Seòmar agus comataidhean

I think that my question has largely been covered in that exchange, but how would a return be defined? Would, say, a brief encounter with a person or their getting back in touch bring the judicial factory to an end? After all, people sometimes make contact and then drift away again. How would you define a person being back in touch sufficiently to take over their own affairs?

In response to the committee’s call for views, the Sheriffs and Summary Sheriffs Association said that it thought that the appointment of the accountant should be made not by the SCTS directly but by the Lord President. Do you have a view on that proposal?

That is helpful. Thank you.

That is helpful.

I do not think that this is necessarily a fair question for you, but I will put it to you. In a previous evidence session, we heard the suggestion that the judicial factor might be able to go back to the appointing court and seek advice. Do you think that having that provision would be helpful in those sorts of difficult circumstances?

On that point, are you envisaging that the people who are in the single figures would also be doing work for the Office of the Public Guardian and would not be specialising just in the—

Thank you.

So, there is not a sufficient quantity of work that would stretch beyond the capacity that Fiona Brown or whoever was holding that role would have. That is effectively what you are saying.

That is helpful. On a slightly different topic, in the earlier session today a question was raised around best financial return versus best interests in missing person cases. In that sort of circumstance, what would your advice be?

On the back of the comment about credit searches and other bits and pieces, do you think that there is more that the bill could do to put your office in charge of that? We are looking at legislation that has not changed in 100-plus years. Obviously, there is some case law, but we are looking at something that has been neglected when it comes to modernisation.

I just worry about having those sorts of tests, because at some point in the future, we might still be looking at people’s Experian credit ratings rather than at whatever the relevant considerations might be. Does the bill do enough to future proof any checks and, indeed, what the right background might be for the person who occupies this role?

If you found something unsuitable, would you go back to the court with it? What would be the threshold of concern at which you would go back to the appointing court and say, “This individual is not right”?