Seòmar agus comataidhean

Can we also ask the First Minister for an update? Mr Marra said that he wrote to the First Minister’s office and is still waiting for an answer. Therefore, can we also ask the First Minister’s office for a response?

I think that we should keep the petition open until the review is concluded. Maybe the convener will want to organise a committee visit to Venice as well. [Laughter.] However, I feel that we should wait until Creative Scotland’s review is concluded.

Yes—both things. [Laughter.]

A few of my colleagues have touched on this already. Given the importance of the A9, when you were the First Minister, were there any timelines for your Government, and what priority was the project given? Did any ministers raise concerns that there would be any issues with the project?

The organisation Missing People has expressed concern about what it sees as a lack of clarity associated with the interaction between the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 and part 4 of the bill. Does the minister think the relationship between the two pieces of legislation needs to be clarified, either in the text of the bill or in associated guidance?

Do you think that it is necessary to put a definition either in legislation or in guidance?

Missing People raised another issue with part 4, specifically with regard to what the procedure would be if the missing person came back and the judicial factory was still on-going. Can the minister confirm whether, under the bill, termination of a judicial factory would be automatic in those circumstances, or whether it would instead, as the committee suspects, require a court’s approval? What is the policy rationale for the approach that the Scottish Government has taken in that respect?

Minister, you will be glad to know that this is, I think, the last question. The Law Society has highlighted to the committee that it would like powers in addition to those that are provided under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 to deal with certain issues that can arise with firms taking the form of incorporated practices.

When the Law Society gave evidence on 23 April, it indicated that its preferred legislative vehicle for change was stage 2 amendments to the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill. Is it the Scottish Government’s view that that bill is the right place to add the powers that the Law Society seeks?

Section 23 of the bill sets out the general rule that, if a judicial factor is involved in court proceedings on behalf of the estate, any legal costs that are associated with that will come out of the estate. The Faculty of Advocates and the Sheriffs and Summary Sheriffs Association have both said that section 23 could be modified to deal with exceptional circumstances where a judicial factor had acted unreasonably in a situation that is not covered by section 24 and so should be found personally liable for legal costs.

The SLC and the Law Society, on the other hand, were not certain that the suggested modification was the right approach. The commission, for example, feared that judicial factors would become unduly preoccupied with their risk of personal liability.

Having heard all the views that were expressed to the committee, what is the Scottish Government’s position on the issue? Would the minister be open to amending section 23 of the bill in the way that has been suggested? Can you explain the reasons underpinning your views?

Under the current law, a judicial factor must find caution—which means to take out a specialist bond from an insurance company—to protect against any wrongdoing, such as theft of the estate, by the factor. In a policy change to the current law, section 5 of the bill abolishes the requirement on a judicial factor to find caution, except in exceptional circumstances. When proposing that new threshold, what investigation did the Scottish Government do of professional indemnity insurance or of any other possible alternatives to bonds of caution?