titles and the land mass being transferred to land registration, he needs actively to investigate some form of discounted fee to encourage action.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Does Annabel Goldie agree that it should not be about just the next five years, but that there should be continual scrutiny by future ministers to ensure that we reach the 100 per cent target?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

Yes. My remarks were prompted by the minister’s specific comments about 2017 in the debate. The critical period of five years is significant.

I share the concerns that my colleague Murdo Fraser expressed in speaking to his amendment 6. The position in law to which the minister referred in respect of inhibitions striking only at voluntary disposals is correct, but apparently the keeper is not reflecting that position in current practice, and I think that that is causing delays and uncertainty. I urge the minister to engage in urgent discussions with both the Law Society of Scotland and the keeper to ensure that the keeper’s practice reflects current law.

Section 108 of the bill was the section that troubled me and others most. I voiced my concerns at stage 1, and wish to place them on the record today.

I am aware that, through lodging amendments at stage 2, my colleague Murdo Fraser endeavoured to give some sense of proportion to section 108, but those amendments were not agreed to. I note with some alarm that the Government amendment at stage 2 to remove section 108(4)(c) from the bill as introduced, which was agreed to, leaves the defined person under section 108 even more vulnerable. Currently, when legal experts and the keeper cannot agree on legal issues surrounding aspects of land registration, it is clear that what may be deemed to be materially misleading in the opinion of one lawyer may be deemed to be innocent representation in the opinion of another, and what may constitute reckless disregard for one lawyer may reflect due diligence and adequate professional service for another.

The difficulty is that, where a client or an adviser to the client other than the solicitor, or a third party who is dealing with or for the client gives erroneous information to the solicitor with malign intent and is determined to deceive the solicitor to induce a fraudulent land registration, the hapless solicitor is the easy target and could be subjected to the nightmare of a technical criminal prosecution that is made possible by the section. As I observed during stage 1, existing law covers such dishonest or fraudulent activity, and the Scottish Law Commission did not seek a new criminal provision in its original bill, the provision was not consulted on pre-legislation, and it did not find support from witnesses who gave oral evidence to the committee. The one exception was the Solicitor General; I might suggest that the Solicitor General’s office naturally relishes a growth industry in new criminal offences. I would have thought that all that would ring serious alarm bells for most people. I am sorry that the Scottish Government is not among them.

With those reservations, I accept that the bill makes good progress towards an objective that we all want to be reached and my party will support it.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, want to put on record my thanks to the committee clerks, our adviser Professor Kenneth Reid, SPICe, all the other officials who gave us advice and all those who responded to the consultation.

Unlike John Park and Stuart McMillan, I found the bill quite dry and complex. Perhaps they need to get out more if they found it exciting. Nonetheless, it is a good bill as far as it goes. It will streamline our processes and allow for mistakes to be corrected. Mike MacKenzie’s amendment will allow the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to adjudicate where there are concerns about mistakes that may have been made. Therefore, although it lacks policy, it will put in place some very good administrative practice.

There are issues missing from the bill that could have been addressed. One of those is the issue of prescriptive claims, when unscrupulous people acquire land—ransom strips—and hold back development. The aim of having a prescriptive claim in legislation is to do the opposite of that, but we need to look at the process again to ensure that it meets the public interest. The bill is a missed opportunity to rectify that problem. Patrick Harvie was right when he said that many aspects of the bill do not address the public interest.

Another issue that is missing from the bill is beneficial ownership. I tried to do something about that earlier with my amendment, which would have allowed those who had real concerns about the ownership of land that they were interested in to have that beneficial ownership registered. That would have created transparency when there were problems. I am disappointed that the amendment was not supported. Organisations such as HMRC, as well as tenants, crofters and neighbours of unscrupulous landowners have been let down because that amendment was not agreed to.

Mike MacKenzie levelled the charge of idealism at me. If I were being idealistic, I would have moved a totally different amendment that would have made the whole process much more transparent and accessible. I did not—I moved an amendment that was a practical solution to a difficult problem. As Patrick Harvie said, the bill would benefit from a good dose of idealism—we have missed that opportunity.

The other issue that has not really been touched on is the need for the register to be open and available to members of the public. People need to be able to access the register without any great cost. Information about who owns land in Scotland needs to be open and transparent. I hope that the minister will keep an eye on that issue to ensure that that is the case in the future.

Many of the contributors talked about completion of the register, as is right and proper, because that is one of the main aims of the bill. The statement was made that keeper-induced registration will not be compulsory. That raises concerns. How will we get a transfer to the new register if much of the land in Scotland remains unregistered? A lot of the land may pass into new ownership, but because that land ownership is in a trust, it is the ownership of the trust that changes, not the ownership of the land itself.

There may be an inducement in the bill—if not in the bill itself, certainly in the policy behind the bill—to encourage large landowners to register their land, especially if the land title is complex, because the minister suggested to the committee that there may be a change to how fees for land registration are charged. It may become much more expensive to register complex land titles in the future. Owners of large and complex estates might do well to consider that and get in early with their registration.

Mike MacKenzie talked about quality being sacrificed for speed—he is right. There were complaints about inaccuracies in the register and concerns about errors that were made by the keeper. The bill allows for those errors to be rectified, but we need to be careful. Land registration is extremely important. If it goes wrong it leads to disputes that can be expensive and difficult to put right. I hope therefore that accuracy will be given a high priority.

Section 108 was mentioned by Murdo Fraser, John Wilson, John Park and Annabel Goldie. There is a real concern that in trying to ensure that the transfer of land and land purchase is not open to fraud, solicitors may end up being prosecuted for fraud when they acted in good faith on the information that they had. We need to look at the guidance that goes with that part of the bill, because even an investigation can cause huge problems. A solicitor acts on the basis of their good character and people trust them because of that good character. If there is any question about their reputation it could damage their business, so I urge the minister to look at that guidance closely and to make sure that that damage cannot happen.

As I said earlier, I am pleased that the Lands Tribunal is being used to settle disputes. Mike MacKenzie pushed that in the committee and lodged amendments on the issue, and I congratulate him on getting his proposal accepted. Accessing the Lands Tribunal does not mean that people do not need lawyers, but it should mean that the process will be much simpler.

I thought that I would struggle to fill the seven minutes that you generously gave me, Presiding Officer, but I see that I am getting close to the end of that time.

This is a good and useful bill, but it is a missed opportunity to make good progress on the land reform agenda that the Government says that it supports.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

This has been a useful and constructive debate. I thank all members for their contributions. The debate has demonstrated that members agree that this is an important bill. Any disagreement appeared to centre on how exciting it is. I am pleased that all speakers have acknowledged that it is a useful, solid piece of work that will allow us to make great progress with our land registration system.

As has been mentioned, the register of sasines was revolutionary. In 1617, it was the first national land registration system in the world. For its time, it was pioneering. However, as those of us who spent many years in private practice dealing with conveyancing know, the old system involves poring over deeds, which are mostly handwritten and sometimes include quite vague descriptions of land. I remember one description that simply said, “All and whole of that three merk land of old extent.” Goodness me. That conveyancing description must have been drafted after an extended lunch, because it did not provide much clarity about the boundaries of the land involved.

Equally, I am sure that Miss Goldie and Mr Fraser will remember spending far too many hours poring over handwritten documents such as contracts of excambion, charters of novodamus, feu contracts, feu dispositions, bonds and dispositions in security.

Of course, one of the great benefits of the land register is not that those deeds are somehow dispensed with and rendered no longer relevant, because, often, they may still be relevant, even if some of them have fallen into desuetude; it is that most of them will now be shown on the burden section—called land obligations, now—of the title sheet, in typewritten form. That has the practical benefit for the people whom we represent that their lawyers are not spending hours—for which they are paying—poring over old handwritten deeds.

It has been said that the purpose of this bill is purely transactional. I think that it is a good thing that we are helping to aid the process of making the job of land registration one that can benefit the people whom we represent who want to own their house. I do not think that it does justice to the work of the keeper or the profession to say that that is purely transactional. This morning, we are doing something that will benefit a great many people in Scotland and, in a modest way, will make Scotland a better place.

