Seòmar agus comataidhean

Excellent—we almost have consensus.

I want to follow up on Mr Lamb’s point about the comparative costs between a sheriff court and the Court of Session. We have taken evidence that there is not much difference between them. Is that your experience, too?

I do not think that that has been raised before, so that is helpful. We can pursue that.

Do others have a view on that issue?

In that case, where would you see the expenses coming from?

We will move on to sections 7 and 12 of the bill. Under section 12, a trustee does not get to participate in trust decisions when they are incapable, while under section 7, trustees can also remove a fellow trustee from their role on the basis that that trustee is incapable. Is the balance about right in that respect? Are you happy that the definitions are up to date enough? If we could do things differently, how would we?

I will move on to the bill’s interaction with charity law. You will be aware that the Charities (Regulation and Administration) (Scotland) Bill is also going through Parliament. Under section 8 of that bill, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator would have an administrative power to appoint on its own initiative interim trustees to a charitable trust. How would that work with the court’s power to appoint trustees under chapter 1 of the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Bill? Is there an interaction?

To follow that up, should there be some explanation in the trusts bill that refers to the charities bill, so that that interaction is understood, or would simply an explanatory note suffice?

If I may, I will pursue that further. Is your concern—had I been convicted in a foreign jurisdiction, for example—that that jurisdiction did not complete trials properly? I am just a wee bit confused. Presumably, if I were convicted in X country, that would be on public record in my country. You do not think that that is enough.

I just want to follow this up slightly. In a previous life, I worked with a trust that was trying to buy property from another trust; however, the view of the other trust was that it always had to get best value—the highest price—because it was scared. Would the sort of clause that we have been talking about help in such situations—not only with investments but with selling off heritable property—by making it clear that it was not necessary to get the best price if the money was being passed to another charity? If not, would there be a way around that? I ask the question, because quite a number of trusts keep saying that they have to get best value almost as an excuse not to sell to another trust.

Just to follow that up further—perhaps your colleagues could answer—would having a will be one way to exclude it? Could you write it directly into the will that you want to exclude legal rights, or does that go too far?