Chamber and committees

Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Fair enough. Thank you.

Do other witnesses have any comments?

Do members have any other questions for the panel? As they do not, I thank the witnesses for their helpful evidence this morning. The committee may follow up by letter with additional questions stemming from what has been discussed in the evidence session, and there are a couple of points that the witnesses will come back to us on. That should not be about redrafting a whole section, but any potential hints would be useful.

Would the witnesses like to highlight anything that has not been covered or to add anything to the record?

I note again that Mercedes Villalba joins us online—she will join us shortly—and that we have received apologies from Oliver Mundell.

I remind the panellists not to worry about turning on microphones during the evidence session as those are controlled by broadcasting. If you would like to come in on a question, please raise your hand or indicate to the clerks. There is no need to answer every question—simply indicate when a question is not for you to respond to. However, please feel free to follow up in writing on any question after the meeting, if you wish.

I will open the questioning. On 2 May, the Scottish Law Commission said to the committee that it is very important that trust law reforms ultimately apply to pension trusts as well. The current plan is for that to have effect through a section 104 order that is agreed by the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. Do you share the view that the bill should apply to pension trusts in whole or in part? What would the practical impact be for you if there was a gap between the legislation coming into force for most trusts and it then coming into force for pension trusts?

Fair enough. Thank you.

It might be worth while to consider the matter. If you were to think of anything after the meeting, you could always send it in.

No—I am certainly not suggesting that.

We move to section 19, on nominees. As I indicated to the previous panel, the law firm CMS is concerned that section 19, on nominees, as drafted, may not go far enough. Specifically, the firm said that “doubt” would remain as to whether trustees can use, first, nominee custody structures and, secondly, sub-custodians. What are the panel members’ views on both those aspects, which currently fall under the scope of section 19, and on the risks that CMS has identified?

Would anyone else like to come in?