Questions and answers

Chamber and committees

Questions and answers

Parliamentary questions can be asked by any MSP to the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The questions provide a means for ��˿�� to get factual and statistical information.

Written questions must be answered within 10 working days (20 working days during recess)
Other questions such as Topical, Portfolio, General and First Minister's Question Times are taken in the Chamber

Urgent Questions aren't included in the Question and Answers search. There is a SPICe fact sheet listing Urgent and emergency questions.

Find out more about parliamentary questions

Filter your results Hide all filters

Displaying 1076 questions Show Answers

Order by |

Question reference: S5W-12828

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 17 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Annabelle Ewing on 29 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what safeguards there are to ensure that all of the information provided by the homeowner and applicant is (a) relevant to the registration of a Notice of Potential Liability for Costs (NPLC) on a property’s title deeds (b) made available to both parties prior to the registration of the notice.

When registering a Notice of Potential Liability for Costs (NPLC) the applicant has to provide a range of information.

The property must be described in a way that is sufficient to identify it. Where the property has a postal address, the description must include that address. Where title to the property has been registered in the Land Register of Scotland, the description must refer to the title number of the property or of the larger subjects of which it forms part. Otherwise, the description should normally refer to and identify a deed recorded in a specified division of the Register of Sasines.

The maintenance or work must be described.

The name and address of the person applying for registration of the notice must be provided or the applicant’s name and the name and address of the applicant’s agent must be provided.

The notice must be signed by or on behalf of the applicant.

Under section 112 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, it is a criminal offence for any party submitting an application to the Keeper for registration in the Land Register knowingly or recklessly to include materially false or misleading statements or to fail to disclose material information in such an application.

The NPLC has to be registered at least 14 days before the incoming owner becomes the new owner in order to allow time for the property registers to be searched by solicitors for purchasers.

Question reference: S5W-12826

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 17 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Annabelle Ewing on 29 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what legal provisions protect homeowners against the registration of a potentially fraudulent Notice of Potential Liability for Costs (NPLC) on a property’s title deeds.

There are a number of protections in place.

First of all, to take effect the Notice of Potential Liability for Costs (NPLC) must be registered at least 14 days before the incoming owner becomes the new owner, to allow time for the property registers to be searched by solicitors acting for the purchaser.

Second, only a limited group of people can register an NPLC. In relation to flats, those people are the owner of the flat; the owner of any other flat in the same tenement; a local authority entitled to recover costs and any manager of the tenement.

In relation to properties other than flats, the people who can register an NPLC are the owner of the property; the owner of any property entitled to enforce payment of the costs; and any property manager. The legislation lays down forms when applying to register an NPLC and by signing the form the applicant is certifying they have the legal right to make the application.

Third, under section 112 of the Land Registration etc. (Scotland) Act 2012, it is a criminal offence for any party submitting an application to the Keeper for registration in the Land Register knowingly or recklessly to include materially false or misleading statements or fail to disclose material information in such an application. Fraud is also a criminal offence at common law.

Fourth, any property factor submitting an application would be subject to the provisions of the Property Factors (Scotland) Act 2011 and the statutory Code of Conduct under the 2011 Act. More information on the 2011 Act is at Section 2.1 of the Code lays down that factors must not provide information which is misleading or false. This can be taken into account in determining whether a person is fit and proper to be a registered factor.

Fifth, a notice only makes incoming owners potentially liable. The actual liability would still have to be recovered using ordinary legal remedies, subject to scrutiny by the courts.

Finally, NPLCs expire after three years unless renewed.

Question reference: S5W-12774

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 23 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on making it a legal requirement for people wanting to describe themselves and practice as dog trainers or behaviourists to obtain a national standardised qualification on the subject.

Dog trainers and behaviourists are not currently governed explicitly by animal welfare legislation. The welfare of dogs subject to these services is, however, protected by the general requirements of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. The possible need for further regulation of such businesses to protect animal welfare will be considered as part of an on-going review of pet welfare.

Question reference: S5W-12773

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 23 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what regulations and safeguards are in place to protect dogs and other animals from poor treatment by (a) owners and (b) trainers or behaviourists.

The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 makes it a criminal offence for any person to cause an animal unnecessary suffering or to not take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the needs of an animal are met.

Any person convicted of causing unnecessary suffering can be imprisoned for up to 12 months and/or fined up to £20,000; and those found guilty of not having met the welfare needs of an animal can be imprisoned for up to 6 months and fined up to £5,000.

Question reference: S5W-12822

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 23 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has carried out on the impact of the prohibition and restrictions placed on remote training collars, anti-bark collars and electronic boundary collars for dogs, which have been introduced in (a) Wales and (b) other countries.

Question reference: S5W-12772

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Thursday, 16 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Roseanna Cunningham on 23 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government when it will next review the use of remote training collars, anti-bark collars and electronic boundary collars for dogs.

Question reference: S5W-12446

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 03 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Derek Mackay on 20 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what meetings it has had with the (a) directors and (b) staff of Momentous Change Ltd.

Question reference: S5W-12447

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Friday, 03 November 2017
Current Status: Answered by Derek Mackay on 20 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government whether Momentous Change Ltd (a) has been contracted and (b) is being considered to undertake any work for (i) it, (ii) its arms length bodies and (iii) any other organisations associated with it.

The Scottish Government has not awarded any contracts to Momentous Change Ltd and it is not aware of the company being considered for any of its work. The Scottish Government does not hold centrally records for contracts awarded by its arm’s length bodies and any other organisations associated with it.

The Scottish Government has no record of meetings with the directors or staff of Momentous Change Ltd (incorporated on 21 August 2017). It will, however, be the case that Scottish Government Ministers will have met with Roger Mullen or Michelle Thomson during their tenure as Members of the UK Parliament on issues unrelated to, and predating, the formation of Momentous Change Limited.

Question reference: S5O-01488

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 15 November 2017
Current Status: Taken in the Chamber on 23 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what further progress has been made with the implementation of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012.

Question reference: S5O-01384

Asked by: Jackson Carlaw, MSP for Eastwood, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party
Date lodged: Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Current Status: Answered by Shona Robison on 2 November 2017

To ask the Scottish Government what progress is being made with the implementation of the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Act 2012.

The court case on minimum unit pricing of alcohol was heard by the UK Supreme Court in July and we are currently awaiting the judgment.

Minimum unit pricing of alcohol was passed unopposed by this Chamber in 2012 and would have been in place now for over four years if it were not for the legal challenge led by the Scotch Whisky Association.

We are as frustrated as many others in the Chamber about the delays caused by the legal challenge. We remain fully committed to the implementation of minimum unit pricing and, if the Supreme Court judgment is the positive outcome we hope for, we will move as quickly as is practicable to put the policy in place. We firmly believe minimum unit pricing is legal and would be the most effective way to tackle alcohol misuse, as part of a package of measures and would bring significant health and social benefits.