 Welcome to the 27th meeting of the 2018 of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee. We have apologies from Mark Ruskell. Before we move on to the first item on the agenda, I'd like to remind everyone present to switch off their mobile phones as they may affect the broadcasting system. The first item on the agenda is for the committee to consider whether they take items 3, 4 and 5 in private. Are we all agreed? The second item on the agenda this morning is to take evidence on the land that forms Scotland Act 2016, register of persons holding a controlling interest in land Scotland regulations 2021. We have been joined by Jennifer Henderson, who is the keeper of the registers of Scotland. Good morning. I am going to move on to a question from John Scott. Good morning. Thank you for coming to give us evidence today. My first question is about the development of the register of controlled interest and what consideration was given to creating one single register and why it was or why it is being discounted in current thinking now. The land, well, obviously I think if there was an option to have it as a single register it would be about adding that information into the land register. A number of other registers under my control that relate to matters to do with land are already separate. I personally think it's a much more elegant solution to keep information in separate registers. I think it's nice to have that information discreet, it allows it to be searched in different ways, it allows different kinds of access to be given. I think it almost doesn't matter that the information is kept in separate registers. What matters is how we allow people to bring together and aggregate that information when they view it. I think our proposal going forward for introducing this register is that our Scotland system will, for example, allow someone to look at a piece of land and then look through and see is there a controlling interest registered for that land. It will be seamless to the person looking, they won't know that that information about the controlling interest is held in, it's effectively a separate database, they'll just be able to see all that information drawn together. I think it's a much more elegant solution. Excellent, that's what we wanted to hear and have it on the record, thank you very much. I'd like to ask you some questions around the accessibility of the information. There are quite a few of our evidence sessions last week mentioned about the importance of it being user friendly. How are you going to ensure that the register is user friendly? There's a couple of things to say about that. One of the things we always do at registers of Scotland when we're creating a new register and a new interface to that register is we do a lot of user testing. We work with users, example users who will be wanting to access that information and think about all the possible ways they might want to look at that information and make sure that's designed into the window that you would view the data from. Clearly general accessibility things, making sure that people with disabilities and things like that are able to access the information. I think the other thing is going to be about thinking through what kind of searches might people want to do on the information. Obviously people will want to potentially look at a piece of land and track through and understand who are the controlling interests for that land. You might want to look at an individual and say does an individual have a number of controlling interests in a number of pieces of land? You might want to look at a recorded person and look at who all their associates are. I think we'll think about all the possible ways in which someone might want to interrogate the information and make sure that's designed into the system right from the beginning and that we structure the data that sits underneath that in a way that can support all those kind of queries. Are you going to be providing any guidance for potential users as part of that? Absolutely. With everything we do, we think about how we guide people through how to search effectively, what to do if they can't find the information they're looking for and so on. So we would absolutely provide guidance to make sure that people can use the system effectively and find what they're looking for, otherwise it's not worth having if people can't find what they need when they're searching. I think that there was some concern that it has to be user friendly for the ordinary person and we don't want a situation where only lawyers can navigate these registers. I couldn't agree with you more. One of the things that's perhaps worth saying is that our Scotland system has been mentioned a few times. At the moment we do have a public offering for Scotless, but we're going through, it is quite limited in scope, but right now we're going through a lot of user testing to really get the public more engaged in using Scotless, thinking about what kind of information the public would want to access, how they would want to understand the information that's being presented to them. And so obviously by the time these regulations come into force I think we will have a public who is much more familiar with the kind of information we can present them around land and understands what they're looking at when they're looking for it. Obviously transparency of ownership and control and interest is really important to a lot of people. How are you going to balance the sort of public interest for accessible information with a workable and transparent system? So I think it's important that the regulations define, and they do at the moment in the draft, what will be published. And I think that's really important for the people who will be being asked and required to submit information to the register to understand what of that information is going to be made publicly available and what information might be being collected to allow us to perhaps do some sort of aggregate sort of data but isn't going to be public. But I think it's for the regulations to define where that boundary is between what is made viewable and what is not. And I don't think that's a matter in which I would have an opinion. I will publish what I've been asked to publish when it's defined in the end set of the regulations. So who makes the decision on what is published and what is not? Well I think that's for the regulations as Parliament will decide on them to actually decide what should be published and made public in the register. I know a number of my colleagues have got some questions around that so I won't delve into that too much. Now John Scott, you have some more questions. Thank you very much and I