Hansard

Because the bill was a Scottish Law Commission bill, and because it was being dealt with by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, we know that it did not contain anything that was considered controversial. That is why we are having such a friendly and civilised debate this afternoon.

However, it has to be said that the committee received fairly strong legal opinion on each side of some of the points in the bill. For example, as Elaine Murray said, section 1 provides that the section will take effect if the testator “dies domiciled in Scotland.” There was respected legal opinion to support such an approach, but there was also respected legal opinion to support a change that would make section 1 apply as long as the testator was domiciled in Scotland when the marriage or civil partnership ended. That raised the question whether the matter should be considered under matrimonial law or succession law.

That is just one example of the kind of debate that we had in the committee. Other subjects that the committee considered included forfeiture and questions to do with the Forfeiture Act 1982, which will need to be considered again. It is to be hoped that more serious potential changes can be examined in a further succession bill before too long.

I was pretty uneasy when I heard about the stage 3 amendments on caution. Other topics in the bill had been consulted on to death, but that issue seemed to appear out of nowhere. However, we took evidence on Tuesday—like other members, I thank the people who gave us evidence and support—and I was greatly reassured. The concept of abolishing caution had been consulted and widely agreed on at an earlier stage, and it was largely on practical grounds that the matter had not been included in the bill, as the minister said. The added urgency as a result of one of the two providers of bonds withdrawing from the market meant that it was sensible to deal with the matter now, and I am happy to support the amended bill.

However, I think that the committee would stress that the lodging of amendments on completely new topics at stage 3 should not become a regular approach to legislation. I think that the Government probably agrees with that.

The DPLR Committee is very different from other committees. When members of the committee mention our membership to fellow MSPs, we tend to get either a sympathetic or a humorous response. I have to say that I have questioned whether the committee should exist. It has not been unusual to have a lengthy briefing for an hour or so, which is followed by a very short, formal 10-minute meeting. MSPs on the committee depend much more than members of other committees do on clerks and legal input, so we have to wonder whether MSPs add much value.

In that context, I should say how much I and, I think, other members of the committee appreciated the input of clerks, advisers and witnesses on the bill. I do not like asking questions that I do not understand, and it was getting pretty close to that at times. Now that the committee has experience of dealing with three bills—the Legal Writings (Counterparts and Delivery) (Scotland) Bill, the Succession (Scotland) Bill and the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill, which is a consolidation bill—I am more convinced that we need it to exist, and I see no reason why its remit should not be further revised.

Death happens to us all, but we tend not to talk about it. Many members of the public, perhaps including members of this Parliament, do not have a will. Therefore, although this is a technical area of law, it is also a practical one that affects many people. Any encouragement to people to have wills and otherwise prepare for their departure has to be welcome, as we said in our stage 1 report.

I very much support the bill becoming law, and I hope that the Parliament will be able to do so unanimously.