Chamber and committees

Apologies, convener—I forgot to make a declaration of interests at the beginning of the meeting. I am still new, so I am not sure whether I should have done so. I refer members back to what I said last week, when I declared an interest as a small farmer.

Good morning. It is great to be a part of the committee. I am not sure if I need to, but I declare an interest as I am a farmer and I have worked in the agriculture sector.

Amendments 123 and 124 both refer to the rural support plan, which, as other members have said this morning, is a critical part of the practical application of the bill and is important with regard to what farmers and landowners will do moving forward.

Amendment 123 would require delivery of the rural support plan within three months of royal assent. With that amendment, I am trying to get the rural support plan out as quickly as possible, because the plan is that we will be moving into the next stage in 2026, which is not far off.

Amendment 124 is about how we manage the change between rural support plans. The bill specifies a period of six months, but the problem with that is that six months is not a long time in the rural sector. It should be changed to 12 months, which would give farmers and land managers the greatest ability to respond to the new rural support plan.

I accept what the cabinet secretary said about review and consultation, so I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 124 not moved.

Amendment 36 moved—[Colin Smyth].

Amendment 139 picks up on the concerns that were highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1. That committee said:

“The Committee notes that it is being asked to consider this power in absence of the rural support plan which is to contain information about the expected use of the powers conferred by this provision. In light of the absence of detail, and the fact that this power is a Henry VIII power, the Committee recommends that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure.”

Amendment 139 therefore seeks to ensure that any regulations that are made under section 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure, to reflect that such regulations would modify primary legislation.

Similarly, amendment 168 seeks to strengthen the parliamentary process for section 10, moving it from the negative to the affirmative procedure, as does amendment 172 for section 13, which is on regulations about support and gives the Scottish Government the power to make regulations on administrative matters, eligibility and the enforcement of support for a particular purpose. At stage 1, concerns were raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and stakeholders that section 13 would vary between the negative and the affirmative procedure. Amendment 172 proposes to move all regulations to the affirmative procedure.

On all of that, given that the overall package of support could be several billions of pounds and we do not have the detail, there needs to be enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.

The Faculty of Advocates, with support from the centre for Scots law, has said to the committee that it would be useful to give the judicial factor an additional power in part 2 of the bill to seek directions from the appointing court. However, other stakeholders’ views on that have been more mixed. There is some suggestion that the court already has the powers that it needs in the bill.

Having heard all the views that have been expressed to the committee, what is your position on that? Would you be open to amending the bill in such a way as the Faculty of Advocates suggests?

That is good, because there was a concern that the SLCC should be the first point of call. However, if you have spoken to the Law Society and it has said that it would pass the report on, that is fine.

My second question is also about section 38(4). The accountant must refer a judicial factor to their professional body, but that is before any potential misconduct has been determined by the court. There was a concern that that does not seem a fair way around it; instead, the court should decide first and, if an issue has occurred, that would be referred on to the professional body.

Is the minister still of the view that that subsection is framed correctly? Would you like to comment on that?

Good morning, minister, and thank you for coming in. When the Charity Law Association was here, it commented that it does not think that the bill as drafted would really help in the case of charities. It wants new provisions in the bill that will specifically help with that. However, when the commission came in, it said that, rather than having new provisions, we could amend the current provisions of the bill. Do you have any thoughts on that or on how we could help in relation to the Charity Law Association’s point?

No: what I have heard explains the matter. There was quite a lot of discussion about the register, but the explanations that have been given make sense to me.

You may need to educate me on how to pronounce this word correctly. With regard to the fiduciary—there we go—nature of the judicial factor’s duties, there was a discussion on whether those need to be explicitly laid out in the bill.

Some argued that the context was self-evident in the bill, while others said that those duties could be laid out more widely. What is the Scottish Government’s view on that? Would you be open to amending the bill if you thought that that would be worth while?

Thank you—that is helpful.