Chamber and committees

It is on the current tactile voting device. Would it not offer reassurance to some people to say that those will continue to be available until the other options are developed? I do not understand why that is difficult. We all accept that better things are available, but people are legitimately concerned that something that they are used to using is to be taken away. Would that not be quite easy to do?

In her opening remarks, Beatrice Wishart referenced the cross-party group on cancer and the potential for some crossover. If this group gets approved, will there be a chance in the future for the groups to work together from time to time?

Given the significant damage to the reputation of the Parliament and public trust in it and its members, I believe that a significant suspension is necessary. It is clear to me from the evidence that we have considered that those who have sent us here would not look kindly at a short suspension for one of our own when many in the real world would have faced the very real possibility of losing their job in the same circumstances. I therefore would have supported a higher sanction, but I recognise the need to come to a majority view.

The Law Society of Scotland and the Accountant of Court have both expressed concerns about the subsections of sections 12 and 39 that restate the current legal position in relation to data protection legislation, making clear that those sections do not authorise anything that would breach that. Various stakeholders have highlighted to the committee that legitimate information requests, especially by judicial factors, can already be denied or delayed. It is said that that is due to an unjustified reliance on data protection legislation, coupled with a failure to fully understand the judicial factor’s role.

Do you see any validity in those policy concerns? If the bill is to cross-refer to the data protection legislation, do its legitimate uses need to be explained in more detail, either in the bill or in associated guidance?

I think that it was the Law Society. The matter was raised by a lady who has been there for a very long time and is its in-house judicial factor. She therefore has a lot of experience of working with such legislation, and she said that it is not something that most people know about. They hear the term “judicial factor”, but they are not clear about what that is. They do not understand that the person who is appointed as the judicial factor, in effect, acts as if they are the person, so there is already confusion. She is concerned that the bill’s reference to the Data Protection Act 2018 would lead to people defaulting to using that as a reason not to provide information. Will you consider moving that to the guidance or the explanatory notes, rather than the 2018 act being referred to so prominently in the bill?

That is helpful. To take it a stage further, I note that the bill will potentially widen the number of people who are using judicial factors or engaging with judicial factory. If you heard that someone was an accountant, would you expect that they had some form of accountancy qualification? I think that that is the point.

That is why I wanted to push it a wee bit further.

That is helpful. I guess that also ties in, to a certain extent, with some of the questions about missing persons and about where non-financial criteria fit in the legislation. There is some overlap in the charity sections, with the potential for people to be judicial factors for trusts. We want to understand this as we approach stage 2. We are modernising very old legislation, and we note from the evidence that we have heard on various areas that there are points when financial return, or holding things static exactly as they are, are not the sole considerations that people would expect to be taken into account. Are we going to change the role of the judicial factor slightly under the bill?

The Law Society of Scotland, in its response to the committee’s call for views, said that the bill as introduced contains “a significant departure from” the Scottish Law Commission’s draft bill. It stated:

“Specifically, the Law Society considers that there has been a ‘watering down’ of the levels of legal and accountancy knowledge required for the roles of the Accountant and the Depute Accountant.”

On the other hand, the committee heard from the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service that the bill reflects the existing approach, and that the existing approach works well. The SCTS believes that, as the same person who is the Accountant of Court also serves as the public guardian, it is important to think about a person’s suitability in the context of both roles, taking into account in particular that the public guardian’s work takes up the majority of the time.

Having heard all the evidence, does the Scottish Government agree with the SCTS, or are you minded to look again at the matter?

Yes—it is about the balance of skills within the team. I know that that becomes an operational matter, but—