Seòmar agus comataidhean

—to self-declare on a range of issues that might prevent them from putting themselves forward. My understanding is that, if a person goes into the process, their nomination is open to challenge. During the election window, people could bring to light information that would potentially disqualify a nominated candidate. Therefore, it is important to have clear rules on that. Have you considered that circumstance? Is it your view that such individuals should be blocked from candidacy, as well as being disqualified if elected?

In her opening remarks, Beatrice Wishart referenced the cross-party group on cancer and the potential for some crossover. If this group gets approved, will there be a chance in the future for the groups to work together from time to time?

Given the significant damage to the reputation of the Parliament and public trust in it and its members, I believe that a significant suspension is necessary. It is clear to me from the evidence that we have considered that those who have sent us here would not look kindly at a short suspension for one of our own when many in the real world would have faced the very real possibility of losing their job in the same circumstances. I therefore would have supported a higher sanction, but I recognise the need to come to a majority view.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Accountant of Court have both expressed concerns about the subsections of sections 12 and 39 that restate the current legal position in relation to data protection legislation, making clear that those sections do not authorise anything that would breach that. Various stakeholders have highlighted to the committee that legitimate information requests, especially by judicial factors, can already be denied or delayed. It is said that that is due to an unjustified reliance on data protection legislation, coupled with a failure to fully understand the judicial factor’s role.

Do you see any validity in those policy concerns? If the bill is to cross-refer to the data protection legislation, do its legitimate uses need to be explained in more detail, either in the bill or in associated guidance?

I think that it was the Law Society. The matter was raised by a lady who has been there for a very long time and is its in-house judicial factor. She therefore has a lot of experience of working with such legislation, and she said that it is not something that most people know about. They hear the term “judicial factor”, but they are not clear about what that is. They do not understand that the person who is appointed as the judicial factor, in effect, acts as if they are the person, so there is already confusion. She is concerned that the bill’s reference to the Data Protection Act 2018 would lead to people defaulting to using that as a reason not to provide information. Will you consider moving that to the guidance or the explanatory notes, rather than the 2018 act being referred to so prominently in the bill?

That is helpful. To take it a stage further, I note that the bill will potentially widen the number of people who are using judicial factors or engaging with judicial factory. If you heard that someone was an accountant, would you expect that they had some form of accountancy qualification? I think that that is the point.

That is why I wanted to push it a wee bit further.

It is a strange one. I feel that data protection is always important but, based on the evidence that we heard about people who are not familiar with the legislation and are interacting with it for the first time, the reference seems to be over the top in this case.

Section 17 of the bill covers the investment power of a judicial factor in respect of the estate. In respect of section 17, does the minister agree with certain stakeholders that it should be stated in the bill that a judicial factor could choose to invest in ethical, social or governance-tested—ESG—investments, even if that might not lead to a maximum income for the estate? Can you explain your reasoning here for the benefit of the committee?

I am saying that if you heard that someone was an Accountant of Court, you would, if you were not familiar with all the other pieces of legislation, think that they were an accountant—