Seòmar agus comataidhean

More broadly, though, it is not the Scottish Government’s position to move towards as much codification within the civil law as possible.

In the same evidence session, we also heard concerns that people might try to draft around the provision or include clauses to create the flexibility to make changes outwith that period. Multiple witnesses at that session seemed to agree that that would not be desirable. Do you take that point on board?

Thank you.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but for clarity, you think that it would be worth restating that in the bill. You are willing to look at putting something in the bill.

I want to push back on that a wee bit. It has been recognised that, for many small trusts across Scotland, given the geography, it would cost them considerable time and expense to come to Edinburgh to have their case heard, and that that might be a barrier for them. Have you looked in any detail at creating different thresholds or expanding the choice? Those are suggestions that have been made to us in evidence. The SLC consulted a while ago, before the bill was in front of the Parliament. Is there any room for movement or expansion on that front?

Are you happy to approach the Law Society directly about wording?

Okay.

The Faculty of Advocates and numerous other legal stakeholders have said that they think that the power in section 67 to give direction to the court needs to be much wider than it currently is. Having heard those views, do you agree that it would be useful to add to the bill a general power to give directions?

For clarity, are you saying that you were not convinced by the evidence that we heard from the Law Society, Yvonne Evans or the firm Turcan Connell that a change is needed in that respect?

I also want to ask about the balance of powers between the sheriff court and the Court of Session. Some legal stakeholders have told the committee that it would be helpful if the bill offered more choice for litigants between the Court of Session and the sheriff court for trust litigation, to suit litigants’ preferences and circumstances. What is the Scottish Government’s view on the strength of those arguments? Will the Government consider altering the bill in any way to reflect the evidence that we heard?

Let me push a little further on this question. I am, as I have said in previous questioning, concerned by the Law Society’s written submission. It describes this provision as “radical” with “real issues”, saying that it is not standard and that it creates

“a severe danger of a conflict of interest”.

The Law Society comments on a wide range of legislation before the Parliament, and by its own standards that is pretty strongly worded. Obviously, it is a very significant stakeholder, and I am struggling to get comfortable with the provision, given such strongly worded concerns.

As drafted, the provision does not reach a compromise that the Law Society is comfortable with. I would have thought that the Government might want to look at whether the compromise that the Law Commission has arrived at is the right one, or whether there is room to find something better. That issue should not be left to the committee or to others; the Government itself could take a more proactive role in finding something that all stakeholders can agree with.