Hansard

Although the bill is technical in nature, I agree with other members’ view that it is important. All of us, inside or outside the chamber, want to be assured that Scotland has a legal framework on succession that ensures that what happens to the estate of someone who dies is in line with their wishes and that those whom they want to benefit do benefit, aided and not hindered by legislation.

This area of law has been in need of reform, as John Scott pointed out. That is what we heard from those who gave evidence to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s inquiry. Indeed, given that the Scottish Law Commission reported on the issue in 1990 and again in 2009, it could be argued that the reform is somewhat overdue.

That is why it is evidently beneficial that, in this Parliament, what was previously the Subordinate Legislation Committee has had its remit broadened to include law reform bills. That means that good proposals for legislation have been acted on rather than left to gather dust. Whatever the shape and structure of the committees in the next session of Parliament, I hope that there will be a committee that will continue taking forward Scottish Law Commission bills.

The DPLR Committee’s deliberations on the Succession (Scotland) Bill have been effective, and we can conclude that legislating on technical matters concerning succession before further legislation is introduced on substantive matters of succession policy has been the right approach and has allowed the reforms to be made timeously. However, I echo the evidence that we heard at committee that, in the fullness of time, ministers should proceed with consolidation focused on the two acts.

Although there has been a great deal of consensus on the bill, there have been areas on which witnesses urged ministers to take a different approach. Other members have discussed that with reference to survivorship, forfeiture, guardianship and the point at which section 1 should come into effect. I believe that the committee and the minister have taken the right approach on those subjects.

The issue that I pursued at committee with those who gave evidence was rectification, and specifically the proposal from TrustBar, the Law Society of Scotland and others that the scope of the provisions on rectification should be widened so that they might include documents that are drawn up by the testator such as handwritten wills and wills that are created online using templates, which Stewart Stevenson discussed in his speech.

The majority of witnesses identified as the crucial concern in the matter whether a third party was present in some shape or form when the document was drawn up. I understand the minister’s contention that the presence of someone else to verify that the person’s intent was different from what was ultimately expressed in the will is the key issue. The committee agreed that the scope of the provisions should not be extended, but the debate on the issue and the points that Mr Stevenson made highlight that more and more people will go online to create important documents such as wills and the law must stay abreast of that social context.

It is not unreasonable to say that, given that the priority is to enable people’s wishes to be abided by, things such as online will templates should also be given weight when we determine what those wishes actually were. I do not pretend that there is an easy answer to the issue, but ministers should keep a watching brief on how documents pertaining to legal issues that are drafted online by individuals should be regarded by the law, and not only on the issue of succession. Today, in its briefing, the Law Society of Scotland asks ministers to rethink their approach to the matter in the bill.

The bill is technical, but it has thrown up important questions. It concerns an important area of law that has needed reform for some time and it raises interesting points of detail in law that will provide ministers with quite a lot to reflect on, both today and for further bills.