Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you for that, because it broadens out the discussion. Are family members regularly considered, or considered enough, by the court to be suitable persons? Could it be that, sometimes, the court might think that there are potential or perceived conflicts of interest among family members that might mean that appointing an independent person might be the best route to go down?

Thank you for those responses, because they are bringing something to life. It is very easy to fall into legal speak.

Section 4 of the bill sets out the qualifications that are required of a judicial factor, the main one being that the court decides that the person is “suitable” for that role. In Missing People’s response to the committee’s call for views, you supported the general idea that suitability for appointment does not come down to specific qualifications or other criteria. You said that families have to deal with practical concerns. For the benefit of the record, what barriers are there to a family member being appointed under section 4, and what steps can policy makers take to remove such barriers?

The then Accountant of Court expressed concern about whether accountants’ professional indemnity insurance was an adequate substitute for a specialist bond of caution, saying that it might not cover such elements as embezzlement. Do you think that the Accountant of Court’s concerns have been resolved during the policy development process? Can you offer any information on the scope of contemporary professional indemnity insurance?

Thank you. Does section 5, as it stands, cover that successfully?

Thank you for that. You are happy with the situation as it stands just now anyway, and it is not something that you have to deal with very often.

It might therefore be a wee bit over the score to change it for the sake of it anyway.

The committee has heard evidence from the legal profession suggesting that the proposed threshold for requiring caution is now set too high, and that alternative forms of security to a bond of caution should be considered where those are required. Do you have views on that?

That makes sense.

As things stand, under current law, a judicial factor has to find caution, which is a specialist bond from an insurance company to protect against wrongdoing by the factor and specifically theft from the estate, which you mentioned. Under section 5, there is a policy change to abolish the requirement on a judicial factor to find caution, except in “exceptional circumstances”. The committee has been looking into that. Do you think that a family member of a missing person should also be required to take out a bond of caution?

That is all really helpful, thank you.

Section 5 of the bill covers caution. The policy argument for not requiring caution in all cases is that professionals who are appointed as factors will have their own professional indemnity insurance. In response to the commission’s consultation in 2010, the then Accountant of Court—I presume that it was not you at the time—