Seòmar agus comataidhean

That makes sense. There could be a specific reference in the bill, but it could be backed up by guidance later.

Part 4 deals with ending the judicial factor arrangement and distributing the estate. You made comments on the link between that part and the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977. For the record, will you say a bit more about your concerns and whether you want to see something specific in the bill or in guidance?

It is my understanding that it was about creating that publicly available register, as opposed to the first option.

Once you have set up the register, the running costs presumably would not be huge, because you are doing that anyway. Do you have a reason for suggesting that it would cost hundreds of thousands? If you are already creating a very similar thing for another purpose, presumably you just replicate it but give it a different name, or is it really more complicated than that?

Thank you for that.

I have a question about the potential for a complaints procedure to be set out in the legislation. The issue was raised in our discussion with the first panel, so Morna Grandison has already given an answer. Some submissions said that, in the event that something were to go wrong, the first recourse should be to the Accountant of Court, which might be a good idea if a complaints procedure were available thereafter. Do you have thoughts on that?

I am content with them, but I am interested in the fees and how they have been set, and whether that could provide a barrier to export. Although that is not in the jurisdiction of the committee, could we write to the lead committee to highlight that as a potential concern, or is that not within our remit?

Good morning. I have a question for the Law Society about the procedures for the appointment of judicial factors in cases of missing people. The Law Society’s submission to the committee sets out that it is disappointed that reforms are not being taken forward in that area, as it initially raised the issue in 2019, and that

“the current procedure is too cumbersome, prescriptive and restrictive.”

In his evidence last week, Mr Patrick Layden of the Scottish Law Commission proposed that improvements could be made through the way that the act is advertised, the guidance that is given to citizens advice bureaux and court procedure. Would the things that he suggested achieve the reforms that you seek?

I have a quick question about qualification requirements. As the bill stands, a judicial factor basically just has to be a suitable person, as the court decides. There were a couple of comments, including from Propertymark, to say that individuals should have a specific qualification when dealing with properties. Is it fair enough for a judicial factor simply to be a suitable person? Given some of the information that we heard this morning about the broadness of a judicial factor’s work, that is probably useful, but I would appreciate your comments on whether the law should be more explicit.

In terms of your work, where you have had an investigatory role as well as the judicial factor role, have you come across cases in which there are complaints? Does that happen often? Do you get to the point at which things break down to such an extent that complaints come in, or is that such a rarity that it is not really a concern?

My apologies. I am relatively new to the committee, so I am trying to get my head around all this. Am I picking you up right—your suggestion is that judicial factors should not be in that register, because it is already quite specific, and that there potentially should be a new register where you can register a judicial factor—or is that not what you are saying? Are you saying that the compromise is that judicial factors can be in that register, but that it will make it much wider in its concept?

Okay.