Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you—that is helpful.

Therefore, in your mind, the two processes are almost running side by side. That complaint would take reference to any on-going court case at the same point and come to the same conclusion. Thank you very much.

Thank you—I was just curious. Law is maybe always not that fast, but I wondered whether there was a hold-up, because there is quite a lot that we want to come through the system, as you mentioned. If all the reports take 10 years, that will take quite a long time. However, if it is simply about parliamentary time and space, I suppose that the best use of the committee is in how we can push things forward.

The Faculty of Advocates, with support from the centre for Scots law, has said to the committee that it would be useful to give the judicial factor an additional power in part 2 of the bill to seek directions from the appointing court. However, other stakeholders’ views on that have been more mixed. There is some suggestion that the court already has the powers that it needs in the bill.

Having heard all the views that have been expressed to the committee, what is your position on that? Would you be open to amending the bill in such a way as the Faculty of Advocates suggests?

That is good, because there was a concern that the SLCC should be the first point of call. However, if you have spoken to the Law Society and it has said that it would pass the report on, that is fine.

My second question is also about section 38(4). The accountant must refer a judicial factor to their professional body, but that is before any potential misconduct has been determined by the court. There was a concern that that does not seem a fair way around it; instead, the court should decide first and, if an issue has occurred, that would be referred on to the professional body.

Is the minister still of the view that that subsection is framed correctly? Would you like to comment on that?

That makes sense. For absolute clarity on your previous points, is it your preference that, when a judicial factor is in place and the missing person returns, there should be as close to an immediate ceasing of that factory as possible? That would need to be stated in the bill.

Thank you very much for that.