Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 23 January 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 936 contributions

|

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

That is all right. We are interested to hear your thoughts.

I have one more question, which is a little off topic, but I will ask it because you are here. It is about how the Standards Commission views how councillors function. I have heard examples of councillors who are in opposition being told by council officers that political criticism that they make of the council is a breach of the code of conduct. It seems to me that that is a stifling of legitimate political debate. In effect, they are bullied into not voicing public criticism of the council by officers telling them that they will be reported to the Standards Commission. I will not do so in public, but I could give you examples of that.

Given that you are the convener of the Standards Commission, can you reassure me that, in such circumstances, councillors would not be found guilty of a breach of the code of conduct for making a legitimate political criticism of council decisions?

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

I think that it would be helpful to get an idea of whether we are talking about 10 per cent or above or below that figure.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

That is exactly what the committee is trying to determine.

I have just one more question on the back of my colleague Richard Leonard’s earlier questions about workload. You referenced a number of complaints against MSPs. As you will be well aware, I have had a number of complaints made against me; I am pleased to say that none of them has resulted in a guilty conclusion—at least, not yet. The complaints seem to have dried up a little bit recently, although I realise that, by making that comment, I might be giving a hostage to fortune. Do you keep a league table of the most-complained-about MSPs? [Laughter.]

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

No—that was very helpful, convener.

I am racking my brains trying to think of a body in which there is an investigating function and a board that determines, and in which that is done in-house. I cannot think of one, off the top of my head, but we will go away and have a think about that.

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee

SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review

Meeting date: 30 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

Exactly. You might be right, but we will go away and have a think about it.

I have a slightly different question on the creation of new commissioners. We are interested in the criteria for the establishment of new commissioners or, as we call them, SPCB-supported bodies. Do you have any thoughts on the criteria as they stand, and how they could be improved?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

I guess that that is my concern. Raising awareness among practitioners is one thing, but not everybody who is purchasing something moveable would necessarily involve lawyers in the transaction. Whether it is a business or a consumer parting with quite a large sum of money for something, they might realise that there is a charge on it only after the event.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

Having reflected on some of the questions that I asked earlier about protections for purchasers, I want to return to them.

I understand that consumers are not covered by the legislation, because only businesses can grant pledges and charges. What happens if somebody buys from a business but not in the ordinary course of business? It is probably easier to illustrate with an example. Mr Halcro Johnston has a farm, so he is conducting a business. He is granted a charge over his moveable assets, including his combine harvester. I decide that I am going to buy his combine harvester, because I am a collector of old combine harvesters. In that circumstance, would I be protected, or would I need to search the register to ensure that there was no charge against it?

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

Because I am not a business.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

That would be helpful. There are consumer groups, for example, that would help to spread the word.

Economy and Fair Work Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 29 January 2025

Murdo Fraser

Good morning, minister. I have a mild fascination with this subject, dating back to my days in legal practice. To put that in context, I can remember being instructed by an England-based bank that had been approached by an impoverished Scottish farmer—not Jamie Halcro Johnston, I hasten to add. The bank was prepared to lend him some money and he had offered a flock of sheep as security, but I had to try to explain to the institution that it could not take security over the flock of sheep unless it took delivery of that flock, which was not of interest to the bank. I am delighted that the law has been reformed to simplify such processes, but that throws up a range of other issues that we must carefully consider.

You referred to the change in the definition of insolvency, which arose from the consultation process run by the Scottish Government. You mentioned the responses to that consultation, but those have not been published and we do not know what else was in them. Is there any reason why you have not published the consultation responses, and was there anything else in those responses that you considered but decided not to change at this stage?