just want to take you to the language about being used in the register. The Law Society of Raise Concerns and Written and Oral Evidence over the use of language including direct the activities of another controlled and also significant influence. And they said I think last week that the language was nebulous and concept and hard to demonstrate although they found it difficult to perhaps find a better way of putting it. So can I ask you when developing the register what discussions did you have with the Scottish Government in relation to the language used and what alternatives were considered or might yet be considered? So I obviously listened to last week's evidence. I think at the moment the scope of who is in scope has been left deliberately quite broad in that it is the idea of the register is to make sure that anyone who may have a considered to have a controlling interest over someone who owns land is in scope to be covered. Subject to obviously there are some types of organisation that are out of scope because they're already covered by other types of register. I think there was a helpful suggestion last week about the use of examples to help people understand should they be in or should they be out. But I think with all of these things it's going to be as we start publicising the fact that registers coming in and as we start dealing with questions from individual people saying could you clarify should I be registering or not it may be possible to add to those examples. And I think there was also a helpful suggestion last week about if someone has inadvertently not registered when they should have if it's brought to my attention that someone should have submitted a registration. I can alert them to the fact that we would consider them to be in scope and then advise them of the process to register so people aren't caught out and inadvertently criminalised by having just not quite understood which side of the line they are. But I think it's one of these things where until we start testing this potentially grey areas and it may be an area where if necessary we would invite the land tribunal to rule on should a certain category of individual be in scope if it becomes apparent that we're getting a lot of questions where people aren't clear from the definition of the terminology. I would agree I think with colleagues from last week that it's hard to get a very precise definition without then creating almost loop holes where people could go oh I'm definitely not in that category and therefore I don't need to register. I think leaving it broad helps meet the policy intent. Right. I am aware of the language being already used in persons of the UK persons of significant control register and was there much reliance placed on the drafting already done in that piece of UK government work or is there a kind of conflict almost between the different uses of the same words in these registers? How is that going to be resolved for the Lee person? Well I think if I may say something about the persons of significant control I mean obviously the eventual vision or the vision I would have for how this register will ultimately work is you can look at a piece of land in the land register and you can see does it have a register of controlling interest entry? Does it have an entry that relates to the persons of significant control? If the UK brings forward legislation around registration of overseas entities does it have an entry for that and that's all presented seamlessly and therefore I think being consistent in the use of language will be helpful in that people will be able to go okay if there is someone registered as having some sort of control through any of these registers over this piece of land I understand what kind of control they might be exercising because it fundamentally to me comes down to their exercising some sort of control over the decision making that goes with that land at a very simple level and I think for the Lee person who's perhaps wanting to understand I'm interested in talking to the person who is controlling the decisions about that land that's what we want to help guide them to find the person they need to have that conversation with. Certainly I would agree with you that a consistency of use of language in the two regulations must be at least something to be aimed for I would have thought but I finally can ask you what work has been done to develop guidelines that might address the concerns of the law society in their evidence which I think you're aware of. As yet nothing but obviously after this round of evidence I think we'll be working closely again with colleagues in Scottish government on the land reform policy unit to say is there need to change any of the language. I understood from last week's evidence that John Sinclair of the Law Society was going to provide some more written thoughts on this so we'll look at what else he has able to say about this and see if there is anything we can do to be more. More precise but without narrowing the scope and therefore potentially undermining the policy intent. Right, thank you. Claudia Beamish. I think I'm convener that Finlay Carson is going to start the section and then I'll continue. Part 2 sets out what the register should contain and how people can add and remove but also how people can search. One of the topics that kept coming up was about the protection and security around that process and given the sort of information that the register will hold it's essential that there's robust security. Can I ask you how do you intend to balance the security of individuals information including personal data but also with the ability for individuals and communities to search and identify the person with the control and interest? So the regulations as drafted at the moment obviously set out the ability for someone to put in a security exemption if they feel that the inclusion of their personal data in the register would put them out in particular threat of violence. From having obviously looked at last week's evidence session there was quite a bit of discussion I think about would there be other reasons when someone might wish to have their information excluded. The regulations at the moment don't make provision for that and I don't think it's for me to say should they. I will publish the data I've been asked to publish as per the regulations and at the moment the only reason why I wouldn't publish someone's data would be if they'd submitted a valid security exemption which I'd accepted as having the necessary evidence to say yes I do believe that person is at threat of violence and then obviously has written to the regulations it makes provision for me to mark that there is a security exemption