The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 1544 contributions
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
A concern among last week’s panel, because the domicile rules could be unclear, was about what will happen when a foreign national sets up a trust then disappears to another country. In practice, are you dealing with that issue? The issue is to do with someone who is not domiciled in Scotland setting up a trust then running it from another jurisdiction.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
Yes.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
The Faculty of Advocates and others have said that they think that the power in section 67 to give directions to the court needs to be much wider. I would be interested to get your views on that. Does the power need to be wider, or is the provision about right? Are you happy with the position as it is?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
One of the questions was about trustee insurance. If that became mandatory, would that resolve the issue in regard to individual liability?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
I will develop the idea slightly by asking about clarity for trustees. If a charity has an asset and wants to give that to another charity, the general view is that the trustees have to get the best value that they can for that sale, but trustees who are passing an asset on to another charity with a similar charitable basis might want to sell it at a cheaper price. Is there a need for clarity on that in the bill, or is there already enough clarity to allow trustees to do that?
When I worked for a charity, we talked to another charity and asked whether the trustees could sell us an asset at a discount price so that we could use it for charitable purposes, but they said that they had to get the best price for their beneficiaries. Could some clarity be provided about a situation in which another trust benefits?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
Good morning to the panel. You have the advantage of knowing what questions we asked the previous panel. I hope that we can make progress.
You will be aware that I said to the previous panel that the bill has some new powers for sheriff courts, but the main powers predominantly still lie in the Court of Session. Do you have a view on that? I will start with Laura Dunlop, on behalf of the Faculty of Advocates.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
That tees up another question. The panel of academics who gave evidence last week suggested that, instead of putting exact wording into this bill, it could just refer back to the 2000 act. That would mean that, if there were a change to the 2000 act, it would therefore immediately change the definition in the bill. Is that solution workable in practice rather than as an academic view?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
So, in practice, that would work for you on a day-to-day basis.
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
Can I just clarify a point in that respect? What if, say, one person from a couple goes into a care home for a long period of time? What happens in practice at the moment? In such cases, is any thought given to putting something in writing? If someone has been in a care home for three or four years but the other person is living at home, how do you deal with that in practice so that people do not lose out?
Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee
Meeting date: 16 May 2023
Jeremy Balfour
Picking up on that final point, we raised that with the Scottish Law Commission when we took evidence a couple of weeks ago. Its representatives were slightly sceptical of that concept, but it might be worth looking at again.
I will move on to section 67 of the bill. The Faculty of Advocates and others have said that they think that the power in that section to give directions to the court needs to be much wider than the one that currently appears in the bill. Would the other witnesses like to comment on that assessment? I will then ask Laura Dunlop to defend that position at the end.