Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government supports the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to keep our communities safe, every day of the year, through its highly skilled crews, providing £393.3 million this year. The SFRS is ready to respond to the range of challenges over winter, including severe weather and flooding, and it works closely with our other responders through resilience partnerships. As a national organisation, it can direct resources where it needs them most. The SFRS will continue to issue public safety advice over the winter, with a particular focus on road and water safety in the event of severe weather. In parallel, the Scottish Government supports the service to undertake prevention activity through home fire safety visits to vulnerable people and winter safety campaigns.

The safety and welfare staff in the SFRS continue to invest in the repair and maintenance of its buildings so that it can deliver services to communities across Scotland. I know that the SFRS has a programme of fire station refurbishment, where dignified facilities for all firefighters, along with proper separation of areas to avoid contamination, are priorities. It is right and sensible for the SFRS to consider where its assets should be based to ensure that the right resources are in the right place to deal with the risks that our communities face. I am happy to write to Beatrice Wishart specifically about the Shetland case.

The number of active legal aid solicitors has remained broadly similar in the years since 2020, and we are unaware of any accused being released as a result of being underrepresented. We acknowledge that people seeking help in relation to certain types of cases face challenges in some places. However, we cannot compel private solicitors to undertake work.

We recognise that reform is needed, and the Scottish Legal Aid Board is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis to collect evidence of the degree of legal aid activity at geographical and subject matter level. I have written to the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, asking them to continue to work productively to identify measures to improve and reform Scotland’s legal aid system.

We have introduced a number of measures to limit unsafe and antisocial use of fireworks, including restrictions on supply and powers for local authorities to designate firework control zones. Like the police and partners, we are keen to explore further opportunities to address and prevent disorder of the kind that we have seen in some places. I have written to the United Kingdom Government asking for a meeting to discuss what more can be done on fireworks regulation. We will continue to engage with the UK Government to gauge opportunities to improve fireworks regulation.

I agree that fireworks should always be used responsibly, particularly considering the noise impact. I noted with interest that there is a private member’s bill in the House of Commons that seeks to mandate the use of silent or low-noise fireworks. The legal maximum noise level for fireworks is defined in the UK-wide legislation. As I said, I have written to the UK Government to request a meeting to discuss updating fireworks regulation. I recognise that we share the goal of enhancing community safety and wellbeing, and I plan to address the noise issues as part of those conversations.

In its written evidence, the Faculty of Advocates suggested that, when the requirement to find caution is imposed by the court, the appointment of the judicial factor and the vesting of the estate and standard powers in the judicial factor should be postponed until after caution is found. I consider that it is sensible that registration of the appointment and vesting of the estate and standard powers do not take place until the accountant has confirmed that the requirement to find caution has been satisfied. That is what amendments 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 provide for.

That ties in with section 8(3), which ensures that, when the court requires a caution to be found, the judicial factor does not receive a certified copy of the interlocutor and, thus, is not able to deal with the property until the accountant confirms that the requirement to find caution has been satisfied.

I ask members to support all my amendments in the group.

I move amendment 6.

Amendment 6 agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

After section 6

Earlier this year, when responding to the committee’s stage 1 report, I set out my views on lodging an amendment to make it clear that it is competent to appoint a judicial factor over the estate of a missing person. During the stage 1 debate, it was clear that that was one of the issues about which many MSPs felt strongly. I have listened to those views and have considered whether more can be done to balance them with the wider policy regarding the circumstances in which the appointment of a judicial factor can be sought.

The committee’s recommendation is clear that a reference to missing people could be added in such a way to make it clear that the bill may be used by people who seek to manage the estate of a missing person. The committee knows my concerns about amending section 3, but my amendment 12 implements the recommendation while ensuring that the wider policy in the bill is not undermined.

Amendment 12 imposes a requirement on the Scottish ministers to produce guidance about the appointment of a judicial factor, under section 1, for the estates of missing people. As such, it makes it clear that the families of missing persons can use the bill.

I move amendment 12.

Section 27 makes provision in relation to formulation of a scheme for distribution of the factory estate by a judicial factor. Where a person with an interest lodges an objection to the scheme prepared by the judicial factor, the Accountant of Court is required to refer the objection to the court. Under section 27(9) the court’s options are to either reject the objection and order distribution in line with the scheme prepared by the judicial factor, or to instruct the judicial factor to distribute the estate as the court thinks fit.

The Sheriffs and Summary Sheriffs Association suggested that a further option should be available to the court—namely, to make such other order as the court considers appropriate. Although it is anticipated that, in most cases, the court will order distribution of the estate, I consider that there might be circumstances where other orders, such as continuation of the judicial factory, may be appropriate. Amendment 22 adds further flexibility to section 27 by allowing the court to respond to the particular circumstances of a case.

I move amendment 22.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Section 28—Application for distribution of factory estate

Amendment 23 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

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

Amendment 24 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

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

Section 30 requires the Accountant of Court to apply for the appointment of a replacement judicial factor where the original factor dies or ceases to perform duties, where the Accountant of Court considers that the purpose for which the original factor was appointed still exists and that no application for replacement has been lodged by anyone else.

I have considered the provision further, however, and the bill does not set out what should happen when the original factor dies or ceases to perform their duties and the purpose for which they were appointed no longer exists, but some actions are still required to bring the judicial factory to an end. I consider that, in such circumstances, the judicial factory should be formally terminated following the processes under the bill and, where appropriate, the original factor discharged. Although that is not likely to be a common occurrence, amendment 25 is a sensible precaution to ensure that judicial factories are brought to a proper end and to avoid any doubts that might arise in such cases.

Amendments 26, 27 and 29 are all consequential amendments to reflect the addition of the new section 30(3A).

I move amendment 25.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Amendments 26 and 27 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

Section 31—Resignation and applications for recall and discharge in other circumstances

Amendment 28 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Section 32—Inventory and balance sheet where replacement judicial factor appointed

Amendment 29 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33—Termination of judicial factory where insufficient funds

Amendment 30 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 33, as amended, agreed to.

Section 34—Ending of judicial factor’s accountability on discharge

Amendment 31 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35—Accountant of Court: appointment, remuneration and fees

The committee’s stage 1 report considered the criteria that a person must meet to be appointed as an Accountant of Court, and the committee concluded that what the bill provides for is sufficient. The committee did, however, recommend that Scottish ministers periodically review the Accountant of Court’s qualifications and that they should have the flexibility to amend the qualification requirements by way of secondary legislation. Amendment 32 makes the recommended changes and any regulations under the provision would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Section 36(2) of the bill imposes the same criteria on the person who is appointed as a depute accountant as those that are imposed on the person who is appointed as the accountant under section 35(1). Amendment 33 therefore makes the same provision for reviewing the criteria for the depute accountant as amendment 32 does for the accountant. That ensures that both the accountant’s and the depute accountant’s qualifications are subject to review and can be amended if needed.

I move amendment 32.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Section 36—Depute Accountant

Amendment 33 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

Section 38—Misconduct or failure of judicial factor