The bill creates more triggers for registration, allowing the process to encompass more transaction. I inform the chamber that I am advised by the keeper that that is likely to result in 7,000 additional first registrations in the first year after the designated day.

Earlier, I mentioned the Forestry Commission. I praise it for carrying out a survey of its land holdings in Scotland. The Forestry Commission owns 1,969 parcels of land covering 650,000 hectares, which accounts for 7.5 per cent of Scotland’s land mass. That is a substantial proportion of our land mass, and I welcome the willingness of the Forestry Commission to engage in how we take the issue forward.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The member will have to excuse me, but I really want to give the chamber some more information that I did not have time to give earlier.

I understand from Registers of Scotland that, at a rough order of magnitude, the cost of the aspiration of undertaking the 700,000 keeper-induced registrations by 2017—I repeat, 700,000 registrations—is around £25 million. The keeper has set aside £10 million in the reserves in her trading fund, and the intention is to recoup the £15 million shortfall from the fee income over 10 financial years, which will have to be reflected in the biennial fee reviews.

Of course, all these things are kept under review; of course, they are studied; and, of course, ambitious, major and detailed plans have been put in place and will be enacted to extend the coverage of Scotland’s land register. This is not minor progress; it is major progress that will happen not simply because we pass the bill—which, after all, is only words on a page, important though they are—but because team Scotland is working together to achieve the bill’s aims and to ensure the gradual completion of the land register.

In fact, to pursue that aim, the keeper and I jointly wrote an article for The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland last year in which we encouraged landowners to get their titles registered. I take this opportunity to make the same encouragement to ensure that landowners receive the benefits of land registration. Indeed, plans are afoot to encourage landowners in this matter; for a start, Rhoda Grant was quite right to point out that because the fees have a maximum cap they represent an excellent deal. In some cases, the current fees do not reflect the total cost to the keeper of carrying out this work. I repeat my exhortation to landowners to seriously consider the offer. If they transfer their titles to the land register, they will find that the benefits can be considerable; for example, they might discover that they own land that they were not aware of and that it is easier to transact land for development. Those kinds of commercial benefits can be gleaned and I praise the keeper and her staff for their very detailed efforts in dealing with this matter.

The bill makes a number of very important changes to land registration practices and adopts many of the sound practices that have developed over the years. For a start, it makes provision for defining inaccuracy in the land register and, more important, when and how titles can be rectified. As a matter of registration practice, the keeper has been proactive in bringing new procedures in line with recognised international standards and the mapping working group that I believe Mr Macintosh mentioned in his remarks and which comprises members of the Ordnance Survey, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Law Society and Registers of Scotland has been established.

I must also thank Mike MacKenzie, who I think has been somewhat modest, because he did a power of work on this bill for the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee and brought a lot of knowledge to its scrutiny. Assisted by committee members, he lodged an important stage 2 amendment that in effect allows a case to be referred to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland instead of individuals having to go to the full expense and through the whole panoply of court action.

Mr Park asked me to respond to his important point. Although in many cases it might be possible to refer underlying legal issues to the Lands Tribunal, I must, as I have before, indicate that, as I think Mr Park is aware, the Parliament has certain restrictions on its freedom to make law that alters existing property rights in live cases.

Annabel Goldie accused me of indifference towards her, ignoring her entreaties and not taking seriously her inestimable contributions to this and previous debates on this matter—perish the thought. How could I now, in the past or in the future ever be indifferent to Miss Goldie’s entreaties? My difficulty is in preventing my beating heart from distracting me and in ensuring that my mind is engaged with her remarks. [Interruption.] I am told that I should move on, Presiding Officer.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

You have 20 seconds, Mr Ewing.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

In all seriousness, we believe that the offence provision in the bill is necessary. As the overwhelming majority of solicitors are honest, they will be neither inconvenienced nor subject to any difficulty.

As someone who, as a solicitor with Leslie Wolfson 30 years ago, had experience of the previous Land Registration (Scotland) Bill, I am somewhat surprised but very pleased, proud and honoured to find myself playing a modest part in the updating, modernisation and improvement of the land registration system in this country.

Victims of Crime (Support)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the support offered to the victims of crime. (S4O-01059)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

A central objective of the Scottish Government’s making justice work programme is to improve the experience of both victims and witnesses of crime, and I have made a commitment to bring forward a victims and witnesses bill during this session of Parliament to do just that. Details of our proposals are set out in the consultation paper, “Making Justice Work for Victims and Witnesses”, which was published on 22 May and is available on the Scottish Government consultation website.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I welcome the launch of the Scottish Government’s consultation on a victims and witnesses bill and look forward to the improvements that it will bring to the criminal justice system.

I understand that a key part of the proposals is provision of better information to victims and witnesses. A constituent of mine was the victim of crime for which the perpetrator has been caught and imprisoned, but my constituent is worried about what will happen when that individual is released. Will the cabinet secretary confirm what rights victims currently have to information about the release date of those who have been convicted of, and sentenced to prison for, crimes against them?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I thank Stewart Maxwell for raising that constituency matter with me. If an offender has been sentenced to 18 months or more in prison, the victim can sign up to the victim notification scheme. Once a victim has signed up to the scheme, they are entitled to be informed of the date on which the offender will be released, when the offender is transferred, or when the Parole Board for Scotland has recommended release. The Scottish Government publishes information leaflets about the scheme for victims, and further information is available online.

I accept Mr Maxwell’s point that the ability to access high-quality information is consistently raised as a key factor in determining the experience that victims and witnesses have of the justice system, which is why in our consultation document we propose the commissioning of a feasibility study on development of an online information hub for justice that will provide case-specific data for victims, rather than merely information for victims of more serious offences.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the proposed changes to the criminal injury compensation scheme. He will also be aware that, in written questions, I have asked him to detail what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Ministry of Justice about criminal injury compensation. Is he supportive of the reforms that have been proposed to what is a key part of the support that we offer victims?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

We accept that there are difficulties with the current scheme, which has been salami sliced on numerous occasions by Governments of various political shades south of the border ever since it was first introduced. The present scheme is vastly different from the one that I first experienced as a law apprentice back in the early 1980s.

That said, we have great concerns about the UK Government’s proposals. We have written to it to intimate our opposition to, and our scepticism about, various aspects of them. Those matters are still confidential, but we will be happy to provide more detail as the process proceeds. We will be happy to update Drew Smith and Parliament as we go along.

General Practitioner Surgeries (Remote Areas) (Support)

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive what support is available for GP surgeries in remote areas. (S4O-01060)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Scottish Government recognises the particular challenges of providing healthcare in remote areas. Accordingly, a range of financial and practical support is available for GP surgeries in such areas.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, on the island of Cumbrae, three of the current general practitioners are due to retire in April next year, and that four of the six surgery staff are likely to be made redundant? I pay tribute to the excellent service that they have all provided for many years.

The doctors on the island are worried that, once they retire, the islanders might not have access to out-of-hours care, which currently seems to be funded by a dispensary service that is due to close because a pharmacy opened on the island. Has she had any discussions with NHS Ayrshire and Arran about the situation? Can she assure us that the islanders will continue to have access to vital out-of-hours services?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Margaret McDougall for her question and I acknowledge her close interest in the issue. I am well aware of the circumstances surrounding the Cumbrae medical practice and NHS Ayrshire and Arran’s decision—which was taken in the context of local healthcare provision—to cease the practice’s dispensing service next April. It is important to note that remuneration for dispensing activity is over and above the funding that a practice receives for delivering primary medical services.

I am also mindful of Margaret McDougall’s question about out-of-hours care. She will appreciate that NHS boards have a statutory duty to ensure availability of primary medical services to meet the reasonable needs of the patient population. NHS Ayrshire and Arran is fully aware of its responsibilities in that respect, and has given assurances about future primary medical services for Cumbrae, in the event that the provider changes.

