Chamber and committees

You will not at that stage, but we will move forward and you will get all the detail of it as all the work is done.

The delivery model—

We are aiming to do what was recommended in the review. I will go into some of the detail of that, because it is really important. We all want reform of the VNS. We want a bigger uptake, and the Scottish Government agrees with the recommendations and will take them forward.

There should be a specialist, skilled, trauma-informed victim contact team to handle all communications with victims. Eligible victims should automatically be referred to the victim contact team within a set deadline. The victim contact team should contact victims personally at a suitable time after sentencing, offering a conversation by phone in addition to the official notices. The contact team member should explain the system and what the sentence means, offer choices about how the victim would like to be communicated with, and offer easy ways to deregister and reregister if they wish to do so.

There should be a single victim notification scheme website for easy access for information. Communications should have built-in touch points so that victims are not left alone for long periods of time. Victims should ideally have a named contact in the victim contact team, with one phone number to call and one email address. There should be effective data-sharing protocols and shared access to relevant data systems, and the victim contact team should have strong links with victim support organisations to ensure effective and prompt signposting.

That is our ambition for the victim contact team. As I said, it is not going to solve the experience for the victim, but it should make things easier for them.

I will bring in Mari Bremner, who is a specialist in that area. However, reform is about improving things across the three schemes.

Provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 allow for information to be provided to a victim when an offender is subject to a compulsion order, although those provisions have not yet been used. It is our intention to consult on how the scheme might operate for such victims. That is likely to include conversations on whether it would be applicable in all types of offence and what information should be shared. It will be important to ensure that any information that is shared is appropriate and proportionate. There may be merit in waiting until the victim contact team has been created prior to making any decisions on the VNS for victims of offenders on a compulsion order, because that is a very sensitive area.

Absolutely. We can arrange that.

I will see whether anyone else wants to comment, but I think that that is the point. How we contact victims is going to be so important when it comes to the victim contact team. It is all about ensuring that we do not have a long period of time without any contact, having a single point of contact and discussing with victims what their options are. After all, they might not feel strong enough to receive information; we do not know what traumatic impact it might have on individuals, so we really need to be sensitive and more trauma informed in those conversations. However, contact has to be on-going to ensure that, if the time ever comes that individuals want to be included in the VNS, they are able to register for it easily.

I do not know whether Lucy Smith wants to make any other points.

I thank all the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their attentive and valuable work in scrutinising the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill.

The bill is a Scottish Law Commission bill: I thank the commission for its considerable work—not only on this project, but on all the other projects that it undertakes to simplify and improve our laws. I am committed to introducing bills to implement its proposals. This is the third SLC bill to be introduced in this session of Parliament, with the fourth, on the termination of commercial leases, being due shortly.

A judicial factor is a person who is appointed by the court to gather, hold, safeguard and administer property that is not being properly managed. Examples include the winding up of a partnership when the partners are unable to agree on how the partnership will operate, and when a child is due to receive funds in excess of £20,000 and/or when the child’s estate is large or complicated, which might be the case after a personal injury damages award, for instance.

If it is agreed to this afternoon, the bill will put in place an updated and comprehensive framework that will bring clarity, accessibility and efficiency to this vital area of the law. There are only about 50 judicial factors currently appointed to manage someone else’s property, and only a handful of applications for appointments are made each year. To my mind, that reflects the fact that applications are a last resort. However, despite the small numbers, for those who are involved with judicial factors in one way or another, the bill will make positive changes.

The appointment of a judicial factor to manage the property of a missing person was closely scrutinised by the DPLR Committee, and for very good reason. Although such appointments have been made in the past, they have been rare, despite 15 people in Scotland each year being declared long-term missing. There will be various reasons that are individual to each case for why an application for appointment is or is not made, but the bill will remove one potential obstacle, which is the difficulty that is caused by the outdated and complex law.

The bill aims to bring the law together in one place to make it easier for users of the legislation. Not only is that the case, but one of my amendments from stage 2 has committed the Scottish ministers to producing and publishing guidance for such an appointment. I will work with the charity Missing People and other stakeholders, including the Office of the Accountant of Court, to help to prepare that guidance.

