Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will move us to part 2 of the bill and in particular to section 72, which is on the right of a spouse or civil partner to inherit. We discussed that with the earlier panel as well. Various 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 those who had previously separated from the deceased person but had not divorced or had their partnership dissolved.

The committee is interested in hearing what other witnesses think of that policy idea. Do you agree with it? Do you think that, with good drafting, it would be possible for the provision to describe what is separation and what is not? It would be helpful if Alan Barr could then come in to add any points of clarification on the Law Society’s submission to the committee.

How would you propose to tackle that in the bill, if I can put you on the spot?

I move us on to sections 65 and 66, on expenses of litigation and application. Although the Law Society is supportive of the bill overall, it seems to be very concerned about the current policy that underpins section 65, which provides principles to determine how legal bills are paid for in trust cases. The Law Society thinks that section 65 will deter people from becoming trustees and might lead trustees to settle unfavourably or to abandon legal proceedings for fear of personal liability. It would be useful for the committee to hear whether you share the concerns of the Law Society or can offer the committee reassurance on that point.

A related question is whether you think that the availability of insurance helps to mitigate the risks that have been identified by the Law Society.

We can start with Ross Anderson again and work round the table. As I am attending remotely, it is not easy for anyone to catch my eye. I can leave it to the convener to bring witnesses in, if that is preferable.

I will move us on to sections 16 and 17 of the bill, which look at trustees’ powers of investment. I think that the question will be to the whole panel; perhaps Ross Anderson could start off and we can work our way around.

The Law Society of Scotland and the academic Yvonne Evans have suggested that, in view of Scotland’s increasing emphasis on net zero goals, sections 16 and 17 could be amended to allow trusts to adopt environmentally friendly investment policies, particularly when those might underperform compared with other investments. The committee is interested to hear the panel’s views on that policy idea. If you support it in principle, do you think that the drafting of sections 16 and 17 would need to be tweaked or amended to make it clear to trustees that they have the power to make such investments, even when they might underperform compared with other investments?

We have a similar set of questions for this panel as we had for the previous panel. Sections 16 and 17 relate to trustees’ powers of investment. Some of the witnesses will have heard me asking a question about that. Both the Law Society and the academic Yvonne Evans, who we heard from last week, have suggested that, in view of Scotland’s increasing emphasis on net zero, sections 16 and 17 could be amended to allow trusts to adopt environmentally friendly investment policies, particularly when those investments might underperform other investments.

As I asked the previous panel, it would be helpful for the committee to hear your views on that idea. Do you support it in principle and do you think that sections 16 and 17 could be amended or tweaked in order to make it clearer to trustees that they have the power to make those sorts of investments?

I am happy to leave it there, convener. Thank you.

There have been different views, which makes me question whether there should be clarification or an explicit line in the bill to say that that approach is perfectly permissible and within the powers.

Would it be possible to allow a case-by-case approach to be taken but to still be clear in the bill that that is an option for those trustees who are interested?

No, thank you, convener.

Thank you very much. I will hand back to the convener.