Margaret McDougall will be aware that NHS boards have more than one option for primary medical service provision. As well as provision through contractual arrangements, the board can itself provide services directly through salaried GPs. I assure the member that, although she raises a local matter, it is uppermost in the minds of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. As health secretary, I will keep a close eye on ensuring that the issues are resolved. If Margaret McDougall wants to correspond on or to discuss the situation further as it develops, I will be happy to do so.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The cabinet secretary might be aware that I met Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board and discussed the matter only last Friday. I have been involved with this issue and the island’s community for three years. Is the cabinet secretary aware that the health board is now fully committed to ensuring that a new GP practice will be established on the island, and that all the health resources that are currently underused will be fully used to ensure that the predominantly elderly community has the service that it deserves?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am well aware of Kenneth Gibson’s active interest in the issue. He always pursues such matters vigorously. I am glad that, as would be expected of a constituency MSP, Kenneth Gibson has met the health board and it has given him the assurances that I mentioned in my previous answer. My offer to Margaret McDougall also applies to Kenny Gibson as the constituency member. I stand ready for further discussions and correspondence should they prove to be necessary.

Kenny Gibson put his finger on it: it is vital that the health board puts in place appropriate arrangements to deliver for the population, which is—as Kenny Gibson said—predominantly elderly.

Land Reform

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on land reform. (S4O-01061)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish Government is committed to supporting communities to purchase land and land assets. That is why I was delighted to be able to visit Machrihanish on Monday, where the community has just taken over the former Royal Air Force Machrihanish airbase by using community right-to-buy provisions, with sustained support from the Scottish Government and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. It is also why the Scottish Government has committed £6 million to the Scottish land fund for the next three years. That will provide communities with the opportunity to take control of their future.

Jean Urquhart (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for his response. I think that I asked about land reform, but that might be for another day. What can the minister say about applications to the Scottish land fund?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Big Lottery Fund Scotland and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are already building up contacts with potential applicants to the Scottish land fund. They will ensure that groups are fully aware of the new programme and the application process at the time of the launch. It is an integral part of our wide-ranging approach to land reform.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister referred to the interest that has been shown in the Scottish land fund, but we are now entering the third month of the first year of funding and there are still no details available about the precise criteria for use of the fund. When does the minister expect to announce those criteria, and when will the fund be open for business?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish land fund will be open for business before the summer recess.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What assessment have Scottish ministers made of the effectiveness of the Scottish outdoor access code?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

As Jamie McGrigor will recall, the Scottish outdoor access code engaged all the parties in Parliament. It has provided good guidance to people who make use of the access rights under Parliament’s legislation. We are still working our way through the core paths activity, but all the indications are that it is successful legislation, which we were happy to support in its passage through Parliament.

Unemployment

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what it is doing to tackle unemployment. (S4O-01062)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We are taking a range of measures to stimulate growth and increase good-quality employment opportunities across Scotland. They include a focus on capital investment projects, such as the new south Glasgow hospital, and on creating and safeguarding jobs through regional selective assistance.

We are supporting a range of employability initiatives to ensure that individuals are equipped to take advantage of job opportunities as they emerge. They include the introduction of the opportunities for all programme and close working with the Department for Work and Pensions on the delivery of get Britain working and the youth contract.

We are also investing £64.6 million of European social funds to support 21 employability projects across the country, and we have announced an additional £25 million of European social funds to support our efforts on youth employment.

Hanzala Malik (Labour, Glasgow)

Three out of the four Scottish constituencies with the highest rate of people on jobseekers allowance—Maryhill and Springburn, Pollok, and Provan—are in Glasgow. Although there was a small and welcome fall in the claimant count last year, the number of people without a job for a year or more, including women and the youth workforce, rose by 11 per cent in Glasgow in the last year. What is the Scottish Executive doing to address that extremely concerning trend in Glasgow?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I assure Mr Malik that the Government is implementing a range of measures—some of which I set out in my earlier answer—to support individuals directly in their journey back into employment. We work in a complementary fashion alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that there is no duplication of effort and so that individuals who are trying to enter the labour market are fully supported.

The Government, in its wider responsibility to attract investment in the Scottish economy, attaches a high priority to ensuring that we encourage investment in different parts of the country—Glasgow being no exception.

I assure Mr Malik that in a range of interventions, whether on capital investment, the attraction of inward investment or supporting individuals in their journey into employment, the Government will ensure that people in Glasgow are well served.

International Trade Forums

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what forums exist for it to represent Scottish international trade interests to Governments in export markets. (S4O-01063)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Although Scotland is at liberty to lobby international organisations such as the European Union or the World Trade Organization, trade policy is a reserved matter.

Trade promotion is delivered by the Scottish Government through its trade and investment arm, Scottish Development International. SDI field operations have a critical role to play in developing relationships in key overseas markets with private and public sector bodies that are critical to supporting trade.

Scottish ministers also undertake a number of overseas programmes each year to promote Scotland’s trade agenda with business and Government ministerial counterparts.

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

During a recent visit to Hawick by the Minister for Youth Employment, local employers in textiles raised concerns with me about punitively high import tariffs of 16 per cent on all lambswool products to the United States, compared with just 4 per cent for cashmere. I understand that the matter has been raised with the Secretary of State for Scotland but that, as yet, no action has been taken by the UK Government.

Will the minister undertake to express my constituents’ concerns in his discussions with UK Government ministers and in any opportunities that arise with US authorities?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

As I said, trade policy is the responsibility of the UK Government. However, I will closely consider Paul Wheelhouse’s request and any evidence that he wishes to provide subsequently to me.

The USA is Scotland’s largest export market; we export nearly £6 billion to the USA every year. Scottish companies, with the excellent assistance of the world-beating Scottish Development International, are succeeding to an ever greater extent in exports. If there are barriers such as that which has been identified by Mr Wheelhouse, we in the Scottish Government are determined to remove them .

Concessionary Travel Scheme

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how the operation of the concessionary travel scheme has developed since 2006. (S4O-01064)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Since 2006, Transport Scotland has progressively rolled out smart technology across all Scotland’s buses. That has streamlined and greatly improved the reimbursement process for the concessionary travel scheme and facilitated the management of potential fraud.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Does the minister share my concern that many older people in my constituency are worried about bus operators abusing the concessionary travel scheme? Many passengers have different destinations printed on their tickets for journeys that they regularly undertake. I have forwarded some of those tickets to Transport Scotland, which has highlighted a number of abuses. Can the minister assure me and my constituents that he will do everything in his power to stop that practice?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am happy to provide that reassurance. Transport Scotland receives a number of complaints of that type, every single one of which is investigated. Investigations have found that some complaints involve an element of overstaging. However, it has been found that, even though a ticket might show a longer journey than was undertaken, the value of the reimbursement was correct—so sometimes it is not fraud at all.

Since 2010, there have been 1,267 complaints, 650 of which have been confirmed as overstaging. Those incidents can result in a bus operator’s claim for reimbursement being reduced, a process that has been successfully utilised on a number of occasions. It is probably also worth saying that Transport Scotland is a registered specialist reporting agency and can submit—and has submitted—reports to the procurator fiscal.

Scotland-Norway Interconnector

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

7. To ask the Scottish Government—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Can we have Mr MacDonald’s microphone on, please? [Interruption.] Do you have your card in?

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Yes, my card is in. I will just use another console.

To ask—[Interruption.] This one is not working, either.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

That was a great start.

To ask the Scottish Government what involvement it has had with the partners of the NorthConnect interconnector between Norway and Scotland and what steps it is taking to encourage further development of interconnectors between Scotland and the Nordic region. (S4O-01065)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

That was worth waiting for, Presiding Officer.

