Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, I missed a question earlier, so, if it is all right, I will just jump back to it.

Again, this was discussed last week, but the Faculty of Advocates has suggested that, in part 2, there could be an extra power to seek directions from the court where there might be issues during a factory. Could such a power be warranted in the bill?

To be honest, I think that Josie Allan has answered my next question with that relevant point. There are situations in which a missing person returns but needs support and, equally, a person might return and be perfectly able to take on their finances again. I do not know how it would be written, but could some of that be set out in the bill and the rest put in guidance? Could we have something that sets out a procedure that allows people who are perfectly able to take on their finances as quickly as possible to do so and a procedure for situations in which there might be a concern about the person in question? Does that make sense?

I think that you answered my next question, in part, when you replied to the last couple of questions. Part 2 of the bill mentions the roles, responsibilities, powers and duties of the judicial factor, which you have made comments on. One comment was about a present for an 18th birthday. For the record, will you say whether the bill sets out the powers and duties that a family member would need to manage the estate of a missing person? You spoke a wee bit about having guidance or provisions in the bill. Do you have a preference about that?

It would just be interesting to see the costs that are attached to that. To clarify the point, if we did not want to create that because of the cost involved, is there an issue with using the register of inhibitions as a public-facing register for the factors that are in place?

In the past couple of weeks, we have discussed having a complaints process in the bill. There was a suggestion that if somebody was unhappy, the first port of call would be a referral to the Accountant of Court, and then to the court itself. Do you think that there is a need to have that explicitly laid out in the bill? I assume that that is how it already works in practice, but should it be spelled out, and do you see any issues with that?

Last week, we had a bit of a discussion about the register of inhibitions and whether that, as the bill suggests, is the correct place to put what is, in effect, the list of judicial factors. Do you think that it is the correct place? Last week, the Faculty of Advocates said that it was probably not the right place and that perhaps a new list could be created. If that were to be done, would that give you any resourcing issues?

Okay, that makes sense. You are saying that, outwith the bill, those complaints procedures are already in place, and that you have to abide by those rules. Therefore, in your view, it does not need to be explicit in the bill because you have to abide by the rules anyway.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

That is fine. Thank you.

That is great—thank you.