« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ANNEX B: LIST OF QUESTIONS FOR
CONSULTATION
Question 1: Do you support the countersignatory
proposals? If you disagree with any of the proposals please
say why?
Question 2: Do you support the proposal to allow for the
appointment of substitute and joint withdrawers?
Question 3: Do you support a change to allow for
intromission with a joint account on behalf of both account
holders, in circumstances where one and then the other
becomes incapable?
Question 4: Do you support proposals to increase
flexibility in the management of accounts under IwF? If
not, please give your reasons.
Question 5: Do you agree that the Public Guardian should
be empowered to authorise the opening of a bank account in
the name of the adult, so that the applicant can intromit
with funds?
Question 6a: Do you support the proposal for the Public
Guardian to be able to authorise applicants to request
confidential financial data from the adult's bank/building
society for the purpose of completing the IwF application;
authorise banks to release the requested information?
Question 6b: Do you consider that the two stage process
provides an adequate safeguard to protect the adult from
potential abuse?
Question 7a: Do you support the proposal that
organisations should be allowed to intromit with funds? If
not, please state your reasons.
Question 7b: Are there any considerations which would
make certain organisations unsuitable to IwF? If so, please
state what you think these should be.
Question 8a: Please suggest an alternative name for
'intromission with funds'.
Question 8b: Please suggest the name/title of someone
authorised to manage funds under IwF.
Question 9a: Do you agree that, in considering the need
for a financial guardian of last resort, it is important to
draw a distinction between - cases where the
challenge is to identify a willing nominee and
supply is restricted or absent - cases where
the nature of the case makes it difficult to
attract a nominee on any commercial basis (supply
constraints may also be present in such cases)?
Question 9b: Do you think there is a gap in the
'universal' provider market for guardianship at the moment,
i.e. are there cases which would have
supported the payment of a professional fee but where no
professional was available to administer the guardianship?
If so, say why you think this gap arises.
Question 9c: Do you have any information on the scale of
the gap ? (If so please state).
Question 9d: Would it be helpful to see any such gap in
terms of the market for wider community services?
Question 9e: Do you have any ideas about how the gap in
the provision of professional guardians in such situations
could be met? For example, would it be helpful to have a
central referral system for the allocation of a suitable
professional from a panel? Would that ensure a suitable
service even in remote areas?
Question 9f: What are the key features of cases which,
even if a referral and panel system were to be in place,
would require a guardian of last resort?
Question 9g What would be the likely annual demand for a
last resort service for such cases?
Question 9h: Taking into account the nature and volume
of last resort cases, what kind of skills and
organisational arrangements would the provider of a last
resort service have to have?
Question 10: Do you support the proposal to include a
check in the registration process for powers of attorney to
ensure that the granter has considered how and by whom
incapacity is to be determined?
Question 11: Do you support the proposal to amend the
Act to provide that only one supporting certificate by an
approved person is required when a power of attorney
contains both continuing financial and welfare powers?
Question 12a: Do you agree that it would be beneficial
to make specific provision for sheriffs to dispense with
caution if they consider it appropriate in the
circumstances?
Question 12b: Do you agree that the
OPG should be granted powers to vary
caution?
Question 13: Do you support the proposal to make
specific provision to allow sheriffs discretion to extend
the period for lodging reports to a maximum of 60 days in
cases where an adult's condition is stable and long term,
or deteriorating and long term?
Question 14: Do you support the proposal to deal with
situations where the adult for whom the report by the
approved medical practitioner is required lives outside
Scotland, to enable an appropriately qualified medical
practitioner with experience recognised by the country in
which he/she works to: make an examination of the adult;
discuss that examination with a medical practitioner
approved under section 22 of the 2003 Act, or with a
medical commissioner or medical officer of the Mental
Welfare
Commission for Scotland; and provide a report on the
adult's capacity in relation to the measures sought?
Question 15: Should sheriffs be given discretion to make
interim orders for a period of more than three months where
this is appropriate in the circumstances of the case?
Question 16a: Do you support the proposal that local
authorities should be able to recall their own
guardianships?
Question 16b: Have you experienced a specific difficulty
in the recall of a guardianship? Please provide
details.
Question 17a: Do you support the proposal to broaden
section 4 to allow for an application to the sheriff by a
person with an interest in the affairs of the adult with
incapacity?
Question 17b: In addition, do you support the proposal
that the court should have, on its own initiative, the
power to make an order under section 4, subject to
intimation to (informing) the adult, and any other person
the court considers has an interest?
Question 18a: Would it be appropriate to consider
widening the categories of professionals who can sign
certificates of incapacity under the Act?
If 'yes' please answer the questions below.
Question 18b: To which professionals, and under which
parts of the Act, should any extension be confined?
Question 18c: What issues would any extension raise
e.g. training, indemnity cover?
« Previous | Contents | Next »