Thank you.

I very much agree that no one should have to put up with violence or threats in their workplace. We fully support law enforcement agencies having extensive powers to deal with such incidents.

When the law came into force, in 2021, the Scottish Government worked with Crimestoppers, Fearless and the Scottish Grocers Federation to run an awareness-raising campaign. I agree that it is important that workers and retailers know that the new law can help to protect them.

In addition, the member might be interested to know that a business crime prevention team within Police Scotland carries out business engagement days throughout Scotland to support the retail sector. It has also implemented the your safety matters external partners group, which consists of 14 members, including representatives of the retail sector.

I assure the member that the Scottish Government takes the matter very seriously. Coincidentally, I am meeting Dr Pete Cheema, from the Scottish Grocers Federation, this afternoon about this issue.

Yes, I do agree.

It is a finely balanced area. Care must be taken to ensure that the Kilbrandon ethos of the children’s hearings system is followed, which has the needs and the welfare of the child subject to the referral at its centre, and that that is not compromised. The rights of a child victim must be carefully balanced against the rights of the referred child whose privacy and welfare needs are being considered at a children’s hearing. Crucially, children’s hearings are not a criminal justice setting. The system is welfare based rather than being punitive.

It is right that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, in common with all public bodies in Scotland, reviews its operations in order to modernise and ensure that it is meeting needs and delivering value for money. As part of the review, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to temporarily withdraw 10 fire appliances from service from September 2023, but I have been assured by the fire service that those removals will not compromise community safety.

My understanding is that it will be sent to the SLC, but Michael Paparakis might have more to say on that.

You have raised some valid points and I am happy to take that into consideration.

I am happy to take that issue away and to look at providing more information to the committee on how we can raise more awareness around the different types of trusts.

I will work with officials and report back to the committee.

The SLC proposed that its recommendations be given effect by the amendment of sections of the Court of Session Act 1988. However, those sections were repealed back in 2014, at around the same time that it published its report on trust law. It is not our intention to do away with that useful method for trustees to obtain advice on administrative difficulties that are encountered in a trust, and the repealed provisions of the 1988 act were replaced by a much wider and more general power for the court to determine its own procedure, which could include powers to give directions. That is why the relevant section was removed from the SLC’s draft bill for introduction.

Officials communicated the decision to remove the provision from the SLC’s draft bill to the Lord President’s private office when the bill was introduced. I have listened to the views of various stakeholders who have given evidence to the committee—in particular, to the view of the senators of the College of Justice—and I am happy to take the matter away and consider it further.

You raise some valid points. We are happy to consider them.

I am very willing to work with the committee on the issue. I am committed to introducing reform that would prevent a person who has been convicted of murder from being an executor of their victim’s estate, and my officials and I will explore what can be done in the context of the bill to ensure that that happens.

As the committee is aware, the Scottish Law Commission did not produce recommendations on the matter, so the bill as introduced does not mention it. There was consensus on the matter when the Scottish Government consulted on it in 2019, which is why we are committed to introducing reform at the next legislative opportunity. The existing law is not clear.

I understand that Professor Paisley has written to the committee with his view, but that the leading academic textbook on confirmation of executors appears to take a different view. Depending on questions of scope, the bill could be used to bring the needed clarity. My officials and I are actively considering the issue. Recently, the SLC announced that it will look at executory law in its eleventh programme. I will consider our approach in the light of that announcement.

It is important that whatever is taken forward is capable of working in practice, because we do not want to have a situation in which the deceased’s estate cannot be administered or the administration of it is called into question. That is not to say that the bill does nothing. Section 6 will make it more straightforward to remove a murderer from the role of executor, and the jurisdiction is extended to the sheriff court. However, I reiterate my commitment to introducing reforms that would prevent a person who has been convicted of murder from being an executor of their victim’s estate.