Chamber and committees

Would that apply to medicines in general? People buy drugs online. Would that be the same sort of thing?

Is there an overlap between your work and that of trading standards? Do you work together or are you entirely separate?

That is interesting.

I am interested in the issue of online food and medicine purchases. You mentioned weight loss pills, which is a lucrative market. How do you police that? How do you get to know about—I will just use this term—dodgy products that are being sold to people online? Who alerts you to that?

Has the online food market made your workload a lot heavier? How big a problem is it? Even cookery shows will tell you that, if you cannot get a product in a supermarket, you will be able to get it online. I would not know what was genuine and what was not if it was an unusual product. How much of your work is taken up with that aspect?

I am sure that many members will recognise the brutal impact that cold weather can have on our elderly population. Will the cabinet secretary outline the Scottish Government’s assessment of how the UK Labour Government’s cruel decision to cut the winter fuel payment from 860,000 Scottish pensioners will impact not only on the health of our elderly but on the capacity of health services all over the country?

Has the Scottish Government done any analysis of the new UK Government scheme to change the release date of prisoners? As a result of that scheme, around 1,700 prisoners were released initially, and a total of around 5,500 will be released when further tranches take place. Would that be a useful tool for the Scottish prison population?

As a substitute member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am pleased to speak in this important debate. On the face of it, as others have said, the bill presents as being pretty dry and technical, but, as is always the way, it concerns a subject that is vital to ordinary citizens in many ways.

Judicial factors are appointed by courts to look after property that belongs to someone else. They can also be appointed to oversee a solicitor’s firm where there has been a breach of the Law Society of Scotland’s accounting rules or where a sole practitioner dies. Alternatively, they can also be appointed to wind up the estate of a deceased person or to oversee charity property or the estate of a missing person. Essentially, they do the background work that many of us might need at some point in our lives.

The fact is that, as we have heard, the law relating to judicial factors is in desperate need of modernisation; the existing legislation dates back to the 19th century and is now regarded by those who use it as outdated. At present, the majority of individuals who are appointed as judicial factors are legal or financial professionals. The Scottish Government has set out a key policy objective for the reforms, which is to create a comprehensive regime in one piece of legislation, and I welcome what is a long-overdue move. 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. It aims to bring clarity, accessibility and efficiency.

In 2010, the Scottish Law Commission published a discussion paper on judicial factors, in which it analysed the existing law. In 2013, the commission published its recommendations for reform of the law, and in 2019, the Scottish Government consulted on those recommendations and the current procedure for appointing judicial factors in missing persons cases.

One of the elements that I described earlier was the support that the bill can give to the family of a missing person, which Martin Whitfield has just mentioned. The distress of such a situation is unimaginable, which is why the bill and the support that it will offer are so important. In addition to the emotional distress, the practical implications for family members of having to deal with that person’s property and financial affairs while they are missing must be heartbreaking. In such cases, judicial factors can be appointed to manage the missing person’s estate and so relieve that stress.

I am pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to working with the charity Missing People to prepare guidance for those who are considering appointing a judicial factor to manage the estate of a missing person. That is to be greatly welcomed, and it confirms the measured and committed way in which the Government is addressing the issue. I also point out that the bill does not make provision about what evidence is required to satisfy a court that an appointment should be made, as, rightly, that will depend on the circumstances of each case.

A theme running through the committee’s consideration of the bill was its application to situations where a judicial factor is appointed or might be appointed to manage the estate of a charity. The Scottish Government has started consultations with stakeholders on proposed changes that are sought by the Charity Law Association ahead of lodging any stage 2 amendments that might be needed in that area. Again, that is an important provision. The minister has advised that, ahead of stage 2, when that engagement is complete, she will write to the committee to confirm the Government’s intentions.

A clear and accessible complaints handling route is vital. It is not included in the bill, but the Scottish Government will work with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and the Accountant of Court to ensure that information on how to make a complaint about a judicial factor is clearly accessible.

Overall, a majority of respondents to the committee’s consultation supported the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations, confirming the need for existing legislation to be updated, and the bill takes forward, without amendment, the majority of the SLC’s recommendations for reform.

This is a good and necessary bill, and I thoroughly recommend that it passes at stage 1.

In all those matters, the role of the teacher will be absolutely vital. Will the cabinet secretary set out how she will ensure that the voices of teachers are heard throughout the process, and how teachers will be supported to deliver that approach?

It was welcome that the Scottish Government’s programme for government affirmed that steps would be taken to ensure that the equally safe delivery plan continues to be implemented. Will the minister speak to the funding that is being provided and how the plan will help to prevent and eradicate violence against women?

I am pleased to speak in this important debate, which I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for bringing to the chamber. His commitment to nuclear disarmament is well documented. He is the co-president of the global organisation Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, and I applaud him for his unstinting work to get rid of the abomination of nuclear weapons from Scotland’s shores and from the world.

I also applaud the subject of today’s debate, the Rev John Ainslie. As we have heard, he was a son of the manse in Aberdeenshire who joined the Army in 1971, studied international relations at Keele University in Staffordshire and became a junior officer. By 1980, he had fallen out with the Army and resigned his commission, as a conscientious objector, and he became an active campaigner. After paying back his university fees to the Army, he undertook a divinity degree and entered the ministry of the Church of Scotland as a youth worker. He was one of Scotland’s foremost disarmament campaigners, along with the late Canon Kenyon Wright.

In 1992, when the first submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles arrived in the Clyde, John—by then the co-ordinator of Scottish CND—was in a canoe buzzing the submarine when he was arrested by the MOD police. As we have heard, John did not just pay lip service to disarmament; he acted with bravery, and his arrest was a watershed moment in highlighting the absurdity of these weapons of mass destruction.

The Scottish National Party has a long-standing commitment to ridding our shores and the world of nuclear weapons. Until today’s debate, I did not realise that the oft-used phrase “Bairns not bombs” was coined by John Ainslie. For me, that slogan says it all. We want our children to grow up without the threat of nuclear weapons. Scotland does not want them; they have no place here. I have been a lifelong supporter of nuclear disarmament, having visited Faslane and Greenham Common back in the day. In fact, I think that I still have the “Protest and survive” badges and other memorabilia from then, which I am keeping to pass on to my grandchildren.

The money that is spent on these useless weapons is staggering. We could use that money in so many ways to build a fairer, greener Scotland. For me, their presence here is symbolic of having paid no heed to what the majority of Scots want and believe. Nuclear weapons are morally reprehensible. As Bill Kidd said, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, represents a historic step forward, along with the research produced by John Ainslie, which is now digitised by the Nuclear Information Service.

I again thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. I thank all peace-loving citizens and organisations for their work to end the abomination of nuclear weapons. The most fitting tribute to John Ainslie would be to rid the beautiful shores of Scotland of them—something that I am confident will happen when we are an independent country.