Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
13
Parties on record
2,355,091
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,355,091 contributions in session S6, 17 Apr 2026 – 17 May 2026. Latest 30 days: 148. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 14 May 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2016

28 Jan 2016 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Succession (Scotland) Bill

It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour in support of the Government’s approach to the Succession (Scotland) Bill and the amendments that have been presented today. It is right that I should thank Nigel Don and the other members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for the work that they have completed on behalf of this Parliament with such speed and such attention to detail. Indeed, as someone who is not on that committee, today’s debate helped me to understand some of the complexities that the committee dealt with and the reasons why certain elements were presented at the last minute. I now understand more clearly the approach that was taken.

A number of speakers have talked about the technical nature of this piece of legislation. I am grateful to John Scott for saying that, although the bill has been described as technical, it is, nonetheless, vitally important, bearing in mind the impact that the issue has on people’s lives. When I first received the paperwork for the bill, the issues seemed arcane, distant and hardly relevant to day-to-day living. For that reason, I think that the Law Society and the Scottish Law Commission are to be complimented on the fact that they have maintained the pressure on the Government and this Parliament to deal with the bill. For six years, they have paid attention and waited patiently.

I have dealt with a will in the past 18 months as an executor and—because I am an only child—as the person who benefited from it. It should have been a simple process that I should have been able to cope with easily. However, even though there was no conflict involved in the process, I found it anything but simple and easy to deal with. The extremely technical issues that were described this afternoon are vitally important when people are trying to deal with something that they do not want to deal with and are seeking guidance on how to deal with it fairly and with equity, particularly when competing interests are involved.

We all know families that have been split irretrievably because of the way in which someone’s estate has been dealt with. The bill does the best that it can to avoid such splits in the future by offering direct guidance on the way in which wills and matters of succession should be dealt with.

The approach that has been offered on the validity of wills following the breakdown of relationships through divorce, dissolution and annulment is absolutely vital, particularly given the complex lives that we now live and the kinds of relationships that we create. I therefore welcome the approach that the committee has endorsed and that we are debating today.

I also note that, like buses in the city, one bill comes along and, before we know it, we are suggesting that there should be a second bill. It is important that we have had something of a superficial examination, at speed, of many of the issues that have cropped up and that the committee has done its best, on behalf of the Parliament, to deliver. However, in the next session, we need to check that the delivered outcomes are what we wanted and that measures to achieve any additional outcomes are included in a bill to be introduced in that session.

I will not go through the detail of the bill, as it has been rehearsed by other members with more clarity than I could bring, but I welcome the protection for trustees and executors, which has been commented on. I also think that the approach to succession forfeiture is much healthier than it was previously.

I commend the committee’s approach and reassure the minister that we will support the bill when it comes to the vote.

In the same item of business

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Elaine Smith) Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15440, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, on the Succession (Scotland) Bill. Before I invite the minister t...
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice (Michael Matheson) SNP
For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I advise the Parliament that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Succession (Scotla...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
Thank you, cabinet secretary. That means that we now begin the debate. 14:47
The Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs (Paul Wheelhouse) SNP
It gives me great pleasure to open this stage 3 debate on the Succession (Scotland) Bill and to invite members to agree to pass the bill this evening. At th...
Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Lab) Lab
During stage 2 consideration of amendments, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs said that he was glad to get away from the Justice Committee ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
I call John Scott—four minutes, please. 15:01
John Scott (Ayr) (Con) Con
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 l...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
That was perfectly timed. 15:06
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) SNP
I am glad that extending the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s remit has created additional parliamentary capacity for dealing with bills that come...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
You really must close, please.
Stewart Stevenson SNP
We had a huge and interesting discussion about common calamities and sequencing of death. The important thing is that we worked out a way in which we can be ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
I must ask members to keep tightly to their four minutes. 15:10
Margaret McDougall (West Scotland) (Lab) Lab
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 ha...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
We will have a brief contribution from John Mason. 15:14
John Mason (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP) SNP
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 di...
John Scott Con
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 co...
Graeme Pearson (South Scotland) (Lab) Lab
It is my pleasure to speak on behalf of Scottish Labour in support of the Government’s approach to the Succession (Scotland) Bill and the amendments that hav...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
I call the minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to wind up the debate. Minister, if you could do so in less than seven minutes, I would be most grateful.
Christine Grahame (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) SNP
Oh, that would be wonderful. 15:27
Paul Wheelhouse SNP
That request seems to have been met with great acclaim among the members sitting behind me, Presiding Officer. I thank all members who have spoken in the de...
Stewart Stevenson SNP
I simply note that the evidence that we took led to the manuscript amendments that the Presiding Officer accepted today. That shows the validity of the proce...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Lab
Minister, please note that the debate is now eating into the time of the next debate, so be as brief as possible.
Paul Wheelhouse SNP
Absolutely. I certainly agree with the sentiment that Stewart Stevenson expresses. I do not envisage such a situation occurring again, even on an irregular ...