Seòmar agus comataidhean

When you say that there is a little bit more work to be done to avoid that taking place again, what kind of work are you envisioning? What kind of improvements or changes do you see as necessary?

Good morning, minister. Following on the theme of scrutiny of instruments, I want to ask a question about information sharing. The committee has recently considered and reported instruments that have been linked to UK-wide changes, such as instruments relating to public sector pension schemes following the McCloud judgment and council tax reductions following UK-wide changes to universal credit. What processes are in place to monitor changes in the UK Parliament, and what processes are there to work with the UK Government to share information in those sorts of examples?

Thank you for those answers. I would be interested to hear a little more about your specific monitoring processes. Do you have to wait for the UK Government to notify you of when things are being laid, or do you have channels through which you can monitor and follow the progress of work before you receive the formal notification? Is there anything that you feel can be done to improve those processes so that we can avoid the rushed changes that we have seen in the past?

I want to move us on to part 2 of the bill, which is the part of the bill that deals with inheritance. Section 72 relates to the right of a spouse or civil partner to inherit. A range of stakeholders, including the Law Society of Scotland, have said that a distinction should be drawn between spouses or civil partners who were living with the deceased person at the time of their death and spouses or civil partners who had previously separated from the deceased person but not divorced or had the partnership dissolved. Having heard the views that have been expressed, are you persuaded that section 72 should be amended to make that distinction?

Okay. Thank you.

It sounds as though there are risks either way, regardless of whether a distinction is made. The issue becomes about where the burden should land. You said that one way of avoiding the problem could be for people to change and update their will, which is an administrative burden, obviously. However, the alternative is a different group of people being faced with that burden.

I would like to move us on to sections 16 and 17, which are on the trustees’ powers of investment. Yvonne Evans and others have suggested that, partly because of Scotland’s increasing emphasis on net zero goals, that sections 16 and 17 should be amended to explicitly allow trusts to make environmental, social and governance investments, particularly when those might underperform compared with other investments. We have heard mixed views on that. Does the bill allow trustees to do that already?

I want to take us back briefly to the question about the definition of “incapable”. I remember that the committee heard another view. As I have said, the suggestion was made to us that, rather than having a new, albeit similar, definition in the bill, the bill could refer to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 so that, as that is updated, the definition in the bill would automatically be updated. However, STEP Scotland raised a potential concern with us about tying the definition to that act, because

“Scots law applies to trustees of Scottish trusts even if they are not Scots law jurisdiction persons.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 16 May 2023; c 34.]

That means that, if we have the definition in the bill, we would at least be clear that it applies to trustees of Scottish trusts.

Have you considered that suggestion? Should we be concerned about it, or would it not cause issues? Would it be quite straightforward to simply link the definition to the 2000 act?

It sounds as though you are considering making a change to the bill along the lines that have been suggested. Do you think that there are any policy drawbacks to making that change?

Thank you.