Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will leave it there. Thank you.

One of the responses that the committee received was about the role of mediation. There is nothing in the bill about that. Did the commission consider a formal role for mediation? If so, what policy considerations led to the decision not to include in the bill a process whereby, rather than having to go to the Court of Session or a sheriff court, mediation could be used as a stepping stone?

That is helpful. Thank you for your kind offer.

I move on to an issue that has been raised by one of the legal firms. It concerns section 19 of the bill, which is on nominees. The law firm thinks that the section might not go far enough. Specifically, it has said that doubt would remain as to whether trustees could use a nominee custody structure or sub-custodians. I am interested to get your view on the scope of section 19 and any potential risks that have been identified in relation to it.

No, I was just saying thank you to Lord Drummond Young for the kind offer. We may well come back to him on it.

Chapter 7 extends to charitable trusts. Will you explain how, if there was a protector for a charitable trust, their powers and duties would sit alongside the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator’s powers to regulate charitable trusts?

Good morning, panel—it is great to have you with us.

I will move on to look at the effectiveness of temporary cost of living assistance. We are looking at which short-term measures have the greatest impact and at what measures could be implemented in the future.

I will start with a general question. Most of the recent cost of living assistance benefits have targeted families with young children—the best start grant and the Scottish child payment, for example—and that has been welcome and right. However, are you concerned that carers, disabled people and even elderly people are being left behind? If so, what support do they require?

I cannot see that, convener, so I hand back to you to chair the questions, if that is okay.

Amendment 62 deletes section 10(3)(b) and (c). Section 10(1) states that a debtor will satisfy the debt if they in good faith pay the last person who they knew held the debt. Section 10(3) includes a provision that a debtor will not be considered to have performed other than in good faith just because the debtor is deemed to have received notice of an assignation of the debt. I consider that, if the assignee can demonstrate that the processes for intimation have been complied with, the onus should be on the debtor to demonstrate that they were in good faith.

Regarding amendment 63, the bill states that the debtor will satisfy the debt if they in good faith pay the last person who they knew held the debt. The bill says that the debtor will not be considered not to be in good faith if they have received intimation of an assignation of a debt. Amendment 63 removes that provision and should be read in conjunction with amendment 62. I consider that, if the assignee can demonstrate that the processes for intimation have been complied with, the onus should be on the debtor to demonstrate that they were in good faith.

I look forward to hearing the minister’s reaction to amendments 62 and 63 and his explanation of amendments 4 and 8 in his name.

I move amendment 62.

Do you believe that amendment 55 is incompetent? It simply seeks to amend something within the bill. I look for clarification on that if possible, minister.

Amendment 64 is for future proofing the bill, which I hope will become an act, with regard to fees for third sector organisations. We held a helpful evidence session with a number of groups and received written evidence on the issue of the fee not having to be paid by a third sector organisation for the service if it has to go to the register. I know that the minister helpfully wrote to the committee at the beginning of this week or the end of last week to say that the Government was not persuaded of the need for such a provision. I would be interested to know a wee bit more about why the Government has gone down that road.

I accept two things. First, I accept that we want the register not to be a loss leader, if I may put it that way, but to break even. However, we also need to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society from having an expense that might stop them being able to go forward.

Secondly, I accept that the fee that the Government imagines, which will come into force next year, is not large, comparatively speaking, but we do not know where that fee will go in future. It is possible that it could stop vulnerable people accessing a register that others can afford to access.

It is not my expectation that people from third sector organisations will use the register frequently, but I think that, when it is necessary for such an organisation to do so, the fee should be waived. I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say about amendments 64 and 81.

I move amendment 64.