Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

That is fine. Thank you for that helpful explanation.

I am grateful for that.

For our benefit, will you explain why the commission decided to make the role of supervisor optional in chapter 6 of part 1 of the bill, when it is mandatory in many legal systems that permit private purpose trusts?

I am speaking more generally.

I wonder whether I can follow up that point by asking how a trust can get best financial benefit. If it is meeting other charitable needs, is that enough? Could the bill express that a bit more clearly? Does there need to be a slight clarification with regard to a trust—say, a charitable trust—always feeling that it has to get best value from its investments or property sales?

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

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 thank the minister for his amendments on electronic documents in the previous group, which were really helpful. I welcome them completely.

My amendment 85 is almost identical to amendment 53. I have nothing further to add. If amendment 53 is agreed to, I will not move my amendment.

Amendment 55 deletes part of section 1(5), which will ensure that part 1 of the bill operates without prejudice to the rules relating to financial collateral arrangements.

Section 1 deals with the assignation or transfer of claims. At paragraph 11, the explanatory notes state:

“Subsection (5) provides that nothing in Part 1 applies to the assignation of a claim as part of a financial collateral arrangement within the meaning of the Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003.”

Financial collateral arrangements are defined as

“a title transfer financial collateral arrangement or a security financial collateral arrangement, whether or not these are covered by a master agreement or general terms and conditions”.

Financial collateral arrangements are a form of security arrangement designed to simplify the process of obtaining financial collateral. Financial collateral is defined as

“either cash or financial instruments”.

Having spoken to the Law Society and others in practice, I believe that the current terms of section 1(5), which makes the proposition that nothing in part 1

“applies to the assignation of a claim as part of a financial collateral arrangement”,

lack clarity. Instead, we consider that the provisions of part 1 should be without prejudice to the rules for financial collateral arrangements.

I will now speak to amendment 56 and my other amendments in the group. As the minister and the committee will be aware, the inclusion of individuals in the bill is perhaps the most interesting and controversial part of the bill. The bill does not include the provisions on stocks and shares that were in the Scottish Law Commission’s provisional draft bill. The committee has debated the issue, and I know that the minister has made the Scottish Government’s view clear. These are probing amendments, so I do not intend to move any of them.

I am looking for clarity on why the Government thinks that it is not possible to have such provisions in the bill. When the Law Commission drafted its bill, it thought that the provisions would be legally competent, and others have given legal advice that they would be legally competent. When the minister gave evidence to the committee previously, he said that, according to the legal advice that he had received, it would be incompetent to have the provisions in the bill. Could he expand on that? In practical terms, this is one of the most important parts of the bill, because it will allow much greater freedom for business to take place, which is what we all want, so it would seem sensible to include such provisions in the bill. I ask the minister to say a bit more about the legal advice.

If the Government’s view is that such provisions cannot be included because of whatever reason the minister gives in a moment, I would like to push the minister on another matter. I appreciate that, in his letter to the committee, he said that, once the bill becomes an act, there can be more engagement with the United Kingdom Government on the matter, but I hear questions from those in practice about how long that will take. I appreciate that that involves two Governments working together, but can the minister give some sort of timescale for when that will happen in practice?

I move amendment 55.