Hansard

I take the member’s points on board. We are trying to deliver as much certainty as we can in the law of succession.

I was going to turn in any case to the point about estates falling to the Crown. I recognise the committee’s view that estates should not fall to the Crown. We are giving further consideration to the matter in advance of stage 2. The key is how a rule might be framed. TrustBar offered a draft provision, but we need to understand whether it would work better in practice.

Currently, estates that appear to fall to the Crown are first investigated by the national ultimus haeres unit and then passed to the Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer. The QLTR administers the estate, paying any debts, and it is then added to the list of unclaimed estates. Those estates are advertised on the website as having fallen to the Crown, but we understand that blood relatives are found in most cases, if not all. There is, therefore, a practical time and resource issue. Although I am not averse to amending the bill on this issue, we need to bottom out the practicalities. It would be pointless to amend the bill if we could not give the amendment effect or if giving it effect would place a significant financial burden on the estate. There are also likely to be different views on what any rule would be for distributing the estate in those circumstances. I take the point that Nigel Don made about having a simpler process, and I will reflect on it after the debate. I hope that that makes clear the Government’s position. We are engaged in discussions and will reflect on them.

I am pleased that there has been such clear support for the proposals today from across the chamber, including from Conservative and Labour members. I welcome the support of those parties for the bill. There is no doubt that it will make a positive difference as it strives to deliver fairer outcomes at what is often a terrible time in people’s lives, when the last thing that they need is confusion and uncertainty.

In my last minute and a bit, I would like to reflect on a couple of points that members made. Stewart Stevenson talked about software, and I will reflect on the points that he made. A key point is that an online pro forma would not provide the necessary evidence to support a claim for rectification—I think that Stewart Stevenson accepted that. If a testator drew up their own will on paper or online, the provision in question would not apply. We are aware of some online forms that involve the presence of a lawyer. They might be covered by the bill but, where there is no lawyer present, that is clearly a challenge.

Elaine Murray made points about reasonable time. We have been reflecting closely on the evidence that was given to the committee and the committee’s view about the six-month period running from the date of confirmation as opposed to the date of death. We will come back to Parliament with further detail on that point.

On the issue of the testator requiring to be domiciled in Scotland on the date of their death, which Elaine Murray also talked about, we share the view of the Law Commission and the committee that the rule about the effect of divorce, dissolution and annulment on a will should apply in cases in which a testator dies domiciled in Scotland and not simply in cases in which the testator was domiciled in Scotland at the time of divorce, dissolution or annulment.

I see that I have run out of time. I thank members for their thoughtful contributions, and I look forward to working with them to deliver the bill at stage 2 and stage 3.