Seòmar agus comataidhean

From what you have said—which is perfectly reasonable, as far as it goes—it seems that we have to hope that, when a post-18-year-old is moved to the next stage, there are people who are trained and capable available to help them to move forward, rather than the system just saying, “You are 18 now, so too bad,” if you know what I mean.

That is useful to know. Thank you.

I thank Lord Drummond Young for his evidence so far. Section 61 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill proposes that, once a private trust has been in existence for 25 years, it can have its trust purposes altered on application to the Court of Session.

Half of those who responded to the committee’s call for views, including the Faculty of Advocates, believe that that period is longer than necessary and that the minimum period should be shorter. Some who responded said that there should be no period at all before which a court application could be made. What are your reflections on the responses that the committee received?

Does that mean that, although section 61 proposes 25 years before someone could apply to the Court of Session, that period would not necessarily apply?

That is really helpful.

Thank you.

Under section 7 of the bill, trustees can remove a fellow trustee on the basis that the trustee has become incapable. Under section 12, a trustee does not get to participate in trust decisions if they are incapable or—perhaps more understandably—if they are untraceable. The possible risk of abuse of those provisions by trustees has been highlighted by some of the respondents to the call for views, such as Gillespie Macandrew LLP. Can you highlight any safeguards in the bill as it stands, or elsewhere in trust law, that would guard against that risk? Do you see some merit in the concerns?

If you thought that that was controversial, you might think that my question is, too. Part 2 of the bill does not contain a blanket ban on an unlawful killer being an executor. As the law is not clear in this area, two academic lawyers, Dr Alisdair MacPherson and Professor Roddy Paisley of the University of Aberdeen, have suggested that part 2 of the bill be used to clarify the law in this area. The situation could be that the unlawful killer is the partner, husband or wife of the deceased and they would then become the executor of the will. That has raised a lot of concerns. What do you have to say about that?

I suppose that it is about mental incapacity.

Under the structure of the bill as introduced, would it be possible for a trustee to challenge such a decision without reaching the stage at which it was necessary to go to court? Would the ability to challenge be built in for anyone who was dealt with in such a manner?