During the First Minister’s recent visit to Norway, he met the NorthConnect project team leaders and communicated his support for the venture to Norwegian ministers. Scottish Government engagement dates back to the project’s inception, when the First Minister announced the signing of the NorthConnect partnership agreement on 1 February 2011 and provided a letter in support. The Scottish European Green Energy Centre has contributed €50,000 to the cable-route survey.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I am pleased to hear that co-operation with our Nordic cousins is helping to move forward the NorthConnect interconnector project. I am sure that we all wish it to be operational as soon as possible. Although the imperative is to install interconnectors to our northern isles and the Western Isles, there have been discussions regarding the possibility of an interconnector that would link Scotland with Iceland. That is again receiving attention from Icelandic state-owned renewable energy company, Landsvirkjun. Is such a project still feasible and, if so, will the Scottish Government do all that it can to move the project forward?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

We believe that it might be feasible. We very much welcome today’s news that progress has been made, in that a memorandum of understanding has been entered into between the United Kingdom Government and Iceland. If there is to be a connection to Iceland, geographically, Scotland is the logical place for it to connect to. Therefore, we will work with the UK Government to advance NorthConnect to Norway and a connection to Iceland. We want Scotland to be well connected with the world, not least in the development of renewable energy, which represents one of the foremost conceivable opportunities that this country could possess. It involves harnessing our unparalleled maritime renewable energy resources. We want Scotland to be connected to Iceland, Norway and many other countries.

Planning Applications

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive how it determines the validity of submissions and letters of support or objection when considering planning applications. (S4O-01066)

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Scottish ministers consider a range of indicators when determining applications, including dated correspondence that has a legible name and return address, is received within the appropriate timescale and, crucially, gives the reasons for supporting or objecting to a development.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Is the minister aware that developers of the Harburnhead wind farm, which is near West Calder, have allegedly set themselves up as a pro-wind farm alliance, which is gathering positive signatures in the local shopping centre? Will the minister make it clear to developers that such misleading and dodgy practices undermine the planning process and that such practices will not be tolerated?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I cannot, of course, refer to any individual live application, but the Scottish Government expects clarity so that people know what they are supporting—or, indeed, opposing—and that the rules apply equally to both sides.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00725)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Later today, I will join Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, at the launch of Scotland’s climate justice fund. The Scottish Government is providing £3 million for the fund—£1 million each year over the next three years. That will support water projects in Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia, which will increase the resilience of some of the world’s poorest communities to the impacts of climate change. The chamber will agree that this is an area where Scotland is providing strong leadership on a hugely important issue, and we call on other industrialised nations to share our ambitions on climate justice.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We of course support Scotland working in partnership across the world on these very important issues.

On Sunday night, on BBC Scotland, the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, assured viewers that an independent Scotland would have a seat on the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee. Will the First Minister confirm that that is the case and provide us with the details of the agreement? If that agreement has not been finally signed off, will he at least tell us when negotiations started?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Bank of England’s monetary policy committee has nine members, four of whom are appointed by the Treasury. We expect to be a part of the appointments process—[Laughter.] There is nothing unusual about that. For example, the chair of the Committee on Climate Change—we have just been talking about climate change—is jointly appointed. In addition, the Treasury has a non-voting observer on the monetary policy committee, and we expect to have the same representation.

The issue is that we have no influence as a country on the monetary policy committee. The Bank of England is an independent central bank that does not take direction on policy, but we should move from a position of having no influence to having proper regard in a sterling area—[Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Let us hear the First Minister.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

These are arrangements that are put in place between independent countries. It really requires a remarkably diminished view of Scotland and its position not to believe that we are entitled to the same representation as other people making the same arrangements would get. There is a United Kingdom Treasury observer on the Financial Services Advisory Board, which is a Scottish Government committee. Why should Johann Lamont think that any of these things would be unusual for an independent Scotland? As I have discussed with her before, given that we are providing £30,000 million sterling of protection for the UK balance of payments, the UK Treasury and the Bank of England will be glad to have us there.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Even by the First Minister’s standards that was an astonishing response to what was a very simple question. I think that the response to the question was that Nicola Sturgeon was wrong when she said that, and that it is about assertion, belief and hope. Of course, the problem is that the First Minister thinks that an independent Scotland would have influence on the monetary policy committee—although we do not have influence now, we will somehow have influence when Scotland is a foreign country. That simply beggars belief.

Of course, crucial to the First Minister’s plans to keep the pound after Scotland leaves the United Kingdom is that the Bank of England and therefore the UK Treasury agree to be Scotland’s lender of last resort. A deal like that would come with a lot of conditions attached. Clearly, the First Minister has not spoken to the Bank of England about the monetary policy committee, but can he confirm that he has at least spoken to it about being our lender of last resort?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont is reverting to reading her script again, which indicates that, regardless of how I answer her question, she is going to get her head down and read the script. The Scottish Government and I spoke to the governor of the Bank of England on 16 February, if I remember correctly.

I have set out exactly why Nicola Sturgeon’s answer was correct. It is the case that we have no influence at the moment. Johann Lamont might remember yesterday’s debate in which I asked her how many Scottish members of the monetary policy committee there are. I did not get an answer to that, because the answer is zero—nul points, none whatsoever. We have established that we have no influence at present and that the Bank of England operates as an independent central bank. I have set out why it would be entirely reasonable for an independent Scotland to have the influence that the UK Treasury has at present and I have pointed out that, in a range of other areas of key importance, we have joint, shared arrangements on appointments at present.

That seems to me a grown-up attitude to how you conduct government. What it does not depend on is the peculiarly unionist coalition attitude to the world and hand-in-glove assumption that a country that provides under present circumstances £30 billion protection for the UK balance of payments would have no influence whatsoever. Why does Johann Lamont always want to diminish Scotland’s abilities and its influence?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I have always told my children that it is not grown up just to cross your fingers and hope for the best. It is not grown up for the First Minister to be incapable of arguing for something that he has believed in for 40 years. Never mind a script, he cannot answer basic questions about simple economics in an independent Scotland.

We know that the First Minister has not asked the question about the MPC or the question about the banker of last resort. If he gets his way, we are less than four years away from leaving the UK on a wing and a prayer, yet on the currency and our interest rates and how much we would be able to spend, how much we could borrow and how much tax we could raise, he has done nothing. He asserts that an independent Scotland could rely on the Bank of England, but he has not even asked the bank; it is just meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion. If he wants the Bank of England to back a separate Scotland, why does he not at least ask it what it is willing to do?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am answering and giving an explanation of what I believe the position would be. I am not responsible for Johann Lamont not being able to ask the right questions. I am answering the questions—[Laughter.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have set out the context of monetary policy and how it is administered. I have set out the shape of the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England. I have pointed out to Johann Lamont that the Bank of England has been an independent bank since 1997 to give it freedom from political determination. I have set out the reasons why it would be not just to Scotland’s advantage but to the advantage of the rest of the UK to have the sterling zone that we propose.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The sterling zone! [Laughter.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The sterling zone is a matter that is well understood in terms of currencies and polity. [Interruption.] I do not know why the Labour Party should find such a simple explanation so—it is revealing of the Labour Party’s attitude.

It is a reasonable proposition in the current circumstances that it is to the advantage of Scotland to have the sterling zone. It is of substantial advantage to the rest of the United Kingdom because of the protection that Scottish resources give to the balance of payments. Under the circumstances, why is that not a proposition that we should put to the Scottish people? As Johann Lamont knows, we will publish a white paper next year that will set out the independence proposition, and I will be delighted to take her forecast on the timescale for Scottish independence. On whether she should throw in the deck at this stage or wait for four years, four years sounds fine to me and I think that it will sound fine to the people of Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I did not realise that there was a right question for me to ask the First Minister, given that the only right question that his back benchers are allowed to ask is, “Just how good are you, First Minister?”

This is a serious issue. Given the First Minister’s response today, it is no wonder that he flopped at the box office last Friday; it is no wonder that his deputy bombed on the television on Sunday night; and it is no wonder that, this week, some supporters have started backing away from independence. If he is going to put the country through another two and a half years of this constitutional quagmire, he could at least do some work so that his words have some meaning. When will the First Minister realise that just saying something does not make it true?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

On the proposition that we will put forward in the white paper next year and the timescale for the referendum that we have set out, I am interested in Johann Lamont’s belief that the independence campaign will lack the strength and vigour of the Tory-Labour alliance that will be set against it. The secret six met recently at Alistair Darling’s home. When I was a child, I occasionally read Enid Blyton’s books about the secret seven, and the secret six are no doubt something very similar. The Labour-Tory alliance against independence—which we see so well displayed in this chamber—will be limited in numbers, limited in enthusiasm and, above all, limited in its ambition for the people of Scotland. I know that, these days, Johann Lamont has taken to speaking on behalf of the people of Scotland, but maybe she should take the precaution of getting herself elected before she makes that presumption.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00718)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future. I do not think that I can match the number of meetings between the Prime Minister and Tony Blair, which seem to be extensive.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am not sure whether I have asked in advance whether this is the right question, but I am going to be old-fashioned and press on anyway.

