Chamber and committees

Thank you. I have a further question on the back of what Mhairi Maguire said. She has a legal background, but some trusts might not have people in the same position. Could it be written into the bill that access to doctors, psychologists and mental health officers would be a good thing, so as to give confidence to people who are in such positions?

Would anyone like to comment?

That is very helpful. I direct my next question to any panellist who might have something to say on the matter. If it were to be considered that involving doctors, psychologists or mental health officers would be the right route to go down, should that be formally written into the bill? If not, what further support or input would you want a trustee to have in making such decisions? Having heard what Mhairi Maguire said, it seems to me that nothing further needs to be included. Is that correct?

On the back of that, if you do not mind, how did you handle that, legally? Did you feel confident in doing that? Were you supported, legally?

Thanks to all of the guests; they have provided us with some interesting evidence that will help the bill. However, there may be omissions to the bill that people have views on. Although Christmas is not coming soon, what would witnesses like to have seen in part 1 of the bill that has not been mentioned so far, and is there anything that should be included?

We are nearly at the end of the meeting, so do not worry, but you were, of course, invited here because of your roles in relation to trusts, even if those are not always entirely direct roles.

However, you will be aware that part 2 of the bill is on succession law. We have heard evidence from others about that, including to do with section 72. People believe that a distinction should be made between spouses and civil partners who were living with the deceased at the time of their death and spouses and civil partners who were living separately and had no intention of continuing in a relationship. That is an example of the kind of succession law debate that we have been having. Do you want to mention anything with regard to that element of the bill?

My question is about incapable trustees. On 9 May, we had an evidence session with legal academics, who offered a more relaxed view than some other legal stakeholders on whether there were risks associated with sections 7 and 12 of the bill for incapable adults.

For those of you who are trustees, would you feel confident in your ability as trustees to assess whether a fellow trustee was incapable, as required in sections 7 and 12 of the bill? Would input from a doctor, psychologist or mental health officer be helpful to you in that regard? If so, should that be formally written into the bill?

Okay. Thank you.

Minister, you have slightly pre-empted what I was going to ask about, but I have a couple of questions, which I will put together to see what we can get back.

You say that you have had meetings with the FE and HE sectors following the announcement. I have two questions about that: what particular concerns were raised, and are you aware of specific colleges and universities that now need financial assistance as a result of the decision?

I can understand that that is the case, but the £26 million loss will impact further on that—at least I presume that it will. That is basically the worry. Did you say that you are going to meet the unions?

We have been informed by Unison, as well as by some people who attend or work in City of Glasgow College, that there will be job losses through compulsory redundancies and a lack of capability to agree voluntary severance payments. People are in danger of losing their jobs—indeed, they have been told that they are going to lose their jobs—and that was on the cards even before the cut in money. Have you not heard anything about that? I think that you will be hearing about it very soon.