Chamber and committees

We must assume that this has a lot to do with monitoring public awareness of the changes and the public’s acceptance of new ways of accessing services to ensure that they are effective. We know that professionals see how the changes that have been made work, but is public awareness as great? Can it be improved so that the care and wellbeing portfolio can bring about the reform that is necessary to improve public health outcomes? The monitoring and reportage that comes from that should give us all comfort that the changes are achieving what they are meant to achieve. Are the public sufficiently aware of the changes?

Good morning. I do not want to go over things that you might think we have covered already, but I want to talk a wee bit more about age ranges and so on.

The supervision or guidance of post-18-year-olds is an important aspect of what is being done. Because of the variations in young people’s developmental processes, it is important to look at the idea of an age limit not being a cliff edge when it comes to support. That has come up during multiple evidence-taking sessions, and it is important that we know what consideration the Scottish Government and the bill team have given to that and to what might be done to encourage successful transitions when someone reaches 18.

From what you have said—which is perfectly reasonable, as far as it goes—it seems that we have to hope that, when a post-18-year-old is moved to the next stage, there are people who are trained and capable available to help them to move forward, rather than the system just saying, “You are 18 now, so too bad,” if you know what I mean.

That is useful to know. Thank you.

I thank Lord Drummond Young for his evidence so far. Section 61 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill proposes that, once a private trust has been in existence for 25 years, it can have its trust purposes altered on application to the Court of Session.

Half of those who responded to the committee’s call for views, including the Faculty of Advocates, believe that that period is longer than necessary and that the minimum period should be shorter. Some who responded said that there should be no period at all before which a court application could be made. What are your reflections on the responses that the committee received?

Does that mean that, although section 61 proposes 25 years before someone could apply to the Court of Session, that period would not necessarily apply?

That is really helpful.

Thank you.

Under section 7 of the bill, trustees can remove a fellow trustee on the basis that the trustee has become incapable. Under section 12, a trustee does not get to participate in trust decisions if they are incapable or—perhaps more understandably—if they are untraceable. The possible risk of abuse of those provisions by trustees has been highlighted by some of the respondents to the call for views, such as Gillespie Macandrew LLP. Can you highlight any safeguards in the bill as it stands, or elsewhere in trust law, that would guard against that risk? Do you see some merit in the concerns?

If you thought that that was controversial, you might think that my question is, too. Part 2 of the bill does not contain a blanket ban on an unlawful killer being an executor. As the law is not clear in this area, two academic lawyers, Dr Alisdair MacPherson and Professor Roddy Paisley of the University of Aberdeen, have suggested that part 2 of the bill be used to clarify the law in this area. The situation could be that the unlawful killer is the partner, husband or wife of the deceased and they would then become the executor of the will. That has raised a lot of concerns. What do you have to say about that?