Three weeks ago, I asked the First Minister about Northern Irish pupils using Irish passports to receive free tuition at Scottish universities. At his high-handed and patronising best, the First Minister told me that there was no evidence of any serious difficulty. As we know, where the First Minister leads the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is only too eager to follow. This week, in a letter to my colleague Liz Smith, he, too, was magisterially dismissive of legitimate concerns. Refusing to make a statement to Parliament, he said that

“doing so might risk attaching a level of importance to this that is out of proportion to experience on the ground”.

Well, the evidence does exist. Figures have emerged from the University of Dundee showing that almost a quarter of the more than 1,500 applicants from Northern Ireland used an Irish passport, with a potential cost to Dundee alone of more than £14 million. Will the First Minister now admit that there is a real problem and instruct his education secretary to sort it out?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There is nothing new in the principle of the arrangement, which has been in place for many years because of the totally misguided attempt by the United Kingdom Government to impose tuition fees and the necessities of European law and regulation.

Ruth Davidson does herself an injustice. After she made her previous point to me, I took the time and trouble to go and check on the exact figures. Of course, we now have the benefit of the final Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures for applications for this year. I went to those figures and I looked for this overwhelming influx of Northern Irish students—because the figures are done by domicile, of course—who must be flooding into the country in order to justify Ruth Davidson’s fears.

What I found was that, in 2011-12, the number of applications from Northern Ireland-domiciled students—that means Northern Irish people whether they have Irish citizenship, joint citizenship, dual citizenship or whatever—was 6,131. This year, after Ruth Davidson’s flood of applications, which is causing her so much concern, the number was 5,211, which represents a decline of 15 per cent. That is even greater than the disastrous decline in the number of English students applying to English universities in the face of the Tory and Liberal tuition fees, which was 10 per cent.

Now that we have the final figures and we know that the number of applications is down by 15 per cent, would Ruth Davidson care to reorientate herself in her dire predictions of a flood of Northern Irish students?

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The First Minister is yet again giving us the broad brush but not looking at the detail. How many of those applying were doing so under an Irish passport? That is the question that the First Minister has to answer. Yet again, he is running off to shore up his flailing education secretary, but what is interesting about Mike Russell’s letter is that he kind of contradicts himself. It comes down to this idea of domicile and residency. There is a boast in the letter when Mike Russell says that he is absolutely clear that the domicile is the deciding criterion, but in the next sentence he contradicts himself by saying that those with dual nationality get to choose. Again, we come back to whether the criterion is domicile, nationality or residency.

Our universities and students are desperate for clarity, which Mike Russell says in his letter he hopes to come up with next year, but not this year. Will the First Minister break the habit of a lifetime, admit that this is a total Horlicks, step in, sort it out and give our universities clarity now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

That was so bad that it did not even get cheers from the Labour benches.

I ask, in all seriousness, how my answer can be broad brush when I identified the numbers to the nearest one? I will repeat them to Ruth Davidson. Last year, the total number of applications from Northern Ireland residents—whether they have Irish citizenship or not—was 6,131. This year, it has come in at 5,211. That is not broad brush. It is exact detail that allows us to quantify the extent of the problem that Ruth Davidson assured us a few weeks ago was flooding into Scottish universities. The universities are not desperate; it is the Conservative Party in Scotland that is desperate, as it happens.

I was looking again, because I am becoming quite addicted, at posts on the web by Jim Terras, the current chairman of Selkirk Conservative and Unionist club. He said of last week’s effort:

“had nobody prepared Ruth for the likely reply that Alex Salmond would give? ... It was almost as bad as Johann Lamont’s effort that elicited ‘groans’ from the chamber for being so politically inept and twee.”

It seems that the Tory and Labour alliance has some way to run before it is going to present a threat to the Scottish people’s ascent to independence.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00719)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This week, the First Minister’s bulldozer came charging back out of the garage. This time, it was the Justice Committee ramming through police centralisation and crushing amendment after amendment. What is next in the bulldozer’s path? Perhaps it will be emergency control rooms. Can the First Minister guarantee that he will not close local police and fire emergency control rooms?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am still trying to work out the bulldozer thing. The most recent bulldozer, I suppose, was during the Scottish local government elections. If I remember correctly, Liberal Democrats the length and breadth of the country, as they did in last year’s Scottish parliamentary elections, made this the centrepoint of their campaign, spreading gloom, doom and despondency around Scotland and saying that central Scottish police and fire services will not work for local communities. The only unfortunate thing—the only bulldozer in operation—was the bulldozer that the Scottish people lumped over the Liberal Democrats.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

So I get no answer—absolutely no answer. The First Minister stood there before, boasting about the big numbers that his centralisation plans will save. We should not forget that, in his own consultation, his plans were rejected by two to one. He should not give me any of that tosh about the public supporting his plans for centralisation. The truth is that his changes will cost money, not save it, which is why the control rooms are under threat. People at the Scottish Police Federation think that emergency control rooms will close. Only a couple of weeks ago, a chief fire officer told Radio Scotland that he believed that closures were on the way. When will the decision be made? People rely on control rooms at Thornton, Dundee, Inverness, Aberdeen, Govan and many more places. When will they be told their fate?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The programme for police and fire reform continues according to the timetable. We have made the point that we think that within the Scottish structure we can improve local accountability.

I was struck by Willie Rennie’s mention of the situation north and south of the border. The difference between Scotland and England is this: in Scotland, police numbers are increasing—they are 1,000 up on what they were in 2007—whereas in England, police numbers are collapsing, thanks to the policies of the Tory and Liberal Administration. Of course, that is reflected in the respect that is shown by the police federations in both countries. When Kenny MacAskill, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice, went to the Scottish Police Federation in the past few weeks, he got a standing ovation. When Theresa May, as the Home Secretary and representative of the Liberal and Conservative Government, went to the Police Federation of England and Wales, she got a slow handclap. That is the difference between the confidence that the forces in Scotland have in our policies and the total lack of confidence that the forces in England have in the Tory-Liberal coalition.

RAF Leuchars

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

4. To ask the First Minister, in light of the economic impact on the area, what representations the Scottish Government is making to the United Kingdom Government regarding the transition of RAF Leuchars to an Army base. (S4F-00730)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government has made strong representations to the United Kingdom Government, seeking clarity on its future plans for RAF Leuchars. The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy has written repeatedly to the Secretary of State for Defence, setting out our continued concerns and calling for a meeting with UK ministers to discuss the defence transformation issues that are affecting Scotland. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces has agreed to that meeting, which I understand will take place on 14 June.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

It is almost a year since the Secretary of State for Defence announced the closure of RAF Leuchars. We have had no further details of its transition to an Army base, so I welcome the First Minister’s statement. As he will appreciate, the whole community has been extremely perturbed by the absence of information, so anything that he can do to provide that information will undoubtedly be appreciated.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I absolutely give that assurance. In the contacts that we have had with the UK Government on this matter, we have consistently made the exact point about risk that Roderick Campbell identifies. At his meeting with the minister of state, the cabinet secretary will rigorously reinforce that message. Throughout the process, the Scottish Government has been clear that we will work with all concerned to bring about the best result that we can in the circumstances for service personnel and their families and for the communities such as Leuchars that have so proudly hosted them for so many generations.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The First Minister previously said that an independent Scotland would have just one airbase. Would that one airbase be at Leuchars or elsewhere?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The inheritance that we will get will be according to the defence review that was set out by Liam Fox when he was defence secretary. Of course, we thought that that was what we would inherit. Since then, the latest defence secretary has cast some doubt about key aspects of that, not least of which is the designation of cap badges of the Scottish regiments. I will make an arrangement with Murdo Fraser. If he can find out from his colleague in London exactly what the latest review of the defence review means for Scotland, I will be able to answer his questions comprehensively.

