Seòmar agus comataidhean

The committee heard evidence from several legal stakeholders that the proposed threshold of “exceptional circumstances” may be set too high. It therefore might not result in caution being required where a layperson is being appointed and specific professional indemnity insurance might not be an adequate substitute for professionals. On the other hand, Missing People is concerned about the costs of caution and prefers the existing threshold. Having heard all the views expressed to the committee about that issue, are you still convinced that “exceptional circumstances” is the right threshold? If not, what policy alternatives would you propose, and why?

That was a powerful presentation from Rhoda Grant. Can we ask the Scottish Government whether it will work with local authorities, because so many hours are involved? Could we suggest a visit to the area by the committee?

If we close the petitions, we will be saying to the Government that the matter is closed. We will not be giving the Government the option to look at the possibility of working with the council or to come up with other solutions.

Regarding the costs that the bill might mean for the SCTS, paragraphs 24 and 25 of the financial memorandum say that adjustments to the SCTS’s new case management system might be required because of the bill. Can you provide any more information on what would be involved and, in particular, on what cost you think will be incurred? Are there any other costs that you wish to highlight to the committee or that give cause for concern?

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?

Are there any barriers?

Good morning, panel members. A judicial factor can be appointed to a missing person’s estate, but Missing People and the Law Society have said that the procurator is not particularly accessible to the families of missing people. The Scottish Law Commission argues that the issue needs to be dealt with not by legislative changes but by guidance and advertising. In your experience, would the appointment of a judicial factor be a particular solution in most cases involving missing people, or are there barriers in that respect? To what extent is it the responsibility of the office of the Accountant of Court to advertise the procedure and to use it to support the families of missing people? Finally, are there any potential resource implications for you in undertaking that kind of advertising and support role?

There were three questions in there. If you want me to come back to any, I will do so.

Yes.

If that is confusing for you, do you not think that it will also be confusing for the family?

More generally, what types of skills do you think the Accountant of Court needs to effectively support the families of missing people? What types of support will the official ideally offer?