Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will put that question to Dr Hardman, as well. Do you think that there will be sufficient information to identify individual claims or pledges?

I want to ask about what is not in the bill before we examine other issues. The Law Commission drafted the original bill to include stocks and shares, but the Scottish Government came to the view that that is outwith the legislative competence of this Parliament and it is therefore working with the UK Government to see whether it can take that measure through by different means.

From the Law Society’s perspective, and perhaps from a practitioner’s perspective, do we have the legislative competence to cover that in the bill? If so, would you rather have the measure included in the bill or have it taken forward through an appropriate back-door method?

I want to take us back to the role of recording and the registers in general. I think that you dealt with some of that in response to the opening questions, but I would like to hear a wee bit more about that. Some respondents to the committee’s call for evidence have stated that the registers could never be comprehensive. Could you explain in layman’s language what the limitations might be?

Good morning to you all. I will follow up on that point, Mr Dailly. If we accept your argument, how would you see that provision being taken out? Would you simply take all individuals out of the bill? Would you go down the other route of saying one cannot go against any household goods and define that in the bill, as well as other areas? As a third option, would you go for higher amounts? We have a £1,000 threshold; would you raise that to, say, £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000? I am wondering which of those three options you would choose—or have you come up with a fourth option—if we accept your argument?

The Parliament is looking at the bill and will come to a view on its different aspects. Are there improvements that could be made to the registers and how they will work? Is there clarity, or will it be a case of everyone going away thinking that they have got what they want and it will only be in practice that we find out who the winners and losers are? Do we need more clarity now on how the provisions will work in practice?

I do not want to open a can of worms but, as we heard last week from the Scottish Law Commission, such legislation comes around once in a generation—however we want to define “generation”. Is there anything that could have been in the bill but is not in it that it would be worth considering? A yes or no will do. Floating charges were mentioned. Would that be an area for partnerships to consider? Would it be worth considering that, or are we better to leave the bill as it is?

Thank you. That is really helpful. I have a quick follow-up question that is related to that, which is about good practice for the future. Is it acceptable to have, almost, two separate teams working on the programme? From an auditor’s perspective, would it be better practice for those who are working in the Scottish Government to plot a course so that there is only one team? I appreciate that things have worked okay, but, as the service continues, would it be better practice to have just one team dealing with Social Security Scotland, as is the case with the DWP, instead of there being two teams with almost separate identities?

It is. Thank you.

Thank you. I have no more questions today.

My final question in the area is about the benefits that are being delivered. For example, we saw over the summer that there was a fairly major delay in people getting the best start grant money that they were expecting. Have you looked at whether there are enough people working on the appropriate benefits? Have you come to a conclusion on why those delays took place over the summer?