The committee has been considering the interrelationship of section 34 of the bill, which says that discharge usually ends a factor’s liability, and section 38, which covers the investigatory powers of the Accountant of Court. What is your understanding of the relationship between those two provisions? What do you think the position is if a factor is discharged under section 34, but subsequently misconduct comes to light? What do you make of the view of the centre for Scots law, at the University of Aberdeen, that the interrelationship needs to be explained more in the bill?

Thank you very much.

Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of campaigners and business representatives on anti-racism in the workplace. I was disappointed to hear that so many people in our businesses and public organisations felt that they were unable to report the racial abuse that they face at work. Can the First Minister outline what measures the Scottish Government is taking to empower people to report racial abuse in the workplace?

I congratulate Liam Kerr on bringing this important issue to the chamber. I welcome the Nestrans report. The campaign for new stations in Newtonhill and Cove shows that people across Scotland are crying out for improved rail connections.

Rail can do so much for communities; it can provide a vital link for people who live in rural areas. The elderly and people who are not able to drive due to disability cannot rely on irregular and lengthy bus services. Tourists, who can bring so much money into communities outside the central belt, use trains to see our country, and the ability to travel by train easily will play a massive part in reducing car usage on our path to net zero.

Much of Scotland is poorly served by rail. The north-east, in particular, is underserved when compared with other regions, yet it has been so important to Scotland’s economy through agriculture, its natural resources and fishing, to name just a few. It is being neglected, yet the demand is there. More than 225,000 journeys were made in the first three years following a new station being opened in Kintore, in Aberdeenshire. Imagine what more investment could do.

I join members in thanking the Campaign for North East Rail for campaigning for greater rail connections in the north-east. Local community campaigns for new rail are important in bringing attention to underserved areas. For example, I recently joined residents of Winchburgh, a village in West Lothian, in delivering a petition to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, that calls on the Scottish Government to name a date for the opening of a train station there. Residents and developers were granted planning permission in principle for the station 12 years ago, but the fast-growing village is losing out.

The success of the campaign for stations in Cove and Newtonhill in gaining feasibility studies through Liam Kerr’s petition, which was signed by more than 1,500 people, gives me confidence that it is possible for progress to be made.

New rail stations prevent the isolation of people living in our rural communities and bring tourists to places that, previously, they would have ignored. Scotland has great potential for new railway stations all over the country, whether that be in Winchburgh, Fraserburgh or Cove. Rail travel is good for the environment, good for the economy and good for people. I welcome the motion and hope for a successful outcome from the studies.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not work either. I would have voted yes.

Section 6 of the bill creates a new requirement that notice of the appointment of a judicial factor must be registered in an existing public register called the register of inhibitions. Is that a good policy approach or can any of the panel see difficulties with it? Are there any viable alternative approaches? Also, is it your understanding of the bill that an inhibition is created via registration in the context of section 6?

Sorry, did you just say that it was never paid?

One policy argument supporting the change of approach to caution in section 5 of the bill is that, when a professional is appointed to the role, professional indemnity insurance provides a suitable alternative to obtaining a specialist bond of caution. Do any of the witnesses want to comment on whether the scope of their professional indemnity cover protects those with an interest in the estate to the same extent as a bond of caution does?

Good morning, panel. In response to the committee’s call for views, the centre for Scots law at the University of Aberdeen and R3 said that they thought the threshold for requiring caution, in section 5, is set too high. Does the centre for Scots law want to explain its reasoning, or does anyone else on the panel wish to comment on the policy merits of the proposed threshold?

I asked the current Deputy First Minister whether she would change the regulation. What is her current position on that? I do not think that we have had a clear answer.