Hansard

I thank members for a good—if controversial—debate. From the outset, the passage of the Succession (Scotland) Bill has been characterised by consensus and collaboration. That is testament to the DPLR Committee and its convivial but suitably robust approach to the responsibilities that fall within its remit.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs and his officials, who listened to the committee’s recommendations at stage 1 and implemented them by way of amendments at stage 2, which received unanimous support from members. The minister also proactively liaised with the committee on the stage 3 amendments on bonds of caution, which were unexpected, albeit that the changes were clearly necessary in the light of recent developments in the insurance market.

As I said in my opening speech, the bill is predominantly technical. However, as the Scottish Law Commission emphasised last year, such a description should not be thought to diminish the importance or effect of the bill’s provisions. For people who find themselves in the situations to which the provisions apply, the bill is likely to be highly important. Margaret McDougall said that, but the point is compelling and worthy of repetition. The bill might be relatively limited in scope, with a focus on technical matters rather than substantive policy change, but it will have a significant impact on important areas of Scots law in implementing changes that relate to wills, survivorship and forfeiture, as well as protections for executors, trustees and buyers of property.

Let us not forget that the reforms have been many years in the making. I am pleased that the changes that were made to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s remit in 2013 to enable it to consider certain bills emanating from Scottish Law Commission reports, as mentioned by John Mason, have helped to expedite the placing of parts of the commission’s 2009 report on a statutory footing. Perhaps, in the future, that change to the committee’s remit will mean that some of the less contentious reforms that the Scottish Law Commission has proposed will be implemented expeditiously and timeously.

In that vein, I commend the Scottish Government’s approach of undertaking two separate projects on succession law. Although both projects are based on the Scottish Law Commission’s 1990 and 2009 reports, such a legislative approach recommends itself well to areas of the law where there are technical and potentially controversial proposals. However, as we move forward, I urge the Scottish Government to consider how it intends to consolidate the provisions in the bill and any future legislation that might come before the Parliament.

At stage 1, I referred to the comments of Professor Joseph Thomson, the lead commissioner on the succession project, who said at the publication of the 2009 report:

“The aim is to simplify the law radically by providing rules which are easily understood and which at the same time reflect the nature of family structures in contemporary Scotland.”

At stage 3, the test of the bill remains whether it achieves the radical simplification that was envisaged by the Scottish Law Commission. The Scottish Conservatives are satisfied that that is the case, and I reiterate my party’s support for the bill, which will be reflected at decision time.

I will end on a cautionary note by saying, as others have done, that the last-minute changes to the existing rules on bonds of caution must be subject to post-legislative scrutiny. Although I am reassured that the stage 3 amendments give ministers a range of powers to future proof the arrangements against any further changes in the caution market, I seek further assurances from the minister that this is very much a live issue and that the Scottish Government will endeavour to monitor the developing situation and keep the Parliament suitably updated.