Chamber and committees

I will bring in Michael Paparakis. On the basis of my experience of being a minister for a year, I note that the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill, which went through last year, was on the same timescale, in that work had first been done 10 years ago. There is a bit of a challenge in relation to the parliamentary timetable and where we can slot in such legislation, but we have taken through eight SLC bills, and we are determined to keep progressing with them. Michael may want to come in, as he has a lot of history with this.

I do not think that the bill needs any particular statement with regard to missing persons, because we want judicial factors to cover all aspects and not just one specific aspect. However, as I said in my opening remarks, I am working with the charity Missing People on how we can strengthen the guidance for people in such situations.

I appreciate that. We will continue to work with the charity and I am open to doing so in the future. If there is anything that we can bring in to give some comfort to Missing People in particular, we will consider it.

Not at this stage.

I will bring in Michael Paparakis, who has the history of this. However, my understanding is that it was not thought necessary. Even if the legislation on data protection is updated, it will always be updated by the UK Government on the Information Commissioner’s Office website, so it will keep in step with things.

Michael, do you want to add anything?

I will hand over to Michael Paparakis, who has the technical knowledge to be able to answer that question.

I do not consider the threshold to be too high; I believe that it strikes the right balance between the incurring of unnecessary costs and protecting an estate from the improper actings of a judicial factor.

The evidence indicates that bonds of caution can be difficult to obtain and can cost thousands of pounds each year, which is paid for by the estate. That can be prohibitive in circumstances in which a family member is appointed to administer the estate of a missing person and can be completely unnecessary where indemnity insurance covers the judicial factor’s actings.

Most current judicial factors are professionals with indemnity insurance, which, as the committee has heard, can cover their actings as a judicial factor. If a non-professional judicial factor is appointed, the court will have the discretion to order caution. The bill contains safeguards in relation to that, including the fact that all judicial factors are supervised by the accountant and that they must submit an inventory of the estate property and a management plan and must provide accounts for regular audit.

Any person who has concerns about a judicial factor can complain to the accountant, who is required to investigate and has the power to direct a judicial factor to do something. The accountant must also report any serious misconduct to the court.

Good morning. Thank you, convener, for the opportunity to talk about strategic lawsuits against public participation—often referred to as SLAPPs. I would like to thank the petitioner, Roger Mullin, for his tireless campaigning work on this matter.

The petition raises important issues and it is helpful to have them discussed in such a forum. The committee will be aware that the Scottish Government recently introduced reforms to our law of defamation, which took steps towards further protecting freedom of expression.

Although SLAPPs are typically framed as defamation cases brought by wealthy individuals or corporations to evade scrutiny in the public interest, they can occur across a broad spectrum of issues, including data protection, privacy and environmental law.

Since Parliament considered the law of defamation, significant steps have been taken elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. In England and Wales, the UK Government has given its support to a private member’s bill that will widen the scope of the limited anti-SLAPP legislation that is already in place. At EU level there is a recent directive, and the Council of Europe has recently adopted a recommendation on countering SLAPPs.

For those reasons, it is important that we make progress on the issue. I am pleased to say that we will consult on SLAPPs later this year. It seems to me to be both timely and sensible to consult on the issue of SLAPPs specifically in the context of Scots law. My officials have already had helpful engagement with stakeholders, and I will ensure that that continues throughout the consultation process.

I welcome any questions that you or other committee members might have.

I have been told that the board can consider it on a case-by-case basis.

I can double-check that.