Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I think that that could be worth while. Perhaps an official might have more detail on that. Do you want to come in, Michael?

The Scottish Government’s aim is to bring the bill’s provisions and the section 104 order on pension trusts into force at the same time, as that would have the effect of applying the updated trust law in the bill to all types of Scottish trusts, including Scottish pension trusts, at the same time. That is the preferred approach, because it would avoid fragmenting trust law by creating different regimes for pension trusts and other kinds of trusts.

Should a 104 order not be forthcoming in time for the bill’s commencement, there is a range of options to ensure that no gap in the law is created for pension trusts. Sections 78 and 80 would allow provision to be made to keep the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921 and any other parts of pre-reform legislation in force for pension trusts for as long as required. It would complicate the legislative landscape, and it is not a desirable solution, but it is possible.

Another option is to defer commencement of the bill as long as is necessary to ensure co-ordination with the section 104 order. Again, that is not desirable, but it demonstrates that a gap in the law would not be created.

No, I do not, but we will have to wait to see once we move that forwards.

With information duties, there is a balance to be struck between the interests of the trustees and those of the beneficiaries. Many of the issues that were raised about the burden placed on trustees were also raised when the policy was being developed. The SLC has considered those competing interests at some length in developing the provisions, and the information duties in the bill attempt a compromise.

I recognise that requiring trustees to inform beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries about their position under a trust could add a burden of work to trustees. However, against that, beneficiaries could have a fundamental role in a trust in holding the trustees accountable. They cannot do that if they are not properly informed.

My view is that the bill strikes an appropriate balance between the ease of administration for the trustees and enabling beneficiaries to hold them to account. Beyond that, the information duties contained in it can be tailored for individual trusts. A truster is permitted to limit the duty to provide information requested by the beneficiaries subject to certain safeguards and the bill allows for some flexibility.

The Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has said that many complaints are made because beneficiaries are not clear on what they have or do not have the right to expect. We welcome the clear provisions on the duty of trustees to pass information to the beneficiary and on what the beneficiary is entitled to expect or request.

The bill strikes an appropriate balance. However, if the committee has another view and would like to make a recommendation, we will consider it.

That is an area on which I am willing to work with the committee. Trustees are given broad investment powers that do not prohibit taking into account environmental concerns, as stakeholders have recognised. Trustees are presently required to consider the suitability of a proposed investment for the trust. That is not an instruction to maximise financial return at all costs. I am aware that the committee has heard that trustees of trusts whose purposes are the eradication of poverty would not consider it suitable to invest in tobacco, alcohol or gambling for example. Ultimately, the investment policy that the trustees should adopt must reflect the purposes of the trust as set out by the truster in the trust deed.

As I have said, the role and fundamental duty of the trustees is to implement the trust’s purposes and care is needed to ensure that the trustees, when making investment decisions, are not instructed to take into account their personal values.

I have heard the views of a wide range of stakeholders that express provision would be helpful to make clear that, when assessing the suitability of an investment for a trust, financial returns are not the only consideration that may be taken into account. For example, the environmental and social impacts could also be relevant considerations. I will consider further what could be done on the issue, and look forward to working with the committee and the SLC on the matter as the bill continues its passage through Parliament.

I will bring in Michael Paparakis to answer that question.

We took the recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission but if the committee wants to make any suggestions in its stage 1 report we would be happy to consider them and talk to the SLC.

We will look at that further and get back to the committee.

Complete codification of any area of law is never a straightforward task. The SLC considered codification of the law but ultimately rejected it. Its view, as Lord Drummond Young told the committee, was that some areas of the law are better left out of statute—for example, the somewhat abstract dual patrimony theory that underpins trusts and the law around express or implied trusts.

The bill reforms all the parts of Scots trust law that have traditionally been dealt with by statute, and it consolidates and modernises nearly all the statutory trust areas. I am content that the SLC, after extensive consideration of the issue, has identified the right approach in the bill, which focuses on reforming those parts of the law that create problems in practice.

I understand the view that comprehensive codification would make it easier for a layperson to access and understand the legislation. However, as the SLC suggested in its evidence, in other jurisdictions where codification has taken place, the statutory law is seldom absolutely comprehensive.

At this stage, no, we are not. Setting out a statutory style in primary legislation is not necessary or helpful, because, as I have said, it can become outdated and difficult to update. The original 1921 act had only two straightforward styles. A style might give the layperson a misplaced sense of confidence that their do-it-yourself trust deed is fit for purpose when that might not be the case. Style books are produced and maintained by professionals based on their experience of contemporary practice, and the SLC was right not to attempt to take on that task.