Healthcare (Access Target)

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the First Minister whether the 48-hour waiting time target for access to a general practitioner or relevant healthcare professional is being met across Scotland. (S4F-00736)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The patient experience survey of GP and local national health service services for 2011-12 was published this week and showed that 92.6 per cent of patients were offered the opportunity to see or speak to a doctor or nurse within 48 hours, which is above our target of 90 per cent; 85 per cent of patients were able to see or speak to a doctor or nurse within two working days; and 8 per cent were offered an appointment but the person whom they wanted to see was not available or the time was not convenient.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Sunday Post ran an interesting front page this week. I thank the First Minister for his response, but is he really telling the Parliament that we should be confident in the patient experience survey, which covered fewer than 2 per cent of patients and had an even lower response rate on the specific question about the target on 48-hour access? If he is saying that we should be confident in the survey—which we really should not be—is he pleased that one in five practices did not reach the 90 per cent target for 48-hour access and that in some practices the rate is as low as 72 per cent?

Will the First Minister invite the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy to stop focusing on independence and start discussions with the British Medical Association and the royal colleges, so that practices that are not meeting the target are not only identified and challenged but supported, given that many GPs are finding that pressures and demands are increasing year on year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let me tell Richard Simpson why we should have confidence in the patient experience survey. I know that he was not in the Parliament during the session before 2007—neither was I—but if he checks, as I am sure that he will do after question time, he will find that in 2006-07 it was up to GPs to declare to NHS boards their compliance in relation to 48-hour patient access.

This Government changed that in 2008-09, introducing the patient experience survey so that we could find out what the people thought of how well they could access their GP or relevant healthcare professional. In other words, there was a change from the approach under the Labour-Liberal Administration, when it was up to GPs to put in the returns, to one in which we have a genuine patient survey.

Patient satisfaction, according to that genuine patient survey, has improved from 89 per cent in 2008-09 to almost 93 per cent this year. I am sure that Richard Simpson had those figures at his very fingertips and that he was about to quote them, in all fairness. That is why we can have confidence in the survey. There is an improving situation under the most difficult circumstances. In general terms, when we have reason to do so the Parliament should give every support to our national health service and those who practise in it.

Business Start-ups by 18 to 24-year-olds.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister how many 18 to 24-year-olds started their own businesses in Scotland last year and how this compares with England and Wales. (S4F-00727)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Interesting new business registration statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 15,530 business start-ups in Scotland in 2010, which was up 5.5 per cent on 2009. That compared with decreases of almost 1 per cent in England and almost 10 per cent in Wales in the same period. The measure of business registrations by age group is not available in that survey, but evidence from the 2012 global entrepreneurship monitor, which the University of Strathclyde collects, showed that 6 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 in Scotland were engaged in early-stage entrepreneurial activity, compared with a rate of less than 3 per cent in England.

Support and advice for people of all ages who are looking to start up in business in Scotland are made available through the business gateway. Alongside that, of course, the Prince’s Scottish Youth Business Trust provides advice, financial support and aftercare service for young people aged between 18 and 25 who want to set up a business.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware that, on Monday, the private sector-funded £82.5 million business start-up loan scheme was established in England. Does he think that he has already covered his responsibility to do that in Scotland or does he think that additional resources need to be gathered and used effectively, to ensure that young Scottish businessmen and women have the opportunity to establish themselves in the years to come?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I saw the report and the suggestion that seemed to be made that the scheme is using private sector funding. My understanding now is that it is not private sector funding, although a number of companies are facilitating the process of the loan scheme. I have looked for information on the scheme for the past couple of days and it has not been immediately forthcoming, if I can put it as gently as that, but my understanding—I will give Alex Johnstone a correction if this is not the case—is that the initiative is being run as a pilot scheme that is funded by United Kingdom Government departments. I am suspicious of that. As he probably knows, pilot schemes can be non-Barnetted, and the scheme is for England only. If I find out that Government money is being deployed in the scheme, which seems to be interesting, I hope that I will have the whole Parliament’s support on the point that Barnett consequentials should flow to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We will find out exactly where the funds are coming from. If they are public money, the scheme should be Barnetted. A trial should not be used as a means of not applying the correct funding mechanisms. I shall write to Alex Johnstone when I have more details.

On the substance of the question, we should understand that the Prince’s Scottish Youth Business Trust does invaluable work in the space that we are discussing. When the Parliament holds the upcoming business in the Parliament conference on enterprise, I will make an announcement that is specific to that fund and to how we can provide further Government support for young people in Scotland who are anxious to become entrepreneurs.

I am sorry that I cannot give Alex Johnstone a more explicit indication of what will be in that announcement, but I am sure that he will understand that I should make the announcement at the business in the Parliament conference. He can look forward to that day.

Diploma in Professional Legal Practice Students (Financial Assistance)

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what consideration is being given to providing financial assistance toward living costs for those studying for a diploma in professional legal practice. (S4O-01069)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish taught postgraduate students are the only ones to benefit from financial support in the United Kingdom. We have introduced for 2012-13 a new postgraduate tuition fee loan under the postgraduate students allowances scheme, which will provide about 5,000 eligible postgraduate students on eligible courses with the ability to continue their studies.

Students studying for the diploma in professional legal practice will all be eligible to access the new loan, whereas only a limited number are supported under the existing model. We anticipate that about 700 diploma in professional legal practice students will now have access to financial support for tuition fees, which is more than double the previous total. Support for living costs is not available to all postgraduate students, so DPLP students are not alone in that, but there are alternative sources of funding, such as professional and career development loans.

As with previous Administrations, our priority has always been to support first degree qualifications. Postgraduate funding has always been limited to a group of vocational qualifications. The new loan scheme opens up eligibility to a much wider group of students.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

The diploma in professional legal practice, the diploma in social work and the postgraduate diploma in education stand out from other postgraduate courses in that they are an absolute requirement for entry into their respective professions. Students undertaking the diploma in social work receive bursaries, and students on the PGDE can expect support equivalent to that available for undergraduate degrees. However, students studying for the DPLP are considered to be in the same category as students who undertake courses that are not mandatory for employment.

The current funding arrangements cannot seriously address the accepted narrow social profile of students on the DPLP. Notwithstanding current financial constraints, will the cabinet secretary at least consider reviewing the appropriateness of the arrangements for the DPLP?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am grateful to the member for his long-standing interest in the subject, but neither of those points actually holds water when examined closely.

First, the Scottish Government’s policy has always been to support as many students as possible to attain a first degree, and that remains a core objective, particularly given the current circumstances. Secondly, funding for students who are studying for the diploma in professional legal practice under the postgraduate students allowances scheme was previously available only for the top 300 students, who were nominated by their university, while the other students received nothing at all. However, from 2012-13, all those students—more than 700—will be eligible to apply for non-means-tested loan funding of up to £3,400 towards the cost of their tuition fees. That increases the opportunity for students from non-privileged backgrounds.

There are reasons why the diploma in social work is different. We do not support similar schemes for other professions in which employment is mainly private, such as the architecture and veterinary professions, and I do not think that we should do so in the case of the legal profession.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary slightly pulls the wool over our eyes, because the grants that were available covered the fees for the diploma but, as he knows, he withdrew the funding that covered the fees for 300 places. Therefore, the loans replace that funding, which was withdrawn.

There is a real access issue for students from non-traditional backgrounds in getting to the point of qualification to practise law, which is the end of the diploma. Will the cabinet secretary consider extending the student loans scheme so that people can apply for a student loan to cover their maintenance costs? That would have no budgetary implications for the cabinet secretary; it would simply mean that those people would be entitled to apply.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will of course consider all possibilities to assist students, but Jenny Marra is not correct that the measures do not widen access. I repeat that funding was available only for the top 300 students, all of whom were nominated by their university. Now, every single one of the 700 students will have access to finance. By definition, therefore, a wider range of people will be able to get additional help. The move helps postgraduate education and does not hinder it, which is why I support it strongly.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Brief questions and answers will allow us to get through many more questions.

