Hansard

I, too, am pleased to be participating in this stage 1 debate on the Succession (Scotland) Bill.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s convener, clerks and members for their assistance with the delivery of a comprehensive report, and I thank the witnesses, whose contributions helped to inform the process from the outset.

As legal practitioners are aware, many of the recommendations that form the foundations of the bill’s provisions date back to the Scottish Law Commission’s report on succession in 1990, which largely remains unimplemented. A subsequent SLC report that was published in 2009 revisited a number of those recommendations and carried them forward. I thank the SLC’s commissioners and legal staff for the considerable work that has gone on towards the implementation of the reforms.

The bill principally seeks to update four key areas of succession law: testamentary documents and special destinations; survivorship; forfeiture; and estate administration. It also includes a number of miscellaneous reforms. The bill is complex, and I reiterate the committee’s suggestion to the minister that its provisions need to be clearly explained in guidance to the public once it has completed its parliamentary passage. I welcome the minister’s comments in that regard.

As the committee agreed in its stage 1 report, it was difficult, given the somewhat disparate nature of the bill, to offer an overarching view of its legislative provisions. Although members agreed to the general principles of the bill, we raised concerns in particular about sections 6, 9 and 10. We are pleased that the Scottish Government has committed to address those at stage 2.

It is nevertheless clear that the legal profession welcomes the progress that the bill makes in the area of succession law, albeit some 25 years after the recommendations were first put forward. The Faculty of Advocates, for example, stated that it

“has held the view, shared widely in the legal profession, that reform of the Scots law of succession is required.”

As such, there was a strong degree of consensus among stakeholders, and the DPLR Committee did not receive any evidence that questioned the need for reform. Perhaps it is a fair assessment to attribute that consensus to the predominantly technical nature of the bill.

In seeking to reform that area of Scots law, the Scottish Government has adopted a two-pronged approach that first aims to put the non-contentious provisions on the statute books. The committee’s understanding is that the Scottish Government will introduce wider-ranging proposals to succession law at a later date. Although the Faculty of Advocates described that approach as “unchartered waters”, there is nevertheless some merit in it. Sensible provisions in draft legislation have too often been overshadowed by contentious proposals, such as in the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Bill earlier this year. As such, the complex changes that are proposed in the Succession (Scotland) Bill have been subject to sufficient scrutiny and have not been superseded by other, more contentious areas of policy.

Nevertheless, the committee raised the question of there being consolidation once the second succession bill has been passed in order to avoid a cluttered legislative landscape in that area of law—I must say that I rather like that expression. As Professor Crawford, Professor Carruthers and Professor Paisley emphasised in their evidence, it would be a difficult undertaking to consolidate all aspects of succession law. However, the minister has agreed to consider the possibility of consolidating the two new pieces of legislation at a later stage, which is a welcome development.

Broadly speaking, this is a sensible piece of legislation. Although limited in scope, its provisions will have a significant impact on those people affected by this area of Scots law and its technical focus should not diminish its importance. The Scottish Conservatives will therefore support the bill at stage 1.