Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016
I thank Stewart Stevenson for his speech, which as usual was educational.
As the minister said, the Succession (Scotland) Bill is mainly technical. As we have heard, it is part of the wider-ranging reforms that are to be made during the next parliamentary session. In effect, the bill is an exercise in tidying parts of the law in advance of further consultation and policy reform. However, in its evidence to the committee at stage 1, the Scottish Law Commission said that the bill’s description as technical
“should not in any way be seen as diminishing the importance or effect of the Bill’s provisions. Indeed for those who find themselves in situations to which the Bill’s provisions apply, they are likely to be highly important.”
The changes that are being made are to be welcomed, as they both modernise the laws of succession and bring us more in line with England. I have often found it odd that, even after the breakdown of a relationship, the spouse—if they are mentioned in the will—is entitled to assets. The bill alters that so that, in the event of a divorce, dissolution or annulment, the favourable status of a former spouse is revoked, unless otherwise stated by the testator. The same will now be true if the former spouse was appointed the guardian of the child. That shift means that Scotland and England now have broadly similar positions on the issue, which is to be welcomed.
The changes to survivorship in the event of common calamities are sensible. Currently, the rules state that in the event of spouses dying close to each other in time, the younger spouse is presumed to have survived the elder. Section 9 of the bill changes that so that, when two people die in such circumstances, neither is to be treated as having survived the other. In terms of fatal car crashes and other such events, those changes make sense.
I seek clarity on section 6, which makes provision to deal with the situation when a deceased person’s first choice of beneficiary in a will has died before them and the will makes no provision for what should happen in that situation. The rule had been unclear about nieces and nephews, but that was tidied up and the rule was narrowed to include the testator’s direct descendants only. However, I am unclear about what that means when there are no direct descendants or when the direct descendants have passed away before the will has been actioned. Will assets be passed to nieces and nephews in the event of there being no direct descendants, unless otherwise stated in the will?
I am happy to support the bill. The changes that it makes are sensible and provide a much-needed update to succession law. The changes attempt to deal with some of the more confusing elements of that law. On the whole, the bill is a technical but important piece of legislation, and I look forward to seeing what role it will play in the wider-ranging policy reform that is forthcoming.