Chamber and committees

Okay. Thank you.

I thank our panel of witnesses for their helpful evidence. If the committee has any additional questions stemming from today’s session, we will follow that up in writing.

I briefly suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave.

Yes.

Under agenda item 5, we are considering an instrument that is not subject to any parliamentary procedure.

No points have been raised on the order. Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Could an aggrieved trustee raise a court action in those circumstances and, if so, what would be the legal basis for that court action?

No points have been raised on the regulations. Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

We move on to section 61 of the bill, which is in regards to private trusts. Section 61 gives the power to the beneficiaries and others to apply to the court to alter the trust purposes of a family trust. It sets out the default position that that power cannot be used for 25 years.

Given that the views on the 25-year restriction have been mixed in the consultation, and that it is a default power only, are all the witnesses satisfied that it is the right policy decision to retain the 25-year restriction in the bill?

Mercedes, before you move on, as Yvonne Evans has just indicated, the Law Society is coming to the committee next week. If the panel members have any further thoughts on section 65 between now and next week, and if they want to send something to the committee, that would be very helpful. Sorry, Mercedes.

Okay, thank you.

On 2 May, the Scottish Law Commission said to the committee that it is important that the trust law reforms ultimately apply to the pension trusts as well. You just touched on that issue with regard to the definition. Do you think that if the pension trusts are not included, that will have a detrimental effect on implementation of the law?