for that property but then provide no further information as to well who's the person and what are their personal details. So I think if there was to be an appetite for providing other categories of people to request an exemption from having their information published that would need to be added into the regulations and be clear what sort of exemptions could apply. And what the process would be for providing evidence to me to make the case for that. Can you tell us what recorded persons name and address will actually mean in practice and I'm taken from what you're saying that it doesn't mean that all information held by the register will need to be on the face of the register. Is that right? So my understanding of one of the things that this register is intended to do is to enable someone who is interested in finding the person who is the controlling interest behind a property to get in touch with that person and for me that clearly means there has to be some sort of contact details. Now an address is clearly a way of contacting someone whether or not it's a residential address or some sort of service address I don't really have an opinion on. I think what we're trying to give to the public who won't want to get in contact with people is the ability to contact that person by looking up on the register and going through. So I think as long as there is provision in the regulations for contact details of some form to be published then that meets the policy intent I wouldn't have a view whether it's residential or service. I think the persons of significant control people use a service address when they have one but I guess for some people on it they don't have a service address so they may well be providing their residential address. And good morning. Good morning. Could I ask you about commercial confidentiality and whether you as the register see this as a valid reason for not publishing some information? The Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Property Federation as you'll know last week expressed some concerns but there was also detected from my perspective a sense that perhaps there couldn't be a justification for this. So if there is could you kindly explain to us from your perspective why there might be? At the moment as the regulations are written I don't think there is an inclusion of a justification for commercial confidentiality. It's very clear that the exemption is about being a threat of violence. I thought it was an interesting point that the Law Society and Scottish Property Federation made about the fact that could you potentially compromise some sort of commercial deal by I think the example given was if somebody is perhaps selling their company and they've entered into some sort of arrangement with the party they're selling it to does that party become an associate if that organisation owns land and would they therefore have to register that and would that be giving away commercial confidential information? But I think those examples would be very few and far between and perhaps there needs to be clarity that actually until that commercial transaction has gone through that organisation that might be buying the company isn't considered an associate and therefore wouldn't have to register and therefore you wouldn't be giving away any commercial secrets. I think there are potentially other ways of dealing with that sensitivity without creating a commercial confidentiality exemption. Does that help? Yes, I think that clarifies it, especially the point you've made about at the point of sale. I think if that's clear in the regulations then people could stop worrying about that aspect. Right, thank you. Just to go back very briefly to the issue, the very important issue of the protection of those who would need anonymity at risk of violence abuse, threat of violence or abuse or intimidation. Could you say a little bit more about that please just from your perspective because it is obviously a very important issue? Absolutely, so what will happen in my understanding from the way the regulations are written is at the point at which somebody, a recorded person who's the person who in the land register owns the land, at the point at which they're submitting their associates, they would, if any of those associates needed to have a security exemption submitted along with their name, they would provide that security exemption with the necessary evidence and there's quite a comprehensive set of evidence set out and I would consider the evidence to say, do I think that what I've been provided with does meet what's set out in the regulations and therefore that named individual and their details, their residential address, their service address, whatever it is, shouldn't be included as an associate and if I judge that what's set out in the regulations had been met then I would be marking on the register that there was a privacy exemption or a security exemption in place so that there'd be no further details, it would just be a note to say I've considered some information and I have decided to accept a privacy exemption. There's obviously provision in the regulations for what happens if I reject it, what happens if I decide that actually the evidence I've been provided doesn't meet the expectations and there's an appeal process and I think one of the things that we need to firm up on as the regulations get completely finalised is would I hold off, publish, if I've rejected it, do I wait until the appeal process has run its course and I'm absolutely sure that it's okay to put that person's information on the register, I think that's probably the prudent way to go about it rather than risk publishing because I've rejected then the appeal says no, no, no, the privacy exemption should stand and actually that person's information has been unnecessarily in the public domain so I think we'll work through our, these will be internal processes that we'll set up within Registers of Scotland to just think about exactly how those things go through but I think the prudent view would be it doesn't get published until all routes of appeal have failed. Right, that's helpful, thank you. Will there be an annual reporting system on the number and nature of security declarations made and what form would that take and what information might be included? I think it's early days on this but it would be helpful to just flesh this out as far as you can. So my view is absolutely part of being transparent is I should be declaring how many privacy exemption, security exemptions have I received, how many have I accepted, how many have I rejected on an annual basis and what sort of reasons. I think with these kind of sensitive issues you just need to be a bit