Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is an interesting question for debate. However, it is clear that succession law needs to be reformed, that the Government has had 14 years to do so, that it had an opportunity either in this bill or in other legislation to introduce that reform, and that it has told us that it will not touch the matter for another two and half years at least.

I move on to trust law. We need to seek clarification on, and to have amendments in, a number of areas, as the bill goes through Parliament. First, there is a danger—a number of members have pointed to this—that we will put people off becoming trustees. Evidence is already out there that it is becoming harder to find people to be trustees and to do that work for certain trusts—especially for small trusts, which play a really important role in communities. We have to be careful that we do not put people off; the perception is—it is, perhaps, just a perception—that one could face financial problems if one were to become a trustee. It would be helpful for the minister to lodge amendments to clarify that point at stage 2.

Secondly, there is an area with which all members of the committee have struggled. We need to think more about the definition of “incapacity”—the Government is already thinking about it and there is no clear way forward. Emma Harper and Oliver Mundell raised that issue in the debate. We have to be really careful and confident that whatever definition we ultimately come to, as a Parliament, will meet not just the lawyers’ needs but the needs of trustees, particularly trustees of small trusts, who do not want to keep going to lawyers.

That is the most disappointing answer that I have heard in a long time. Many organisations have been waiting for years for a changing places toilet. One of them, in Dunbar, has made a business plan and identified a site and all it is waiting for is the fund to open. Why is there a delay when the United Kingdom Government has delivered so much money across the whole of England?

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to start accepting applications for the £10 million fund for changing places toilets that was announced in the 2021-22 programme for government. (S6O-02550)

A constituent of mine who is a single mother with a short-term let property has been in touch with me this week. She will shortly be obliged to display a licence notice in the front window of her property in order to be compliant with the short-term let regulations. It will include her name and address. She is concerned about the wellbeing and privacy of her daughter and herself, due to her domestic relationship. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm whether it is her intention for short-term let regulations to make responsible owners afraid and scared, and possibly have to withdraw the property, and will she look again at whether that type of lack of privacy is appropriate in Scotland today?

I was slightly surprised by the part of the cabinet secretary’s answer that said that Social Security Scotland is “radically different” from the Department for Work and Pensions. With regard to the regulations that the Scottish Government has brought forward, will she tell me how adult disability payment, children’s benefits or any benefit that has so far been devolved to Scotland is radically different?

Why should someone who is renting out a room in their house be affected by those regulations? They are still living in that property and helping somebody else out that way. Would the member accept that point in his argument?

I am happy to be involved in the debate. Social security benefits are an incredibly important part of governance, and I often feel that they do not get enough airtime in the Parliament. Unfortunately, however, Bob Doris, instead of dealing with the failings of his SNP Government or debating issues that we, in this Parliament, can change, is simply deflecting attention from the woeful record of his Government on social security over the past six years.

We are five years on from the devolution of social security and the setting up of Social Security Scotland. We should be up and running by now and seeing the fruits of a uniquely Scottish system of benefits that works to meet uniquely Scottish needs.

We had an opportunity of a lifetime, which very few Governments ever get—a blank slate and a clean piece of paper. What did the SNP do with it? It has created a shambles here, in Scotland.

Would Mr Doris like to address the issue of my constituent, who is disabled and poor and needs his money? He put in an application to Social Security Scotland back in January this year, and he is still waiting for his first inquiry to be acknowledged by the department.

Mr Doris would surely acknowledge that Social Security Scotland is failing people in Scotland who are disabled. Will he apologise for that?

I am grateful, and I seek to wind up by concluding in this regard.

Maybe we need to focus more on our own responsibilities in the social security system to ensure that those who, for whatever reason and wherever they live—

Will the member take an intervention on that point?