Seòmar agus comataidhean

Amendment 139 picks up on the concerns that were highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1. That committee said:

“The Committee notes that it is being asked to consider this power in absence of the rural support plan which is to contain information about the expected use of the powers conferred by this provision. In light of the absence of detail, and the fact that this power is a Henry VIII power, the Committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

Amendment 139 therefore seeks to ensure that any regulations that are made under section 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure, to reflect that such regulations would modify primary legislation.

Similarly, amendment 168 seeks to strengthen the parliamentary process for section 10, moving it from the negative to the affirmative procedure, as does amendment 172 for section 13, which is on regulations about support and gives the Scottish Government the power to make regulations on administrative matters, eligibility and the enforcement of support for a particular purpose. At stage 1, concerns were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and stakeholders that section 13 would vary between the negative and the affirmative procedure. Amendment 172 proposes to move all regulations to the affirmative procedure.

On all of that, given that the overall package of support could be several billions of pounds and we do not have the detail, there needs to be enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

I accept what the cabinet secretary said about review and consultation, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 124 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Colin Smyth].

Good morning. It is great to be a part of the committee. I am not sure if I need to, but I declare an interest as I am a farmer and I have worked in the agriculture sector.

Amendments 123 and 124 both refer to the rural support plan, which, as other members have said this morning, is a critical part of the practical application of the bill and is important with regard to what farmers and landowners will do moving forward.

Amendment 123 would require delivery of the rural support plan within three months of royal assent. With that amendment, I am trying to get the rural support plan out as quickly as possible, because the plan is that we will be moving into the next stage in 2026, which is not far off.

Amendment 124 is about how we manage the change between rural support plans. The bill specifies a period of six months, but the problem with that is that six months is not a long time in the rural sector. It should be changed to 12 months, which would give farmers and land managers the greatest ability to respond to the new rural support plan.

Up until about a month ago, I did not know what the register of inhibitions was. I do now, and we have been having quite the debate on whether that is the correct place to give notice of the appointment of judicial factors. Various people who have been in front of us have debated that issue. Most would probably agree that that is not 100 per cent the right place, but there was concern about the cost of setting up a completely new location for that information. There was also concern about the public’s ability to search the register of inhibitions. Having listened to that evidence, do you have any thoughts on whether the register is the right place to put that information?

I clarify that the concern with the register of inhibitions is that it is not easily searchable by members of the public. However, you are content that that is the most cost-effective way of recording the appointment of judicial factors and that support is in place such that a member of the public will be able to search the register if they want to do so.

I have a couple of relatively specific questions around section 38(4). The first question is around the requirement for the accountant to refer a judicial factor to their “professional body”. Can you clarify for the committee whether the professional body for solicitors is the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or the Law Society of Scotland?

I have a quick general question that has come to mind as various of the witnesses have been speaking. Pretty much all of them welcomed the update under the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill. One referred to a couple of paragraphs in a Victorian bill that referred to the old judicial factors. I read in previous notes that the Scottish Law Commission first published a discussion paper on this in 2010, with full recommendations in 2013. We are now in 2024. Is it normal for law reform to take that long? Is there an issue there? Can we do something to speed up law reform in Scotland more generally?

Good morning, minister, and thank you for coming in. When the Charity Law Association was here, it commented that it does not think that the bill as drafted would really help in the case of charities. It wants new provisions in the bill that will specifically help with that. However, when the commission came in, it said that, rather than having new provisions, we could amend the current provisions of the bill. Do you have any thoughts on that or on how we could help in relation to the Charity Law Association’s point?

No: what I have heard explains the matter. There was quite a lot of discussion about the register, but the explanations that have been given make sense to me.

You may need to educate me on how to pronounce this word correctly. With regard to the fiduciary—there we go—nature of the judicial factor’s duties, there was a discussion on whether those need to be explicitly laid out in the bill.

Some argued that the context was self-evident in the bill, while others said that those duties could be laid out more widely. What is the Scottish Government’s view on that? Would you be open to amending the bill if you thought that that would be worth while?