Seòmar agus comataidhean

Not at this stage.

I will bring in Michael Paparakis, who has the history of this. However, my understanding is that it was not thought necessary. Even if the legislation on data protection is updated, it will always be updated by the UK Government on the Information Commissioner’s Office website, so it will keep in step with things.

Michael, do you want to add anything?

I will hand over to Michael Paparakis, who has the technical knowledge to be able to answer that question.

I do not consider the threshold to be too high; I believe that it strikes the right balance between the incurring of unnecessary costs and protecting an estate from the improper actings of a judicial factor.

The evidence indicates that bonds of caution can be difficult to obtain and can cost thousands of pounds each year, which is paid for by the estate. That can be prohibitive in circumstances in which a family member is appointed to administer the estate of a missing person and can be completely unnecessary where indemnity insurance covers the judicial factor’s actings.

Most current judicial factors are professionals with indemnity insurance, which, as the committee has heard, can cover their actings as a judicial factor. If a non-professional judicial factor is appointed, the court will have the discretion to order caution. The bill contains safeguards in relation to that, including the fact that all judicial factors are supervised by the accountant and that they must submit an inventory of the estate property and a management plan and must provide accounts for regular audit.

Any person who has concerns about a judicial factor can complain to the accountant, who is required to investigate and has the power to direct a judicial factor to do something. The accountant must also report any serious misconduct to the court.

Thank you, convener. I know that you have taken a great interest in the situation with McClure Solicitors, and you have discussed that with me and with the Law Society. The Law Society’s position on that is on the public record, because it was given to the committee in an evidence session in the past couple of weeks.

I am aware that the matter has been reported to Police Scotland, and I understand that Police Scotland has commented that an assessment of the information is on-going. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment much further on the individual circumstances of the case.

However, in general, a judicial factor appointed under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 does not carry out any legal work in the way that an incoming firm is able to. In many cases, it might be preferable for another firm to take over the business of a failing firm rather than for a judicial factor to be appointed, provided that there are no concerns as to any misdeeds.

Ultimately, the Law Society is the regulator and will be best placed to decide whether to seek the appointment of a judicial factor to a solicitor firm. However, I am also working closely with you and other MSPs in relation to the regulation of legal services.

Good morning committee, and apologies for my voice.

The Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill seeks to implement the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendation in its 2013 report on judicial factors. If passed, the bill will put in place an updated and comprehensive regime that will bring clarity, accessibility and efficiency to this vital but outmoded area of law. Reform of the law of judicial factors is perhaps not particularly high profile, but the bill will make important and practical changes for those who are involved with judicial factors in one way or another.

A judicial factor is a person who is appointed by the court to gather, hold, safeguard and administer property that is not being managed properly. Common examples of appointments include where there has been a breach of Law Society of Scotland accounting rules, where a sole practitioner dies and where there is no executor who is willing to carry out the administration of an estate. There are also circumstances in which a judicial factor could usefully be appointed but that does not happen for a number of reasons—say, where the estate of a missing person needs to be managed.

The overall modernisation of the office should make the appointment of a judicial factor more suitable in cases that involve missing persons, but I understand the complexities and difficulties that come with dealing with a loved one’s estate in such circumstances. That is why I have agreed to work with the charity Missing People on the preparation of guidance for those who are considering applying to appoint a judicial factor.

The SLC recommends that some of the bill’s provisions be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom, and my officials have started the process of engaging with the UK Government on pursuing a section 104 order to that end. The order would include provisions to allow the judicial factor to exercise their functions in relation to the whole estate, regardless of where in the United Kingdom the property is situated, and provisions with regard to a judicial factor’s powers to obtain information from UK bodies and UK Government departments.

The Law Society of Scotland has highlighted the problem of the operation of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 with regard to incorporated practices, and it has asked for that act to be amended to extend the existing intervention powers in relation to sole practitioners to such practices. Amendments that have been lodged to the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill will address those concerns.

The bill introduces a statutory framework that sets out clearly the essential features of the office of judicial factor and the broad parameters within which it should operate, and it will be to the benefit of all those who are involved in any capacity in judicial factories. I know that a number of areas of detail came up during the committee’s stage 1 evidence sessions. I have worked with the committee and MSPs on another SLC bill in the current session in order to address the issues that have been identified, and I will continue to do so as the bill progresses through Parliament.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

Section 10 of the bill is clear that judicial factors must

“hold, manage, administer and protect the ... estate for the benefit of persons with an interest in the estate.”

I consider that most judicial factors will be expected to manage the estate in the interests of the missing person. The considerations that a judicial factor will take into account when making decisions—for example, whether they can take into account assumed preferences of the missing person—will depend on the purpose of the appointment and the specific circumstances of each individual case.

The bill is flexible, and the person who is seeking the appointment of a judicial factor may ask for additional powers to be conferred on them, such as the power to make gifts. It would be possible for a judicial factor to manage the estate in the interests of the missing person and to make payments to or take actions to benefit family members of the missing person, such as their children.

I understand that some concerns have been raised about the interaction between the bill and the charities legislation, which I have taken away to consider.

The bill is concerned with the general approach to the appointment of judicial factors. A judicial factor can also be appointed under more specific legislation, such as the charities legislation, when that is provided for, and the bill does not change that. The requirements under the bill will exist alongside any requirements in other areas of law such as charities law, trust law and company law, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, and a judicial factor might be required to comply with the relevant requirements in such areas. Section 10 of the bill makes it clear that the functions of a judicial factor under the bill are subject to provisions in other legislation.

The SLC has suggested some specific areas for possible amendment and it is important that we take time to explore those further, as well as the suggestions of other interested stakeholders including the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator. I will write to the committee ahead of the stage 1 debate to set out my thoughts on the matter.

The powers under sections 12 and 39 operate within the framework and are consistent with the data protection legislation. Sections 12(7) and 39(6) simply clarify, for the avoidance of doubt, that those provisions are not intended to override the data protection legislation. Provisions that make it clear that data protection is not overridden are not unusual. For example, section 12 of the Redress for Survivors (Historical Child Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 and paragraph 24 of schedule 1 to the Elections Act 2022 make similar provisions. It is considered that such provisions can be useful in clarifying the interplay with data protection legislation.

As members know, data protection legislation is a reserved matter. There is information on the Information Commissioner’s Office website, if people are seeking it. At this stage, we do not think that we need anything on the face of the bill regarding that.

I am happy to take that point away and consider it.