Seòmar agus comataidhean

The other example that academics raised with us last week related to someone going on to a submarine for a long period of service or going away for a long period of time. Do such issues concern you in practice?

That was helpful.

Convener, I appreciate that we probably do not want to rewrite the law of succession on a Tuesday morning, but I think that the bill slightly opens a can of worms. Last week, with the academics, we looked at whether there should be a greater restriction on legal rights in this respect. I understand that, in some continental European countries such as Poland and Germany, people can write into their will clauses that do not to get rid of such rights completely but, certainly, dilute them further than we have.

I appreciate that I am again putting the witnesses on the spot by asking them to comment, but is that area worth pursuing, or have we struck the right balance on legal rights?

Would the bill require further amendment?

For the avoidance of doubt, I just want to say that one of the witnesses today, John McArthur, is a personal friend of mine from many years ago when I was a trainee with Anderson Strathern. Also, Alan Barr, who is on the second panel, was one of my lecturers at university.

That is helpful.

I will pick up on a couple of those issues. Someone on the first panel made a suggestion about getting medical evidence. Do you think that a requirement to provide medical evidence would be helpful in giving protection to a trustee who has been challenged on that?

Good morning. I thank all of you for coming to the meeting.

The bill contains some new powers for sheriff courts, but the Court of Session will remain the main court for trusts. Do you think that the balance is about right in that respect, or should more be done—or be allowed to be done—in the sheriff courts instead of things going to the Court of Session?

I declared my interests before the previous panel of witnesses.

One of the questions was about trustee insurance. If that became mandatory, would that resolve the issue in regard to individual liability?

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?