Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, no.

Yes.

On mental health and the CORO VNS, recommendation 11 proposed that discretion be applied in relation to the list of people who are eligible to register for the scheme. It was recommended that children aged over 12 should have the ability to authorise an adult to receive information on their behalf. It was recommended that ministers take a power to expand the information that is available from the victim information scheme. It was also recommended that data sharing be permitted and that there should be a duty to co-operate in order to establish the victim contact team. That covers recommendations 17, 20 and 21.

Making progress on the recommendations specifically involves the victim contact team. To establish that, we need legislation on data sharing. That is what we are doing first, at stage 2. That is why the amendments are dry and technical.

I have outlined some of the things that we are looking to explore through the three different schemes. It is important to have the framework in the legislation so that, when we are ready to establish the victim contact team, the framework is already in place. If it was not, that would delay our being able to establish the team and we would have to wait to legislate in another bill—maybe in another parliamentary session—which would delay its establishment.

I appreciate that how this is being done is unusual, but I think that we all want to see progress being made with the victim contact team. I know that the independent review engaged extensively with victims, victim support organisations and all the operational partners in developing its recommendations, and we will continue to engage with those organisations as we move forward.

Yes, absolutely. That is one of the recommendations of the review, and we will ensure that there will be a skilled, trauma-informed victim contact team that will handle all the communications with the victims.

You will be aware of the work that is happening with the victims task force, which has a very keen interest in the VNS. With the oversight of establishing the victim contact team, we will engage with all three areas of the victims task force’s current workstreams.

Yes. My understanding is that we have been considering that in relation to data sharing. Lucy Smith may wish to elaborate.

Are you asking whether family members would be included in the victim notification scheme, such that they would be notified? Are you asking more about the support side?

Under section 38(4)(b), if the judicial factor is a member of any professional body, the Accountant of Court is required to report to that professional body any serious misconduct or material failure by the judicial factor. The committee considered that provision in its stage 1 report, and I indicated that I would bring forward an amendment so that the bill better reflects how complaints against members of certain professional bodies are currently handled.

Amendments 34 and 35 make clear that, if arrangements are in place for a body other than the professional body to deal with complaints, the accountant must report the serious misconduct or material failure to that other body. For example, if the judicial factor is a solicitor, the effect of the amendment is to require the accountant’s referral to be made to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission rather than the Law Society of Scotland.

I move amendment 34.

Section 9(5) allows the Accountant of Court to fix a different rate of remuneration for

“a particular interim judicial factor”.

In its written evidence, the Faculty of Advocates queried why that discretion was restricted to interim judicial factors and did not apply to permanent judicial factors. The policy behind section 9 is to provide flexibility for the fixing of rates of remuneration to allow for variations in particular circumstances or when unusual duties are imposed on a particular judicial factor. Having considered the faculty’s evidence, I agree that the discretion conferred by the bill in that respect should be extended to apply to permanent judicial factors. That is what amendment 11 provides for.

I move amendment 11.

Amendment 11 agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

After section 9

Sections 12 and 39 of the bill confer powers on judicial factors and on the Accountant of Court to request information in relation to factory estates from persons and bodies. That might include, for example, requests being made to banks for financial information relating to an estate.

During stage 1, some stakeholders expressed concern regarding the provisions in sections 12(7) and 39(6), which set out that sections 12 and 39 do not authorise disclosures that contravene data protection legislation. The concerns were echoed by the committee, with the committee recommending that the Scottish Government consider clarifying the provisions further in the bill or removing them.

In the light of those concerns, I have given further consideration to the provisions and have lodged amendments 16 and 36, which adjust sections 12(7) and 39(6) to provide further clarification on the interplay with data protection legislation. The amendments make clear that, where the holder of information is considering whether a disclosure would contravene data protection legislation, they must take into account the provisions in the bill that authorise or require disclosure.

I move amendment 16.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13—Ingathering

Amendment 17 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 14 to 25 agreed to.

Section 26—Validity of certain transactions by judicial factor appointed on trust estate

Amendment 18 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, agreed to.

Section 27—Approval of judicial factor’s scheme for distribution of factory estate

Amendments 19 to 21 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.