Modern Apprenticeships

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide a breakdown of modern apprenticeships by level. (S4O-01070)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Mr Park is requesting information that the Scottish Government does not hold centrally. However, as that relates to an operational matter for Skills Development Scotland, I will, in accordance with parliamentary guidance on parliamentary questions, ask the chief executive of SDS to write directly to Mr Park with the details of modern apprenticeships broken down by level. I assure Mr Park that I, too, am very interested in the issue.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I appreciate the minister’s response. I ask her to include in that correspondence with SDS some clarity on the opportunities that are available to individuals who undertake a level 1 or level 2 apprenticeship and then move on to level 3. Will she also clarify whether such students progressing through the levels are counted as one start, or whether they are double counted in the Scottish Government’s figure of 25,000 modern apprenticeships?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I will certainly seek to get that clarification for Mr Park.

Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when it will respond to the report by the commission on the delivery of rural education, expected to be published in August 2012. (S4O-01071)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I hope to respond to that report as soon as I can after its receipt. Sheriff David Sutherland and his commission have been working very hard. They have a vast range of complex evidence to consider. Obviously, we will need to absorb that when he reports, but I am keen that we progress the issue.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

Does the cabinet secretary agree with me and the comments that Liz Smith, the Tory education spokeswoman, made on 14 April, when she said:

“Local schools are vital to the survival of rural communities”?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am always happy to agree with Dennis Robertson, and I am occasionally happy to agree with Liz Smith—and on this occasion I do so. I do not think that anyone who knows me and my work will fail to know that I have worked very hard on the issue of rural schools and against closures for a long time. I regard the commission’s work as of central importance, and I will ensure that understanding of the really important role of rural schools in communities is taken forward strongly.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I join the growing consensus on the issue. The cabinet secretary will recall writing to the council education conveners on this very day last year to propose a moratorium on closures from 20 June 2011 to 20 June 2012. Understandably, Mr Sutherland is looking for additional time to complete his report, but the inevitable consequence is that the moratorium must be extended. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that that is the case? Will he also indicate whether, over the course of the past year, there have been any exceptional circumstances that have resulted in school closures?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that Liam McArthur knows the very day that I made the announcement. It had slipped my memory, but I am grateful to know that it was a year ago today.

On the second point, when I made that announcement, I made it clear that there would be occasional exceptions, particularly if a community was united in its view that a school should close and a new school should be occupied. There have been one or two of those situations—I can think of one in Ayrshire, for example—but the decisions have been reached by negotiation and discussion. The proof of that is that, by and large, there has been no public dissent from them.

On taking the issue forward, it is obvious that the moratorium should remain in place if the report is not received. The new education conveners will be aware of that: I will personally make sure that they are aware of that when I meet them, and my officials have also made it clear to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. To be fair, I do not think that anybody would want to do anything other than wait for the report, on which we hope future policy will be based.

Commonwealth Games (Schools Refurbishment)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

4. To ask the Scottish Government whether schools in close proximity to Commonwealth games venues will undergo refurbishment before 2014. (S4O-01072)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As the statutory responsibility for the provision of education rests with local authorities, it would be a matter for the individual authorities concerned to consider refurbishing schools in close proximity to Commonwealth games venues before 2014.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I completely agree that primary school buildings are the responsibility of, in my case, Glasgow City Council. The teachers and education within the schools are generally of an excellent standard. However, does the minister agree that it is disappointing that primary schools such as St Michael’s primary, Wellshot primary and St Anne’s primary, which are close to Commonwealth games sites, are in very poor condition? Has the minister been given any indication by Glasgow’s Labour council whether it will deliver its election promise of refurbishing such schools before the games?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

We have had no indication from Glasgow City Council that it intends to refurbish those particular schools. However, we are aware that the council intends to carry out an assessment of the primary school estate over the coming months with a view to carrying out a programme of refurbishment.

Further to the assessments being completed, I understand that the council will develop a timetable for implementation of the programme. All local authorities are preparing their bids for support from phase 3 of the £1.25 billion Scotland’s schools for the future programme. It is for Glasgow City Council to consider its bid, and we look forward to hearing from it in July.

Adult Apprenticeships

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive in what sectors Skills Development Scotland will continue to support adult apprenticeships. (S4O-01074)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Within limited public funding there is a need to prioritise resources. Given the continuing challenges within the labour market for young people, it is important that we maximise the number of 16 to 24-year-olds moving into employed apprenticeships. All approved frameworks in Scotland, including retail, will be funded for that group.

We also remain committed to ensuring that the key and supporting sectors have access to a wide range of all-age skills development tools, including apprenticeships, for both new entrants and the existing workforce.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Skills Development Scotland says that it will fund individuals who are 25 or older in key sectors, but funding for adult apprenticeships in tourism—a key growth sector—has been withdrawn and the funding for 25-plus modern apprenticeships in approved occupational areas is ridiculously low, making it uneconomical for organisations to deliver those qualifications to the approved 25-plus group. Will the Scottish Government act to address those obvious inconsistencies in the way that it allocates and funds apprenticeships for those aged 25 and over?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important that the key sectors as reflected in our economic strategy are aligned not only with our modern apprenticeships programme but with our wider education provision.

I will go away and look at the question on tourism to see what the detail is. I do not know whether there is more than one framework for tourism. However, we will have a detailed look at that, and I will reply directly to the member.

Health and Safety (Primary Schools)

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it provides guidelines on the implementation of health and safety policies in primary schools. (S4O-01076)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As the statutory responsibility for education in Scotland rests with local authorities, it is for individual authorities to determine health and safety policies in their primary schools. As that area is reserved, it would be for the Health and Safety Executive to consider the need for such guidelines.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

In some primary schools in my constituency of Glasgow Anniesland, I have seen evidence of many years of neglect of the fabric of buildings in which teachers have to teach and children are expected to learn. Irrespective of the weather, windows are bolted and painted shut; classes are held in corridors and cloakrooms, with consequent overcrowding and trip hazards; and walls, skirting and ceilings are cracked and unsightly. Can the Scottish Government pursue the Westminster Government to ensure that the Health and Safety Executive will take up such issues in Scottish schools?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As I indicated, while the Scottish Government does not have a statutory responsibility to provide the schools or to enforce health and safety, I sympathise with the spirit of the member’s question. We of course seek to improve the condition of school buildings, and the financial commitment that we have made through the Scottish Futures Trust and the schools for the future programme is testimony to that.

As I said in a reply to an earlier question, we await a response from Glasgow City Council about its plans for school refurbishment. If the member has concerns about anything specific in his constituency that he wants to bring to my attention, I am happy to meet him about it.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

My question follows on from Bill Kidd’s pertinent question about safety. Moorfoot primary school in Gourock requires significant investment in modernisation to ensure that all the children are taught in a newer, modern school. The downside of that process is that construction work must take place, and older buildings often reveal the presence of asbestos, which obviously raises concerns among parents.

I was interested to hear the minister’s previous answer. I accept what he says about reserved matters, but does he not have a role in ensuring that best practice is implemented across local authorities, that the strictest possible safety regime is in place and that children do not suffer undue disruption during teaching hours? Should there not also be a proper consultation when such work has to take place, to reassure the parents throughout the process?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I understand that the cabinet secretary has recently received correspondence specifically on the issue of asbestos. The Government expects the best of local authorities in ensuring that disruption is minimised and that, above all, safety concerns are to the fore in whatever building operations take place.

Curriculum for Excellence

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what research it is carrying out on the interim effect of the implementation of curriculum for excellence on attainment levels in schools (S4O-01077)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government and its partners are carrying out a range of research and other activities to evaluate the impact on attainment of the curriculum for excellence. Those include the Scottish survey of literacy and numeracy and our on-going participation in the programme for international student assessment—PISA.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Cowdenbeath)

Like many members, I am supportive of the overall aim of the curriculum for excellence in driving child-centred learning, but I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that its introduction should never be given as an excuse for falling attainment standards, as it has been in one primary school in my constituency. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that such an excuse is not acceptable? If I furnish him with the details, will he look into the matter urgently? There will be a crisis meeting with parents next week.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I give that unreserved assurance to the member. I am shocked that any school would say that the curriculum for excellence is responsible for falling attainment levels, as the opposite is true. If that is being said, it is absolutely untrue. If the member furnishes me with that information, I shall act on it.

