Chamber and committees

We are going off at a slightly different angle to the duration issue, but what you have said adds to the background and our depth of knowledge, and it has been worth while listening to the comments. Thank you.

You have just about covered this, but I will sum it up. Last week, the Scottish Law Commission told the committee that, in respect of part 1 of the bill, it did not think that full codification of trust law was necessary or desirable, and it said that part 2 made limited proposals for succession law. Nonetheless—and you have covered a great deal of this—do you think that there is anything that has been missed out of parts 1 and 2 or that has not yet been discussed but that might be easy to add to the bill without interfering with the strong policy consensus that is currently associated with it? Do you want to stick your oar in and say that something else could be done?

The Law Society, Yvonne Evans and Turcan Connell have all commented on chapter 5 of part 1 of the bill, which relates to the duration of a trust. Professor Paisley, in your joint response with Dr Alisdair MacPherson to the committee’s consultation, you, too, have commented on this provision, under which a person will be able to create a trust of any duration that they liked, and have said:

“We wonder whether sufficient consideration has been given to the consequences ... This change could have significant economic impact as certain trusts accumulate assets over a sustained period of time and accordingly obtain sizeable economic power.”

Will you explain a wee bit more your policy concerns in that respect?

I am looking at section 10 of the bill—there is a lot of crossover—on the discharge of trustees and discharge being separate from the resignation or removal of a trustee. In paragraphs 93 and 94 of the policy memorandum, the Scottish Government highlighted a potential policy issue in relation to section 10 of the bill and the circumstance of a guardian consenting to discharge of a trustee on behalf of someone who is under 16, in a small family trust. Do you have any concerns that a potential conflict of interests might be involved? Is that a valid policy concern, and if so, do you have any insight as to how it could be resolved?

Professor Paisley, are you fine? Okay. What you said was useful.

I thank all three of you. That was very helpful.

That is interesting. Thank you.

Does anyone else have anything to say?

That is very helpful. Thank you.

Professor Gretton, would you like to say anything in rounding off?

Okay. Obviously, as you say, the situation is not unknown, but is reasonably common. However, because it is so common, is there potential for an occasional breach of trust, if I might put it that way? There is some concern about that. Who might represent the person who was under 16 in such a situation?

It is always nice to have minor disagreement among witnesses.

How would a challenge to that being presented in a vexatious manner be taken up?