Seòmar agus comataidhean

We might test the patience of the convener, but I want to ask a further question.

Much of what you have been talking about has been specific to this legislation. Are you promoting and interacting with the role of judicial factor because this is the best legislative opportunity available, or do you feel that doing work on other legislation would be better or beneficial? Do you think that a judicial factor is the right vehicle for missing people, or is it just the best one available?

Thank you. That is helpful.

And you think that that is okay, as they are performing more of a supportive role.

In response to the committee’s call for views, the Law Society of Scotland said that the bill as introduced is “a significant departure from” the Scottish Law Commission’s draft bill. Specifically, the Law Society considers that there has been a watering down of the level of legal and accountancy knowledge that is required for the roles of accountant and deputy accountant. Do you agree with the Law Society’s perspective, or do you take a different view? What, in your view, should the bill say in relation to the qualifications that are necessary to hold the posts of accountant and deputy accountant?

What would be the threshold for going back to court? The bill, as it stands, is not that specific, and you have obviously mentioned doing credit or other background checks. I guess that this is a tricky question, because we are dealing with a hypothetical situation, but what would the level be? Speaking as a layperson, I know that not everybody has a squeaky-clean credit rating; people will have had all sorts of things going on in their lives. Where do you draw the line?

Going back to the second part of my question, what specifically do you think the bill should say in relation to the qualifications that are necessary? Are you happy with what is in the bill?

I totally hear what you are saying and I understand your point, but I guess that the question would be: who else makes that decision in that circumstance if it is not the judicial factor? How do you resolve those tensions if the person is not there?

To go back to the previous exchange, I guess that that is where you are looking for some flexibility and, in those sorts of circumstances, some kind of assessment of what is in the person’s or the estate’s best interests. You are looking for that kind of re-evaluation in what you said was a small number of circumstances. Would the best thing be for the process to build in some flexibility to look at best interests?

Do you think that that needs to be looked at again by the Government?

In practical terms, what should a family be able to produce? What should the evidential threshold be and what would that look like in practice?