careful that in aggregating and presenting that kind of data you aren't inadvertently giving away something that you're trying to keep private so I think we would need to just make sure that in no way was any kind of report about how I'd considered these exemptions in any way making it possible to identify or draw any conclusions about who might have been submitting exemptions but I certainly think it'd be worth being public about what we've been considering and how many. It would also I think address the issue that I know there are some concerns that could the security exemption system be open to abuse where people will use it as a way of choosing to not be published on the register and I think therefore being transparent about how many of these we are receiving and considering would give people a sense that yes it is in line with, so persons of significant control has a similar thing and their numbers are very very small so I think we would expect to similarly see very small numbers and if we weren't seeing very small numbers we'd need to ask well why not. Finally from me it's a broader question but if I'm right there isn't a recognised independent standard for the process of security in the registration process. Is that correct and if not do you think it would be useful if there was a broader standard that could be referred to for all the registers? Well it's a good question. You're right there isn't a standard. I think different registers would have different requirements about when someone might wish to have their information not published and I think it's probably therefore my opinion would be it's probably therefore helpful to be specific for each register about under what circumstances can someone ask for their information to not be included and provide a set of guidance about how that process would work rather than try and create something that would fit every set of circumstances for all the different registers. I just want to examine the timeline when property is sold. It particularly applies in relation to the commercial confidentiality issue that my colleague has raised. Clearly the first step is a party will make an offer to another party. That will be accepted almost invariably conditionally and there will be a tango between the two parties until you get to a final position that the offer is agreed and accepted. Ownership of course is not yet transferred at that point. Indeed making a payment, taking possession and then finally perhaps six months later it being registered in the register. At what point in that sequence does the controlling interest in you of you spring into action? Because I think I can make an argument for almost every step in the way being the answer. That's a very good question. Well I guess I'll say something quickly about the registration process if I may about when ownership transfers. So if a property is already in the land register it's a two day process to transfer over that registration so that's very quick. What I would imagine happening is that at the point the lawyer who has dealt with the sale and the purchase of that property sends in the forms to register the new ownership, that would be the point at which they would also ask the party that's being registered as the owner to go ahead and determine whether they had any associates and whether they needed to submit an entry under the register of controlling interests. Now that may not be an incident. Just forgive me. Who is asking that person? Did you say the person who's doing the selling? I think the person who has bought the property at the point at which their lawyer is submitting the paperwork to register the property, to register them as the owner of the property. I think at that point that person would need to be made aware that if they have associates and they should be putting an entry into the register of controlling interests that's the moment. So it's a duty on the purchaser? Yes, absolutely. That's all right, move on. So then I think that person who has purchased the property would have to think, do I have any associates? Do I need to make an entry onto the register of controlling interests? I don't necessarily see the process of figuring out who would you need to record as your associate as being an incident process. You'd have to kind of think, well, you know, who would I need to be recording? Does anyone need a security exemption? And so whether or not there is some sort of grace period that says from when you've registered your ownership, you have a period of time that if you're going to make a register of controlling interest entry, you have to do it within a period of time of submitting your documentation to register the property. I think that's something that we could clarify in the process. Is it different when you're on the register of sayings? Yes, it's different in terms of the time it takes for your registration to be processed. So if you're on the register of sayings, we've now closed the register of sayings to new entries. So if you're purchasing a property that would trigger a first registration and that takes us up to six months to process. However, we take the application on on the day it's received. So I see no reason why that can't be the point at which you would also be asked as the purchaser to submit your register of controlling interests entry. And we would just have to track through and make sure that we didn't get a mismatch between the point at which if someone looks on the land register and sees, ah, that property has now gone on to the land register with its new ownership. Now I can click through and see who are the controlling interests behind it. I think what you said presents considerable clarity and that's very helpful. Just one final little bit. It's not uncommon for possession to be taken before the registration process is initiated in domestic purchases, for example. How does that influence when this registration should take place? I think my normal experience is that the lawyers dealing with the purchaser will send off the registration document as quickly as possible after the entry date. Because, understandably, as the purchaser, you want to have the certainty that your title is registered on the land register in your name. The other thing, I guess, is we have a process where lawyers submit advance notices when purchases are going through. So usually people want to secure getting their registration application in before that advance notice has expired. So I don't think we typically see long delays from the possession being taken to the land registration application appearing. Yes, it does sometimes if it's the first registration, take us time to create the plan, create the new entry in the register. But