Hansard

I welcome today’s stage 3 proceedings on the Succession (Scotland) Bill. As the bill completes its parliamentary passage this afternoon, I would once again like to thank the witnesses and stakeholders who have helped to inform the legislative process thus far, as well as the Scottish Law Commission for the considerable work that it has undertaken to see these reforms through to completion. I would also like to thank our DPLR Committee clerks and our legal advisers, who have worked above and beyond the call of duty.

I pay particular tribute to the witnesses who gave evidence for the second time to the DPLR Committee on the Scottish Government’s amendments on bonds of caution at very short notice this week. As members will be aware, that was an unusual step, and it broke new ground for the committee, if not for the Parliament.

Previously, the Scottish Government had decided to exclude bonds of caution from the scope of the bill, despite their abolition being one of the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations in its 2009 report, on which many of the bill’s provisions are based. The Scottish Government took that decision primarily because there was a lack of consensus surrounding the nature of the safeguards that would be required in the event of abolition. The prospect of having a second piece of legislation on succession law meant that there would be a suitable vehicle to implement any changes in the area of bonds of caution at a later date, allowing more time for inquiry and consultation on satisfactory safeguards. However, the Scottish Government’s hand was forced by recent developments, when Zurich Insurance, one of the two insurance providers of bonds of caution, announced that it will withdraw from the market from 1 February 2016, leaving Royal Sun Alliance as the sole provider, as the minister indicated.

The key issue is that Royal Sun Alliance makes the provision of a bond of caution conditional on a solicitor being appointed to administer the estate, whereas Zurich did not. That condition has cost implications for small estates with a gross value of less than £36,000, which currently benefit from the simplified small estate procedure. As we know, the Scottish Government introduced amendments at stage 3 to mitigate the effects of the recent changes in the market.

I was keen to explore the implications of those changes with witnesses earlier this week at committee. Evidence from all our witnesses indicated that the Scottish Government’s course of action in response to the withdrawal of Zurich, although a quick fix, is both proportionate and fair. Based on the evidence that we heard, it seems that that course of action is the correct one, particularly given the glacial pace at which legislation on succession law has been introduced and the uncertainties generated in the immediate future by the forthcoming election.

I echo the view of the convener of the DPLR Committee, Nigel Don, who said that the measures are

“not retrospective but transitional, because we are doing it now for the future, but only until we get to the next gate.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 26 January 2016; c 44.]

In such circumstances, it is incumbent on the successor DPLR Committee and the Parliament to undertake robust scrutiny of what can reasonably be described as stop-gap measures over the coming months and years as a clearer picture of the situation on the ground emerges. On that basis, we in the Scottish Conservative Party were content to support the amendments.

From the outset, the DPLR Committee’s scrutiny of the bill was collaborative and consensus driven. From a policy perspective, the majority of the bill’s provisions are non-contentious, and the legal profession has been strongly supportive of reform, particularly given that the Scottish Law Commission’s first report on succession law, on which the 2009 report was based, was published in 1990—almost three decades ago. I am therefore pleased that many of the SLC’s recommendations, which are broadly technical in nature, are being placed on a statutory footing, and I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time.