Hansard

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 debate for their contributions and their interest in this important piece of legislation. It has been a short debate, but it has demonstrated the importance of the bill, not least in Graeme Pearson’s testimony of the fact that, in a distressing though simple scenario, the process should have been less stressful than it was. I very much take on board his point.

I welcome the support that has been expressed for the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that members have taken to engage with what, at times, can be a technically complex area of the law of succession. Our earlier debate on the stage 3 amendments perhaps gave a flavour of the careful consideration that has had to be given to the language and terminology in the bill. The bill has, undoubtedly, benefited from a willingness among stakeholders to participate fully in the development of the legislation. There has been little—if, indeed, any—disagreement about the need for these reforms, and the process quickly became one of ensuring that the provisions met the aims of the reforms. My first experience of the process for Scottish Law Commission bills was a very positive one, for which I thank the committee and all the stakeholders who participated.

I mentioned earlier the helpful input that was received from professional representative bodies. For example, in its stage 1 report, the committee echoed the concern of TrustBar that section 9 had the potential to result in more estates falling to the Crown. We subsequently enjoyed a helpful exchange with TrustBar and we are confident that the amendments that we made to the bill at stage 2 addressed that point, although not in the way that TrustBar suggested—indeed, we had some concerns about the practicalities of TrustBar’s proposed approach. Nonetheless, the opportunity to enter into an informed discussion with stakeholders about various issues undoubtedly enhanced our policy consideration and contributed positively to the formation of the final provisions.

I also mentioned that this is the second bill to be considered under the Scottish Law Commission procedure. It is worth making the point that this bill is very different from the first—the Legal Writings (Counterparts and Delivery) (Scotland) Bill—because the Scottish Law Commission’s report was much older and we needed to carry out our own consultation. Stage 2 for the Legal Writings (Counterparts and Delivery) (Scotland) Bill must have been one of the fastest on record, as there were no amendments, whereas this bill has had stage 2 and stage 3 amendments.

I have been struck by the helpfulness of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, led by Nigel Don, whom I thank for the positive and constructive approach that he took to the committee’s meetings, which has been reflected in the comments of other committee members. I include in that Richard Baker, who has moved on from the Parliament—I thank him for his input. As others have said, the committee was prepared to rearrange its schedule to accommodate late provisions. Its responsiveness has greatly assisted the scrutiny process.

I share the committee’s view that our laws need to be accessible to not just the legal profession, but the person in the street. Points were made in the evidence session this week about the need to give proper advice before people die, rather than just advise those who are affected by a death in the family. I have already given an undertaking to ensure that our guidance and websites are updated in user-friendly layspeak, and I reiterate that commitment today.

The phrase “the devil is in the detail” is probably an overused idiom, but it is apt when talking about the bill. Most of us will have had some experience of being caught out by the details. Details are important and, in succession law, we have learned that small differences in timings of deaths can make big and unexpected differences in the effects of death on an estate. The bill is therefore very important.

Previously and today, John Scott has made a point about the benefits of consolidating the bill with any future bill on succession. I remain open to that possibility and I undertake that I—or, I should say, my successor—will give it full consideration at the relevant time.

Much of what we have done in the bill amends the fallback position when a will does not make express provision about what will happen in a defined set of circumstances. One point that has struck me throughout the process and that will arise again in the consideration of any further reforms to this area of law is the importance of making a will. Stewart Stevenson made that point very clearly. I can understand why people shy away from that or put it off to another day but, as Stewart Stevenson said, a will can be quite a simple document. I am aware through letters that we receive at the Scottish Government of the misery and chaos that can follow when someone dies without a will. I hope that the debate on the bill has caused people to stop and think about their circumstances and to take whatever action they need to take.

I am entirely sympathetic to the view that it was undesirable to have to deal at stage 3 with the changes on bonds of caution. I whole-heartedly welcome the committee’s decision to take evidence on that earlier this week. I reassure John Scott that we will use sparingly the fairly wide-ranging additional powers that we have put in the bill.