I don't see why the register of controlling interests couldn't be being filled in at the same time. Thank you. I just want to take you back to the security of individuals and your ability within the guidelines to allow people's names to be withheld. Would you welcome, and I don't know if it's in the legislation or not, a discretionary power? Because there will be combinations of circumstances that none of us can envisage here or indeed those drafting regulations. So would you welcome or should you be seeking something at your discretion, the ability to make a decision even though it's not part of the guidelines that will be furnished with? I think, and I may be wrong, that the very lengthy list in schedule 3 of the possible evidence does cover almost anything and everything that could be relevant to requiring a secure... It's a very, very long list of things that could be provided and a very comprehensive, in my opinion, list of people who can certify or attest to the situation. I think the challenge of me having an additional discretionary power is it opens up a potentially incredibly large number of possible cases to be brought forward. I think the current situation where I will use the guidance in schedule 3 to see have I got something that matches that's been thought of in front of me. If I don't have, and I judge that what I've got in front of me isn't appropriate, I'll reject, but then there is obviously an appeal route through a court. And I think that would be the right route with a test case almost to say, aha, there is a set of circumstances we haven't envisaged and the court could take a test case to say, actually there is something that should be amended into the regulations. I think a discretionary power would place too much reliance on me knowing intimate circumstances of when people might be at threat, which isn't something I have experience of. I'm very happy to use the guidance and make a judgement, but looking at documents that don't fit with this list, I would struggle to know whether what I was looking at was valid or not, I think. The reason I ask is because it's been our bitter experience here in Parliament over the years that when you create a list there's always, once the legislation is passed, something else that you think of that should have been on it. But if you're happy with schedule 3, as it is, then that's fine by us. I think it's schedule 3 plus the right of an individual to appeal if they don't like the outcome, gives the individual the protection, but without having a very open-ended opportunity up front. We've partly covered earlier the issue of duties to provide information, but if we could look in a bit more detail at part 3, which as we know sets out the duties on persons to provide information for publication in the register, the information that they're required to provide and the offences that are committed in the case of non-compliance. We'll look at the issue of non-compliance shortly, but if we could look at regulation 8 just now, the Law Society of Scotland has stated that there should be more detailed and clearer guidance regarding the persons to whom the regulations do not apply. The Law Society also states that there appears to be no differentiation between, for example, a local sports club and a large commercial organisation, or between small family partnerships and major pension fund trusts. The Scottish Property Federation also questions the benefit of including investors or beneficiaries on the register. You've already partly covered this, but maybe you could expand on who will be caught by the regulations and who will be exempt. Is it correct that the regulations apply to all those with a controlling interest, for example, small family partnerships as well as major pension funds? How can the guidance help clarify these concerns? My personal view is that it is right in terms of achieving the policy intent that it does capture everything from a small sports club to a large pension fund, because one of the things that people would wish to do with the information that will be on the register is get in touch with the person who is the controlling interest. I think that makes no difference whether that is a sports club who owns a piece of land or a pension fund who is investing through a company in a piece of land. I think that it is important that all controlling interests for all pieces of land are appropriately recorded in the register. I think the onus will be on making sure that the process for people submitting the information to the register is very straightforward, easy to access, not an onerous task so that if you're a small organisation it doesn't add a big overhead to comply. I think that there is also an issue around how we make sure that in the run up to the register going live there is a very significant amount of publicity so that those small organisations who perhaps are in tune with everything that is changing in terms of the legislation are well aware that this is something they need to do and they know what they need to do to comply. I think that there was, in my opinion, a helpful suggestion from last week around if someone has failed to comply through ignorance of the rules that they get a chance to put that right before they are deemed to have committed a criminal offence. I think that a combination of all of those things will make sure that we capture everyone who needs to be captured. We give people the opportunity to correct things if they've misunderstood whether they're in scope but actually we fundamentally capture everybody who needs to be recorded so that the citizen out there who wants to get in touch with someone about a piece of land can find the right person to get in touch with. Did someone just occur to me when you were speaking there in a situation that Angus has just described where it's my community group or an individual with not much experience of dealing with a register? Will it be the opportunity for them to maybe speak to somebody to get guidance if they have got it wrong? Absolutely. At Registers of Scotland we have a customer services function and that is their day job is answering questions from people who are in some way trying to deal with our registers. We have a lot of online guidance as well but we do have real people at the end of a phone that someone could speak to if they were struggling to understand what they needed to do and we'd be able to offer that guidance. I will feel that the best outcome would be that by the time the register goes live we have done such a good job with Scottish Government colleagues of making sure that everybody understands what they need to do, why they need to do it, how to do it, that actually the number of people who