Seòmar agus comataidhean

Is the committee content with the document??

Members indicated agreement.

I can see the challenge if someone reappeared and was fine to take on the management of their finances and their estate again, and I can see the concern about the judicial factor being wound up in a quick process. The flipside of that is not wanting a judicial factor to be in place for an overly long period, while having an element of caution to get the best possible outcome for the person who has reappeared.

In relation to the information gathering powers for the Accountant of Court in section 39, there is an exception to the requirement to comply. That is for United Kingdom Government ministers and departments and bodies exercising reserved functions, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We have had evidence on that before. They can choose whether to comply.

It may be the case that a section 104 order is, ultimately, required to extend the full scope of the information gathering powers to UK Government ministers, departments and bodies, but we cannot yet be sure that that will happen. If that issue does not get addressed via a section 104 order, does what we have in the bill present any problems for the Accountant of Court? If so, how significant are those potential problems?

That is helpful, thank you.

Under agenda item 5, we are considering one document, on which no points have been raised.

Thank you. I call Oliver Mundell.

If you are able to do that and to write to the committee afterwards, that would be very helpful.

If the bill were not to be amended, would you be content with that section 104 process?

Is the committee content with the Scottish Government’s proposal to correct the text of the explanatory note?

Members indicated agreement.

Also under this agenda item, no points have been raised on the following instruments.