Seòmar agus comataidhean

Under agenda item 3, we will take evidence on the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill. I welcome Patrick Layden KC TD, who is former lead commissioner at the Scottish Law Commission, and Charles Garland, who is interim chief executive of the Scottish Law Commission.

I remind the attendees not to worry about turning on their microphones, as they are controlled by broadcasting. If you would like to come in on any question, please raise your hand to catch my eye or indicate to the clerks.

Before we move to questions, I invite Patrick Layden to make some brief opening remarks.

In response to the committee’s call for views, the Faculty of Procurators of Caithness said that there should be a specific procedure for an interested person or organisation to raise concerns about a judicial factor’s management of an estate. Those concerns would first be raised to the accountant and, if the outcome was unsatisfactory, there would then be a role for the court. What does the commission think of that proposal and can you identify its benefits and drawbacks?

This is the final question. You have said a number of things about the bill as it stands, and there are obviously some differences between the bill and the SLC report. Do you have any final comments or considerations on the views expressed by the stakeholders in relation to the bill?

Thank you for that. As colleagues have no further questions and witnesses do not wish to make any further comments, I thank both Patrick Layden and Charles Garland for their helpful evidence.

The committee may follow up by letter with any additional questions stemming from the meeting. If witnesses wish to add anything after the meeting, they are most welcome to do so, and they should please do so in writing.

I will suspend the meeting briefly to allow our witnesses to leave the room.

Is the committee content with the Scottish Government’s explanation for that breach of the laying requirements?

Members indicated agreement.

McClure Solicitors was a Greenock-based firm with 14 offices across the UK that went into liquidation in 2021. I have had discussions with a range of constituents and with individuals from the legal fraternity who have reached out to me. One question that has consistently been asked is why the Law Society would not have appointed a judicial factor to deal with McClure’s.

McClure’s had an estimated 19,000 individuals with trusts, about 63,000 wills and more than 20,000 powers of attorney, so it had a lot of clients. The question that has consistently been put is why a judicial factor was not appointed. I have met the Law Society, which has given me an explanation as to why no judicial factor was appointed. That explanation seemed to be fair and rational, but in the circumstances that I have just outlined, based on your past experience, do you think that it would have been worth considering the appointment of a judicial factor?

Sure—thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Agenda item 4 is consideration of two instruments subject to the affirmative procedure, on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with those instruments?

Members indicated agreement.