Seòmar agus comataidhean

Do either of the other witnesses have a view on that change in law?

I am grateful for that response. If you send supplementary information to the committee and could include an idea that you have for a definition, or could point us towards a definition, that would be helpful. If we are looking at amendments and such things in stages, we are probably not the best people to draft definitions.

I want to follow up one of Professor Paisley’s opening remarks in which he said that he felt that succession could go further in the bill. Would you expand on those comments, Professor Paisley, so that we do not miss that point?

For those of us who are less aware of legal rights, which category of individual do you want to remove from them?

I direct my next question initially to Ms Evans. In your response to the committee’s consultation, you said that you did not think that the standard of care that is applicable to supervisors and protectors was clear in the bill. Can you expand slightly on that? Do the other witnesses agree with Ms Evans?

Is there agreement on that point?

To play devil’s advocate for a moment, Professor Paisley, that is a very subjective test. Your morality might not be my morality. You are better at dealing with this than I am, but, in regard to drafting legislation, we need to have some kind of principle and clarity around that. We might or might not want to exclude that individual, but how would we make that decision in law?

I will move us on to chapter 6 of the bill, which makes clear that private purpose trusts are permitted in Scots law and sets out certain requirements as to how those trusts should be run. In policy terms, are the requirements in chapter 6 stringent enough to guard against the possible abuse of those trusts?

Do you think that there should be a higher standard of care?

How would you deal with that?