need to phone my customer services and ask for advice is very small. Do you think that the capacity of Registers of Scotland is a huge piece of work that you have the capacity right now or are you going to be expanding that capacity to deal with the new register? The timing of this and when these regulations come in is a good thing for Registers of Scotland because obviously at the moment we are working very hard on the completion of the land register and we continue to do that up till 2024 but we are putting a lot of effort in over the next couple of years around bringing in digital ways of working, rolling out our system. So there's going to be a real rump of effort from Registers of Scotland staff and I think we will have people with spare capacity at exactly the time we need it to build and implement this register and make sure it's up and running. We have plenty of experience over the last few years of taking on and creating new registers and we've always managed to fit that into our work programme. I've not got any concerns about the capacity for us to support this in the timescale. It's due to coming in. Stuart Stevenson, have I? I'll move on to Alec Rowley. Thank you. Good morning. You believe that Community Land Scotland have raised some concerns about data validation and verification and they say the envisaged validation process in the draft regulation appears relatively weak. Where does the legal responsibility for ensuring that the register is up to date and contains the correct information lie? Is it up to the person registering or is it up to the keeper to validate? So, if I may, I'll make a distinction between validation and verification. So I think the way we design the collection mechanism for the registration information, we can do an awful lot to make sure that some of the examples that Community Land Scotland and Global Witness was citing around dates of birth that just can't be correct or validation that addresses are real addresses. I think we can build all of that into the system to make sure that people can't deliberately choose to put in a date of birth that's year 9000. We can build that in. What we can't do is if someone chooses to just deliberately put in a false address but that is a real address but it's not their address, we would have no way of knowing that that's what's happened and that would be a verification task. I think at the moment the regulations are very clear that the legal responsibility for the provision of accurate information to the register rests with the recorded person and they are the person who would face the criminal sanction if they haven't done that and they've not done it deliberately. I think it would be a very difficult thing for me as the keeper to do to take on a really significant verification responsibility of in some way needing to, when someone has submitted the information to me, check that that information is true because I would have no investigatory powers. I have no ability to go and look behind the submission and I think it would move very significantly away from what the regulations currently require, which is that it's the onus is on the person to provide that information accurately. I can do a lot around making sure that when they submit it we can check that it probably could be true but whether it's absolutely true isn't something that's within my gift to determine. And could I ask if someone raises specific concerns with you about information contained within the register, are you able at that point to investigate? So I think the regulations are clear that I would, and I investigate is probably a slightly too strong word, but I would need evidence as to why there'd been an assertion made that what was in the register was incorrect. I think the only route open to me would be to go back to the recorded person and say, I don't know, let's say somebody writes to me and says this recorded person should have also recorded another person as their associate. I think the only thing I could do would be notify the recorded person that it's been asserted there's an omission in their registration and invite them to correct it if it is indeed wrong. And if they choose not to correct it then I think I have to take it that I've given that person, the recorded person, the opportunity for them to exercise their legal duty of providing me with accurate information. And if they haven't done it, it's because actually what's been reported to me is in fact not correct and there isn't anything wrong with the register or the recorded person is committing a criminal offence. And if that's the case, the next recourse would be for the police to investigate that and decide whether in fact a criminal offence has been committed and take the associated penalties. Sorry, that was a rather long answer but does that make sense that I think I can let someone know there might be an error with their registration but I don't think I have any power to go and investigate it in any more detail. And the person who was then complaining about that, that would be their duty to take that mark to the police? I believe so, I believe if they really felt that somebody was committing a criminal offence by not recording some information on the register, I think it would absolutely be their duty to make an allegation that a criminal offence has been committed. Richard Lyle, do you have some questions on this theme? Basically I was thinking on the case of someone who votes they can ask for their name, their address to be withheld. So is there any case where someone other than a cause of violence that you would agree that someone could have their name and their address withheld? I don't think so. Certainly not as the regulations are currently written. I think if anyone was minded to think of other examples that could be put in the regulations then of course I would abide by them but at the moment the regulations are very clear that unless someone has a security exemption application I will publish the details that are provided. I think there's a decision to be made about whether people are providing home addresses or residential addresses or service addresses and if people are concerned about, I think the example was given last week of do you want the person who coming and knocking on your front door to have a conversation about possibly buying the land that you're a controlling interest in but I think that could be appropriately overcome by the use of a service address if people feel that that's something they want to avoid. It still means the member of the public can make contact with them. That was the point that I pressed the law society about and basically they said that for privacy reasons we do not consider it appropriate