Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the bill as drafted allow trustees to make such investments, or does it need to be amended to make it clear that such an option is open to them?

My question is on section 72, which is about the right of a spouse or civil partner to inherit. It features in part 2, which is on succession law, and various stakeholders, including the Law Society, 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 who had not divorced or had not had the partnership dissolved.

It would be helpful for the committee to hear the witnesses’ views on that policy idea and that distinction. For example, do you agree that, with good drafting of the provision, it is possible to describe and define what is and is not separation? Obviously, we are aware of circumstances in which people are still very much together and in a relationship, even though they might be living separately for reasons outwith their control. One of them might be in prison, say, or working overseas. Is it possible to draft a clear distinction to cover those circumstances and would it be helpful to do so?

As the convener said to the previous panel, if any witness has any suggestions, thoughts or ideas that they would like the committee to follow up, we would be very grateful to receive them.

I want to put you all on the spot and ask how that would work in practice. Would it require a formal separation agreement? The sound cut out slightly when Ross Anderson was speaking, but I thought that I heard him say that it would be helpful but impossible. I am interested in understanding how we might be able to make such a distinction work.

I will move us on to sections 65 and 66, which cover expenses of litigation. The Law Society has raised concerns about the current policy underpinning section 65, which provides principles to determine how legal bills are paid for in trust cases. It says that section 65 will deter people from becoming trustees and may lead trustees to unfavourably settle or abandon legal proceedings for fear of personal liability.

Some of the witnesses might have heard our discussion about that with the previous panel of witnesses. We would be interested to hear from the witnesses who are not representing the Law Society whether they share the concerns that it has raised with us or can offer the committee any reassurance. We would also be interested to hear from all panel members whether the availability of insurance might help to mitigate the risks that the Law Society identified.

Would Laura Dunlop like to kick us off?

As I understood it, the proposal was not to instruct but to include a clarification, for the avoidance of doubt. Are you saying that you do not think that that would be necessary, or that it would be unhelpful if it was included in the bill?

Are there changes that you would like to be made, based on that concern?

I have a follow-up question. Would amending the bill in line with that approach mean that the definition would automatically be updated when it was updated in the 2000 act? Is it a more streamlined option for future proofing the bill—if, instead of having a set definition, it refers to the definition and interpretation in another act?

Ms Evans, when it comes to practical ways of amending the bill, would the statement that you mentioned be in the form of a “for the avoidance of doubt” clause? How do you see it working in practice?

Thank you.