Chamber and committees

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?

That is helpful. I will go a wee bit further. As you may be aware, as well as this bill, the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill is going through the Scottish Parliament. If you are not aware of that, perhaps you could write to the committee on my next question.

How do you envisage that OSCR’s administrative power to appoint interim trustees to charitable trusts on its own initiative under section 8 of the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill will work with the court’s power to appoint trustees under chapter 1 of part 1 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill? Is there an interaction simply on the face of the two bills, or will that cause contradictions?

I will leave it there. Thank you.

One of the responses that the committee received was about the role of mediation. There is nothing in the bill about that. Did the commission consider a formal role for mediation? If so, what policy considerations led to the decision not to include in the bill a process whereby, rather than having to go to the Court of Session or a sheriff court, mediation could be used as a stepping stone?

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.

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.