for a recorded person to be required to give their home address but they should be able to contact them either through someone should be able to go to the person's lawyer or it could be a business address, it could be a lawyer's address. What do you prefer, do you prefer a home address, a business address, an email, what would you prefer? I would say certainly not an email because emails can change. I think a physical address is an appropriate way of providing a citizen who wants to make contact with a place to go to make contact. I think I'm agnostic as to whether it's a residential address or a business address and address is an address and it would allow someone to send a letter to that place and ask for the information they were interested in. To finish, convener, if I was registering my property and I wanted my lawyer to be the address, you don't have a problem with that? I think to be accurate it will depend on exactly what's defined in the regulations because I think the point was made by global witness that one of the functions, as well as providing a means of contact, one of the functions that an address potentially provides is to allow us to identify unique individuals who are controlling interests. I think there would have to be some consistency if someone was using an address, if someone was an associate and they were using an address as the means of contact that they would want to be contacted through, they would need to use that address consistently. Again, I think it's back to the verification question. I would have no means of knowing whether the address that someone had provided to me was their home address, a business address, their lawyer's address, and I think I'm agnostic on that. It provides a means of contact and it allows us to meet the policy intent. So, as long as they provide an address that meets the regulation? An address that they can be contacted at. The regulations don't currently define which address should be used. If the regulations did, I would be expecting people to provide the precise address that the regulations define, but at the moment it is an address. You're talking about validation. If it was an email address and if you're signing up to an eBay account or whatever, there's a process of validation where you give your email address and you've got to click on the link and send back a response from that. Is there not a process you could have where when a piece of land's registered and the address is recorded, you send a recorded letter or whatever to that address and expect a response within so many days? Would that not validate it in quite a simple process because the whole idea is actually just to provide the means for someone to contact that controlling person? So it could be a solicitor's or it could be a PO box or whatever, as long as you got a confirmation that that address was the route to contact the controlling person. That not something that could be done. It could be done. Obviously it would add to the cost of running the register because every time my staff would need to produce a letter and then I guess there's a question of what if I get no response, then what do I do and so on. So I think if there was to be a desire to provide some level of responsibility on me to validate, we would need to be clearer in the regulations about how far I am expected to go with that and what action I would take if I got no reply back. Because it doesn't tell me anything. If I don't get a reply back, is it just that they're on holiday for a month or is it that actually the address that's been provided is not the address that they can be contacted at. So I think we need to think carefully. It's probably a question I'd like to take away and think harder about what would really be involved in that before saying it's something, theoretically it's absolutely possible, practically I'd need to think about what it would mean to do it. I just wanted to correct Finlay if I may politely do so. It is very easy to obtain an email address without providing any identification or confirmation whatsoever and indeed the email address I use as my parliamentary one would be one such. Just to follow up briefly on the issue that Finlay Carson was just raising, I have a bit of a concern and perhaps you can help me with it that a factors address or a lawyers address is a second, is something that is secondary to that person. I believe quite rightly, if I understand it correctly, the right of a professional not to be prosecuted if it's not actually them that should be being prosecuted but they might therefore withhold information if the person doesn't want them to give the other address. But why can't it just be an address where that person can be contacted? That's my concern. Why should it have to be their lawyer or that it seems like it's another layer of lack of transparency? I think the answer is it doesn't. The regulations as defined say, it's an address of a registered office or where it does not have such an office and address at which it may be contacted, which is very broad. So I think the regulations as currently written allow for people to provide a suitable address that they can be contacted at and haven't been more prescriptive about what kind of address. And I think some people I guess following the regulations may choose to say to their lawyer, could I provide your address as my contact address or a registered office? I mean it's clear in the regulations that if they have a registered office, that's the address they should be using. But I think going back to the point about the fact that the breadth of organisations captured by these regulations, there'll be lots of organisations that don't have such a thing as a registered office and their associates will want to think, okay, what is the best address to contact me at, particularly if I'm not willing or wish to provide my home address. Thank you. And finally John Scott. Thank you and can I take you now to regulations 18 to 20 and in oral evidence there was a difference of opinion over well. The proposed offences and defences set out in regulations 18 to 20 were appropriate. Regulation 18 essentially proposes in the worst case scenario a fine up to £5,000 as you will know. Now community land Scotland would strengthen their proposals relating to those offences and so too would global witness. And in the evidence that we had, as I'm sure you're aware, the Law Society of Scotland and also the Scottish Property Federation didn't share that view. The Law Society particularly thinks that there will be many innocent and inadvertent breaches, certainly in the first instance. And also the Scottish Property Federation have concerns about the transitional period being different from