“Communication Matters: Improving Communication in Additional Support Needs”

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

10. To ask the Scottish Executive what its response is to the recommendations in the report, “Communication Matters: Improving Communication in Additional Support Needs”, by the centre for research in education, inclusion and diversity at the University of Edinburgh. (S4O-01078)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As part of the development of a long-term plan to support implementation of the additional support for learning legislation, Scottish Government officials are engaged with key stakeholders and networks. Officials will consider the recommendations made in the “Communication Matters” report as part of that process.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I look forward to the Government’s response in due course. The report also highlights that the right of young people to make a reference to formal dispute resolution mechanisms is not being exercised. Without parental support, looked-after young people are being disadvantaged in the system. How does the minister intend to address that issue?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The Government will introduce a plan to support the implementation of additional support for learning, and I reassure the member that the specific issue that he has raised about looked-after children will form part of the focus of that plan. In addition to engaging with official stakeholders and networks, Scottish Government officials plan to consider the recommendations made in the report that the Education and Culture Committee has produced. Specifically, the issue of access to dispute resolution mechanisms will be considered within that.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The report that was mentioned covers many issues that relate to working with young people with additional support needs and their parents. What work is being done with local authorities to ensure that individual education plans are accessible and practical working documents and not indecipherable documents that merely get stuck in filing cabinets?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member raises the important issues of the relationship between schools and parents and, as he put it, the decipherability of the material that is available. In instances where understanding does not exist between schools and parents on these matters, we hope that issues can be resolved locally. In the minority of instances where they cannot or where people are dissatisfied, we will of course want to give consideration to some of the issues that I mentioned in my previous answer.

Special Schools Pupils (Assistance into Employment)

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

11. To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to special schools in order to assist pupils into employment. (S4O-01079)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Through the opportunities for all initiative, the Scottish Government is supporting young people to develop the skills that they need for life and work and to progress towards and into work. Opportunities for all gives an explicit commitment to all 16 to 19-year-olds, with an offer of a place in learning or training for those who are not in education, training or work. It is for local partners, including local authorities and their schools, Skills Development Scotland and the wide range of learning and support organisations to support young people to take up the opportunities and sustain the option that is right for them.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scottish education awards will take place on 12 June, and Woodlands secondary school in my constituency is a finalist for the secondary enterprise and employability across learning award. Given the difficulties that all school leavers are facing in finding employment in the current economic climate, is the innovative approach that Woodlands has adopted to help its pupils to gain transferable skills one that could be rolled out across the sector?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I add my congratulations to Woodlands secondary school. The ambition of schools on the employability and enterprise agenda is heartening. Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Glencryan school in Cumbernauld, which is another school that caters for children with disabilities and additional support needs, and it is doing some fantastic work in the area. I am somewhat surprised that Mr MacDonald has not invited me to see the great work that is going on in Woodlands secondary school.

The beauty of the curriculum for excellence is that it is a single curriculum. All children work towards the same objectives and experiences, but it is tailored to their individual needs and talents. It is flexible enough to allow schools to meet the needs of their pupils and their local area. However, I hope that schools within a local authority area and across the country make efforts to share good practice.

Integrated Learning (Dumfries and Galloway)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

12. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made in advancing integrated learning in Dumfries and Galloway. (S4O-01080)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I believe that good progress has been made. On 8 May, I led an encouraging meeting at the Crichton in Dumfries that was hosted by Dumfries and Galloway Council and involved Dumfries and Galloway College, the University of Glasgow, the University of the West of Scotland, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council and the Crichton Trust, among others. As the member knows because she was present, we agreed an action plan for partners to develop proposals that could unlock a unique opportunity to integrate senior phase school provision, further and higher education and research on one campus site.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

There has indeed been encouraging progress on integrated learning in Dumfries and Galloway. May I add a suggestion? Given that Dumfries and Galloway is Scotland’s learning community, can it be considered for one of the pilot projects in the new modern languages programme?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am happy for that to be given serious consideration. The idea of a learning town, a learning campus and a learning region is an exciting one and it is being pursued by the new administration in Dumfries and Galloway.

The languages working group has made a number of interesting recommendations. Over the next few months, we will work with partners to identify the right places for the pilot schemes on the 1+2 languages policy. If Dumfries and Galloway Council found itself bringing forward a proposal, I am sure that we would consider it seriously.

Degrees (Employer Demand)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

13. To ask the Scottish Government what degrees it considers will be in greatest demand by employers by 2020 and how will it encourage more people to study for them. (S4O-01081)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The higher education sector in Scotland works closely with industry to identify skills needs. It is for universities to decide on their course provision and encourage participation, and it is for the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to ensure that there is a coherent spread of provision across the sectors that takes into account Scotland’s economic, social and cultural needs.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The minister will be aware of the great opportunities that are ahead for Scotland, particularly in the fields of science, medicine and engineering. However, shortages of such skills are becoming manifest. How can the Scottish Government ensure that we do not end up with skills shortages combined with structural unemployment?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is widely accepted that science, technology, engineering and mathematics are priority growth areas, particularly with the growth of new clean energy sectors, for example. To address the issue, over the next three years the Scottish funding council will provide an additional 1,200 funded university places to ensure that Scotland’s graduates have the right skills to meet the needs of our various sectors and industry.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

What more can the Government do to bring our business and education sectors together to see what can be done to mitigate the skills shortage in the north-east of Scotland, and in my Aberdeenshire West constituency in particular?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I know that Mr Robertson has a particular interest in the issue, as he represents the north-east and I have heard him speak before about the particular needs of the oil, gas and energy sectors. I point him in the direction of the skills investment plans for the energy sector and other important sectors in his locality and in Scotland nationally. Skills investment plans include demand statements about what industry actually requires, and they are vital if we are to match up the needs of industry with our educational provision for young people.

Post-16 Education

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

14. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its reform of post-16 education. (S4O-01082)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will be delighted to do so. We are making excellent progress with post-16 reform. We are doing so by working closely with a wide range of stakeholders, including universities, colleges, training providers and local government. I shall make a full statement on our reforms before the end of the current Parliamentary session.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the work of the Health and Sport Committee on the progress of the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill, which, as he knows, focuses primarily on the role and duties of local authorities. Concerns have been raised about the multi-agency approach to planning, which should enable students with complex needs to make the transition from school to further education, ensure the best outcomes for those young people and avoid increased pressure on the families who support them. What discussion has the cabinet secretary had with his ministerial colleagues about the role of further education with regard to the bill?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member makes a good point. As we develop the outcome agreements for regional colleges, that issue and the issue of learning disabilities must come to the fore, so that, within our expectations of each region and their delivery agents in the colleges, we place an expectation that those issues will be taken into account and acted on. I would be very happy if the member or the committee came to me to discuss how those issues could be built into the regional outcome agreements.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Many young people do not go into post-16 education. How will the Scottish Government identify them, and what are the procedures for offering them training under the opportunities for all initiative, in Inverclyde and in each of the local authority areas in the west of Scotland?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My colleague Angela Constance has done considerable work with Skills Development Scotland and others to ensure that we are aware of young people who leave school and go into the jobs market and who are looking for training or education or who are simply not being contacted in any way.

My colleague has also been very concerned about those who are most distant from the labour market. I hope that we can build and develop a system that ensures that every single individual has the opportunity that goes with the opportunities for all initiative and that they get what they need.

Student Management Fees (Legal Advice)

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

16. To ask the Scottish Executive what legal advice the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has received regarding charging management fees for non-United Kingdom European Union students. (S4O-01084)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is not the practice of this or any previous Scottish Government to reveal either whether it has received legal advice on a particular matter or, if it has, the content of any such advice.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Can the cabinet secretary tell me whether the solution to the EU students issue will involve Scottish students paying a fee or levy of any description?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I remain completely, utterly and absolutely committed to free access to higher education. I hope that the member who asked the question also has that commitment. If he does, I hope that he will tell his party leader, who appears not to.