Seòmar agus comataidhean

Currently, it is usual for trustees to be personally liable for litigation expenses in order that successful opponents have the right of relief against the trust estate. Section 65 clarifies that the starting point is that a trustee does not incur personal liability and will only do so when certain grounds exist, as set out in sections 65(2) and 65(3) and the court exercises its discretion to make an order for expenses against the trustee personally on one of those grounds.

Section 65 achieves what the Law Society seemed to be asking for by making the default position that trustees are not personally liable for expenses. There are some exceptions to that default position, but they are subject to the court’s discretion, which is widely drawn. That ensures that trustees of underfunded trusts who unnecessarily litigate are not given an unfair advantage in litigation proceedings.

My officials might want to add something further.

The trusters who set up public and charitable trusts almost invariably want the benefits to be provided immediately, so I do not think that that exclusion will create any practical difficulties. The Scottish Law Commission was impressed by the evidence of Dr Patrick Ford from the charity law research unit at the University of Dundee, who pointed out that there was a risk that a trust might direct long-term accumulations for the fulfilment of grand charitable purposes that would not materialise for many years, and that such accumulations could fall foul of the charity tests that are set out in sections 7 and 8 of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 and the definition of charitable purposes that is applicable for United Kingdom tax purposes and the Charities Act 2006. If there was no statutory limit to accumulation, OSCR would be left to consider every direction or power to accumulate on its own merits under the 2005 act charity test, and HM Revenue and Customs would have to do the same under UK tax legislation.

I am not convinced at the moment, but I am happy to take any recommendations that the committee would like to put forward.

I will bring in Michael Paparakis to respond to that.

I do not. I refer to the SLC’s recommendation.

I think that one of my officials on the legal side—perhaps Jamie Bowman—would like to respond.

Yes. So far, we have had positive engagement with the officials at the Office of the Advocate General, the Scotland Office and other United Kingdom Government departments on using a section 104 order to apply the bill’s provisions to pension trusts.

Scottish Government officials who have been working on the bills are aware of the provisions in each. Trust law is relevant to charities only where the charity takes the legal form of a trust. Therefore, the bill will not impact on all charities. Generally, trust law and charity law operate in parallel, as is the case where charities take other legal forms, such as companies. As both bills progress through Parliament, officials will continue to work closely together to consider the ways in which they interact.

I am very willing to work with the committee on the issue. I am committed to introducing reform that would prevent a person who has been convicted of murder from being an executor of their victim’s estate, and my officials and I will explore what can be done in the context of the bill to ensure that that happens.

As the committee is aware, the Scottish Law Commission did not produce recommendations on the matter, so the bill as introduced does not mention it. There was consensus on the matter when the Scottish Government consulted on it in 2019, which is why we are committed to introducing reform at the next legislative opportunity. The existing law is not clear.

I understand that Professor Paisley has written to the committee with his view, but that the leading academic textbook on confirmation of executors appears to take a different view. Depending on questions of scope, the bill could be used to bring the needed clarity. My officials and I are actively considering the issue. Recently, the SLC announced that it will look at executory law in its eleventh programme. I will consider our approach in the light of that announcement.

It is important that whatever is taken forward is capable of working in practice, because we do not want to have a situation in which the deceased’s estate cannot be administered or the administration of it is called into question. That is not to say that the bill does nothing. Section 6 will make it more straightforward to remove a murderer from the role of executor, and the jurisdiction is extended to the sheriff court. However, I reiterate my commitment to introducing reforms that would prevent a person who has been convicted of murder from being an executor of their victim’s estate.

I do not think that the bill is going to produce much litigation—certainly not in the long term—but I recognise the cost issue. I am sorry, but I do not have information on that in front of me.