the six month transitional period being different from the one of the registration of overseas entities bill, which is 18 months. So can I ask you how will the process of identifying and reporting non-compliance function? I think you may have already answered that, but how will you become aware of some breach? I think the simplest way in which I would become aware of an allegation that there should be an entry on the register and there isn't would be if a third party writes to me and says I have reason to believe that for recorded person X they should have recorded, they should have person Y recorded as their associate. And I think, as I explained earlier in that case, I think I would write back to the recorded person say, have you just missed this out? Should you have added this in? And if so, please make the necessary correction. If this is not in fact correct, sorry to have bothered you, you know, as you were. And then I think if the third party who's notified me still has a very strong view that there should have been a correction to the register and there hasn't been, then it's for them to take that matter to the police and ask for the police to investigate, because the police have the necessary investigatory powers to look into these kind of matters and to determine whether a criminal offence has been committed and if necessary then for an appropriate fine to be taken. I mean, I think that that is as far as we can go within the current regulations. And I think that if combined with the fact that if someone is notified that there may be an error and they're given a reasonable length of time to correct that error if it's a genuine oversight, and it's only after that point that there would be any recourse for someone to go to the police, then I think that catches the issue of people who've perhaps inadvertently made a mistake and it wouldn't, in my opinion, be appropriate to criminalise them from day one, but equally it allows the fact that if someone is committing a criminal offence, it will get picked up and taken forward by the police. Do you? And how could the regulations be proportionally applied to accommodate concerns relating to innocent and inadvertent failure to comply? I mean, do you feel you've answered that? I think giving people the opportunity within a reasonable timeframe to correct their entry on the register if, when alerted to the fact that they've made an omission, they go, my goodness me, yes I have, let me get straight online and sort that out. But if, after a period of time has elapsed, they've chosen to not make a correction, what I would hope, I suppose, is that if I write to someone and say it's been asserted you should have had a person Y recorded as your associate, correct it if it's wrong, I would think for most people if they think I'm wrong they might write back to me and say no no you're completely mistaken person Y is not an associate of me, but if they just choose to ignore my letter then it's kind of, I have to assume that they've been given the opportunity to fix the problem, they've decided it's not something they need to change and then if a criminal offence has been committed it's for the police to take that forward. Thank you. Have you a view on how repeat or consistent non-compliance should be dealt with? People are repeat offenders. So I think it will be interesting to determine how we would know that someone's a repeat offender because I might get lots of letters saying recorded person X should have Y, Z, A and B as their associates and I could write to them every time and they could say no I'm sorry you're mistaken those people are not my associates I don't need to update my entry, in that case I don't think they're a repeat offender. I don't know what the position would be if someone was found to have committed a criminal offence in relation to this, what we would, whether the next time that they were recording information we would have some extra process for trying to understand whether it had been made correct or whether we would notify the police. I haven't really thought through kind of if we knew someone what had been found guilty once of deliberately withholding the information whether we would have any way of looking more closely at any other entries they make. I mean not at the moment as the regulations are written because as I've said I don't have investigatory powers but we'd have to think what could we do to spot check perhaps information if we know someone's previously committed offence I don't know. I mean there are those who adhere to the view that £5,000 as a fine and the maximum penalty is not enough. Community Land Scotland and I think global witness are of that view. Do you care to comment on that? I don't think it's something I have an opinion on other than to say my understanding is that is the maximum fine that's allowed within the overarching legislation and therefore if it was minded for the regulations to include a larger fine then I think other legislation would need to change to accommodate that. And should there be a period if it's £5,000 is the maximum fine for non-compliance for someone who might regard that amount as being worth hiding their identity? Should it be for that £5,000 to cover a period of a year, a month, a day? I merely ask the question. Yeah it's an interesting question and I think the regulations currently as written say the £5,000 is in section 18 it's an offence if you have committed, there's a long list of things you might not have done, it's not clear to me whether the fine could be applied for each individual offence if they've committed a number of separate offences can they face multiple fines. That's not something I actually would know the answer to I'm afraid. I could certainly go away and find out from colleagues in the land reform policy team and come back if that's not clear. Thank you. I mean we're here just to ask the questions and to provoke answers that will be envisioned in due course but thank you very much. I think that's all our questions unless there's anything that you would like to say that you feel you haven't had a chance to say. No, I don't think so. I think that's been very useful, thank you. Very useful to us too, thank you very much. At its next meeting on the 23rd of October the committee will hear evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform on the regulations to establish a register of persons holding a controlled interest in land. We will also take evidence on the climate change bill from the committee on climate change and from the climate exchange. As we read earlier the committee will now move into private session and I request that the public gallery be cleared. Is this part of the meetings now closed?