Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question is a supplementary one to that question. Land register completion by local authorities is quite variable. There are some very high completion rates for some local authorities; incredibly, others have a rate below 50 per cent, and some have zero per cent. I want to understand what influence, if any, you have over that completion by local authorities and why there is such disparity in those figures, regardless of whether you separate that from the land register or unlocking sasines.

Do you have an active plan for the next wave of how to engage with local authorities, given the disparity in the figures? I appreciate that the local authorities have been affected by Covid and are restarting a lot of their operations.

You have said that you spoke to your customers, but what specific feedback did you get from those who still had outstanding cases from 2017? Did they say that they wanted the cases that had been lodged more recently to be dealt with first? Did you break it down in that way?

Yes, we are quite pushed for time.

If the convener agrees, I just want to ask on behalf of the committee whether you can come back to us with an outline of your specific strategy for dealing with cases from 2017 and reflect on what threads of that will influence your strategy for dealing with backlog cases from subsequent years. I do not accept the sort of revisionist approach that suggests that by getting rid of the term “backlog”, you can get rid of the backlog itself. If some of these historic cases are not dealt with, it could be “catastrophic”—I agree with Mr Robertson’s assessment here—if a rejection were to occur, hence my asking about your strategy.

Am I correct in understanding that the time period for expedite cases does not include the period of time since they were lodged? Has your process changed?

For the record, then, you are saying that if solicitors who lodged cases in 2017 come to you with a request to expedite, because of the time that they have already taken, you will agree to that.

I have just one more question before Christopher Kerr comes in. Does the scenario that you have just described in which a problem is discovered later on have a much greater impact, because recourse for customers or clients has diminished over time?

I have some questions about the backlog, which is a matter that I expect other members will want to come in on, too.

When you previously appeared before the committee and were asked about the backlog and how long it would take to clear, you said:

“three years”

or

“a little bit longer”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 2 March 2022; c 10.]

You will have seen the letter from Mr Keith Robertson in which he has extrapolated some figures and—most critical of all—suggests that some cases lodged in 2017 will take 11 years to complete. First, where is Mr Robertson wrong? Indeed, is he wrong?

Does having other people fill in the form pose any further risks with regard to data?

Good morning to the panel—thank you for attending today. If you can bear with me, I want to return to your “Statement of data needs”, specifically in relation to the child disability payment. In the statement, you note—correctly—that,

“While ... sex and gender are sometimes used interchangeably”,

they actually meet different data needs. You also note, as has been referenced today,

“a long-term trend in child disability ... and a higher prevalence of certain conditions for”

males. Given that you have explained today that small errors can, over time, have quite a big impact, is there not a case—if you had your preference—for data on both sex and gender to be collected specifically for the child disability payment and, where appropriate, in other cases?