Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful and there are certainly things that we can reflect on there.

In section 3, there are two co-existing sets of circumstances in which a judicial factor can be appointed. The first one is when it is

“not possible, practicable or sensible”

for the person who would otherwise do it to carry out the role, which you mentioned, and the second is when

“it would be to the advantage of the estate”

for a judicial factor to be appointed. In the case of a missing person, should the second condition take precedence? In a sense, that may be easier to demonstrate. When someone’s presence is not known, it might be easier to prove that it would be to the advantage of the estate to have someone managing it.

The committee has been considering the judicial factor’s investment power under section 17 of the bill. For the benefit of the committee, if a judicial factor asked you, in your role as the Accountant of Court, whether they were permitted to choose environmental, social and governance investments, but nothing was otherwise stated in legislation about that, what would your advice to them be?

Why would you not be able to consider them in isolation, then? That is the bit that confuses me. If they are entirely specialists and working solely on this, why would you not do that?

I guess that takes us back to thinking about whether the bill needs to be amended or whether there needs to be additional guidance in relation to missing people.

But you think that you have sufficient capacity to ensure that, as these changes come through, you will not require anyone else meeting this level of legal and accountancy qualification.

The commission believes the proposed reform of the law of judicial factors to be an ideal area for the commission’s law reform project and extremely worth while. I have listened carefully to what the panellists have said about their experience. Do you agree that it is a worthwhile area of reform? From your previous experience, what practical difference will the new legislation make to you when you operate as a judicial factor?

I want to move on and ask a new series of questions. In response to the committee’s call for views, the Faculty of Advocates said that it would be desirable to give the judicial factor the additional

“power to seek direction from the appointing court.”

When the commission gave evidence to the committee, it seemed to suggest that there were already sufficient powers for the court in section 11. Can the faculty elaborate on what its proposed power would add to section 11? Do any of the rest of the panel want to comment on the desirability of an extra power for the court to give directions?

I was just going to ask, for clarity, whether you would be keen to have a section 104 order. That is what I am taking from what you have said.

I take it, from what you have said, that you would be keen to see a section 104 order.

I am happy with that, convener. Thank you.