Chamber and committees

Do you think that there should be a higher standard of care?

How would you deal with that?

Good morning to the panel. If I can come back to this specific bill, it looks like it takes about a year to do a section 104 if everything moves smoothly. Do you think that there is any way that we could amend the bill to avoid a section 104, which would then mean that it would all come into force at the same time, or is a section 104 inevitable because of the pension scheme aspect?

I will pursue questions on section 7. I know that there are differences in what the three of you have said in your submissions, so please feel free to offer a critique to each other.

Section 7 sets out various grounds under which the majority of trustees can remove fellow trustees, as we discussed. Should those grounds be expanded or altered? It mentions “incapable” trustees, but should we add other grounds to the bill?

I am sorry to interrupt, convener. I have a lot of questions that I would like to ask, but for now I will go back to one of the points that James Dunbar made. Can any witnesses help me with this? The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 brought in an entitlement to split payments so that the money does not all go to one individual and more of it might go to the female partner. However, with Covid, that seems to have been lost. Does anyone have an update on where we are with that? Should we pursue it with the Scottish Government? I do not have an update, so I am interested in knowing where we are.

I wondered whether anyone has engaged with the Scottish Government on the matter, but they have not.

That is fine. Thank you for that helpful explanation.

I am grateful for that.

For our benefit, will you explain why the commission decided to make the role of supervisor optional in chapter 6 of part 1 of the bill, when it is mandatory in many legal systems that permit private purpose trusts?

I am speaking more generally.