Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I said in my opening remarks on the amendments that I did not think that this sort of thing would happen frequently. I note the minister’s use of the word “routinely”, and I agree with him; my hope is that, if we get the bill right, what we are talking about will be the exception rather than the rule.

However, I think that that leads to a slight contradiction in the minister’s argument that, because this will happen so often, it will put extra costs on others to meet. I think that the proposed provision will be used irregularly, but it might well be required from time to time as the legislation develops. This is an important message for Parliament to send out, and it is important for the Parliament to give the Scottish Government a steer on this—indeed, more than a steer—and to set out where we think that we should end up, which is that we do not think that the third sector should be involved in having to pay the fee in question.

I accept what the minister has said about consultation being carried out on the issue once the bill becomes an act, but I point out that the committee, in its report, was certainly of the view that not-for-profit third sector organisations should not be charged for such searches. We want to give the public and the Scottish Government the clear message that charging in those circumstances is not a road that we want to go down.

For that reason, I will press amendment 11.

I apologise—I meant amendment 64.

I accept what the minister has said, but is one reason for the bill not to encourage intimation to take place more regularly? I accept that people have been using English law, so intimation has not been happening but, once the bill’s provisions are in place, surely intimation will be more common.