Seòmar agus comataidhean

The next item of business is to decide whether to take items 7 and 8 in private. Is the committee content to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you for that, Mr Layden. You have already answered my opening question, but I will ask one thing as an opening for the committee. The Scottish Law Commission has suggested some changes to the draft bill. Are you content that the bill still follows the ethos and the wider considerations of the SLC’s work?

Agenda item 5 is consideration of an instrument subject to the negative procedure. An issue has been raised on the instrument.

?

Agenda item 6 is consideration of two instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with the instruments???

Members indicated agreement.

I have one final question in this area. I assume that you are aware of the situation that arose with McClure Solicitors.

Before we move on, and I hesitate to ask this question, but, particularly in respect of that area, would a section 104 order be made use of?

Charles Garland, would you like to come in?

Oliver, before you continue, I would like to follow on from that point.

If a judicial factor were in place for a long time, notwithstanding Oliver Mundell’s question about the ESG investment power, would the bill as it stands provide them with flexibility to consider other investments or other ways to invest? Alternatively, should an amendment be lodged to provide the ESG power, would that be helpful?

Okay. We can look into that.