The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has already suggested a number of points that should be covered in the guidance, and I will make sure that they are included. Just as important—

I thank members for their contributions to this short debate. I hope that it is clear from the debate that we listened to what was said by stakeholders, by the committee and by MSPs during the earlier stages. The changes reflect those views and, to my mind, they have improved the bill.

If the bill is passed today, it will put in place a modern and broad framework for judicial factors that sets out the essential features of the office and how it is supervised. That will bring clarity, accessibility and efficiency to the area, which we hope will mean that the option to appoint a judicial factor is utilised in a wider range of circumstances where it is not currently used because of uncertainty, complexity and cost.

I was happy to lodge amendments at stage 2 to implement almost all the committee’s recommendations. I will briefly touch on two issues in relation to missing persons and charities.

The committee recommended that a reference to missing people be added to the bill to make it clear that it may be used by those who are seeking to manage the estate of a missing person. The bill was deliberately drafted widely and it already allowed a judicial factor to be appointed in a wide range of circumstances, including over the estates of missing persons. However, having considered the strength of feeling across the Parliament at stage 1, I lodged an amendment that reflected the recommendation while ensuring that the wider policy in the bill would not be undermined.

The committee asked me to consider suggestions made by stakeholders in relation to the management of charity property by judicial factors. Before a judicial factor is appointed, and also at stages of a judicial factory, the bill requires intimation of documents to every person with an interest in the estate. The bill now requires that, when the estate is that of a charity, in addition to the standard requirement to intimate to persons with an interest in the estate, intimation is given to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, and a notification is to be given to the general public by way of an advertisement.

The court and the accountant were also given powers to dispense with some of the intimation requirements and the notification requirements to the public where circumstances justify that. Overall, the bill is now better able to respond to cases involving charity property.

I will touch on two of the points that Michael Marra raised and that the Law Society of Scotland raised in yesterday’s briefing, regarding adults with incapacity and how that issue remains outside the judicial factors regime. The current judicial factors legislation, which the bill repeals, applies not only to judicial factors so-called but to other types of administrator, although guardians appointed under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 are expressly excepted. On the other hand, the bill applies only to judicial factors so called, whether they are appointed under the bill or other legislation. Section 47 of the bill makes that clear. Accordingly, the guardians appointed under the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 remain outside the judicial factors regime.

The member raised the point about how to circumvent the safeguards for incapable adults, which is set out in the 2000 act and relates to the Law Society. Similar to the 2000 act, the bill includes a number of protections. First, anyone with an interest is required to be notified of an application for the appointment of a judicial factor and will therefore have an opportunity to present their position to the court if they wish. Secondly, all judicial factors are supervised by the accountant of court who has powers to issue directions to judicial factors and to investigate any concerns. The person appointed as the accountant also holds the appointment as a public guardian, which means that judicial factors and guardians are, in effect, supervised by the same person. Lastly, judicial factors have to account for their dealings with an estate, and they are required to regularly prepare accounts, which are audited by the accountant, and are held to be liable for any misdeeds. I consider that the safeguards in the bill are sufficient.

If the bill is passed today—I hope that it will be—I am clear that there is still work to be done before the provisions can be commenced. Not least, that work will involve working with the charity Missing People and others to prepare guidance for the families of persons considered missing who are applying for the appointment of a judicial factor.

Members will also be aware that I am in discussion with the UK Government seeking a Scotland Act order to extend certain provisions in the bill to allow judicial factors to manage properties in other parts of the United Kingdom. That work is progressing, and I will keep Parliament updated on future developments. Given the nature of the reforms that are proposed by the bill to the court process and the supervision of judicial factors by the accountant on behalf of the court, the bill will also require new and amended court rules. I am committed to that, and I will ensure that all necessary work to be done by the Scottish Government is done swiftly.

I thank the members who have contributed to today’s debate, the committee and its clerks and those who gave evidence to help to improve the bill. I thank my officials, who have put a lot of work into the passage of the bill, and, finally, the former commissioner to the Scottish Law Commission, Patrick Layden.

I commend the motion in my name.

No, thank you.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 5 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 6A—Review of appropriateness of registration in the Register of Inhibitions

Amendments 6 to 10 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 27—Approval of judicial factor’s scheme for distribution of factory estate

Amendment 11 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 29—Termination, recall and discharge after distribution of factory estate

Amendment 12 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 30—Duty of Accountant to apply for appointment of replacement where judicial factor has died or ceased to perform duties