 I welcome members to the 35th meeting in 2015 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, and as always, I ask members to switch off mobile phones, please. Gender item 1 is the Bankruptcy Scotland bill. This item of businesses for the committee is to consider the drafter's response to the committee's questions on the consolidation of parts 9 to 14 of the bill. Do members have any comments, please, or are we content to note the response? Gender item 2, again, the Bankruptcy Scotland bill, but this item is for the committee to consider whether the consolidation in parts 15 to 18 of the bill, together with the schedules to the bill, correctly restates enactments being consolidated and also whether the consolidation is clear, coherent and consistent. The committee is invited to agree the questions that it wishes to raise with the drafter on the bill in written correspondence. There appears to be a drafting error in section 203A. Drafting in section 203A suggests that the words of which particulars have been registered in the register of insolvencies during the year to which the report relates apply only to the winding-up and receivership of business associations. Whereas in the original section of the Bankruptcy Scotland Act 1985, the same words appear to apply to both the winding-up and receivership of business associations and to the state of all sequestrations. Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention, please? Section 205 sets out the circumstances in which the accountant in Bankruptcy, the AIB, must report a matter to the Lord Advocate. Some of the wording from the equivalent section of 1985 act is not restated or is modified in section 205. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter, one, why the words in performance of his functions under this act or any other enactment or any rule of law have not been restated in section 25A of the bill and two, what the effect of this is considered to be on the meaning of that section, why the word suspect in section 1A3 of the 1985 act has been changed to suppose in section 205 of the bill and for what the effect is considered to be of the meaning of this section. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter, one, why in section 206 one reference to co-obligant is retained in subsection 5, while the other references are restated as obligant and two, whether there is any reason for this difference in terminology. Section 223 gives a power to the Scottish ministers to make regulations in relation to the disqualification provision in any enactment. The equivalent section of 1985 act, section 71B, provides that the disqualification provision is a provision which disqualifies whether permanently or temporarily and whether absolutely or conditionally a debtor from holding a relevant office. The words whether absolutely or conditionally are not restated in section 2232. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words and whether absolutely or conditionally have not been restated in section 2232 of the bill? A paragraph 5.4 of schedule 1 to the bill, a statement of the debtor's current state of affairs must be provided in certain circumstances within six months after the previous statement was given under the equivalent provision in the 1985 act, the statement must be provided on the expiry of those six months. Does the committee agree to ask the drafter 1 why the words on the expiry of the period of six months in paragraph 5.4 of schedule A1 to the 1985 act have been changed to within six months in paragraph 5.4 of schedule 1 of the bill and 2 what effect this is considered to have on the meaning of the provision? Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention? Sorry, in paragraph 10.3 of schedule 3 it appears that or in line 4 should instead be of. Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention? Does the committee agree to ask the drafter why the words or received payment in respect of an attached article on its redemption in paragraph 24.3 of schedule 7 to the 1985 act and paragraph 24.7 of schedule 7 to the 1985 act have not been restated in schedule 7 of the bill. It appears that the reference of paragraph 27 of schedule 8 to the bill to the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2013 should be to the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 2005. Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention? Part 2 of schedule 9 lists the enactments to be revoked by the bill, including Regulation 45 of the Debt Arrangement Scheme Scotland Regulations 2011. However, Regulation 45 has been revoked by the Debt Arrangement Scheme Scotland Amendment Regulations 2014. Does the committee agree to draw this to the drafter's attention? And all has been inserted into the following delegated powers provisions in parts 15 to 18 and the schedules section 2236 between subsections A and B, section 2241 between subsections B and C, and schedule 1 paragraph 27 between subsections A and B. The committee has already explored this issue with the drafter. Does the committee agree to take these further examples into consideration? Thank you. That concludes agenda item 2. Agenda item 3 is the succession bill at stage 2, but in the absence of the minister at the moment I'm proposing we go straight on to agenda item 4. We will return to agenda item 3. Agenda item 4 is instrument subject to affirmative procedure. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, consequential modifications and savings order 2016 at draft, nor on the continuing care Scotland amendment order 2016 draft. Is the committee content with these, please? The agenda item 5 is instrument subject to negative procedure and the Seed Potatoes Scotland Regulations 2015, SSI 2015 395. These regulations contain a drafting error in regulation 18.1 information regarding seed potatoes, the words and of are unsuited in error. A breach of the requirements in regulation 18.1 is an offence under section 16.7 of the plant varieties and seeds act 1964. The Scottish Government has undertaken to amend this provision at the next available opportunity. Does the committee agree to draw these regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the general recording ground as the container drafting error? Does the committee agree that the Scottish Government should lay an amendment as soon as possible? Yes, convener, I think that it's important that we... End quite a strong message because this is linked to an offence and I would agree with the wording as soon as possible because I think that it shouldn't just wait until it suits somebody. Members are agreed. Thank you. The management of offenders etc. Scotland Act 2005, commencement number 8 and consequential provisions order 2015, SSI 2015 at 397. Article 4 makes a consequential amendment of the management of offenders etc. Scotland Act 2005, specification of pertents since order 2007. This is by virtue of the powers contained within section 22.2 and 4 of the management of offenders etc. Scotland Act 2005, the 2005 act. The consequential amendments must be subject to the affirmative procedure and the provision should be laid in draft as a result of the enabling powers and section 29 of and schedule 3.2, the interpretation and legislative reform Scotland Act 2010. The virus of article 4 is downfall given that the affirmative procedure has not been followed. The order also contains a drafting error. Article 3 brings into force section 10.2 B of the 2005 act and so far is not already in force but only for the purposes of section 10.1E of the 2005 act. In article 3, the qualification for the purposes of section 10.1E is duplicated, confusing the provision. The Scottish Government has undertaken to lay corrective legislation to come in to force on 31 March 2016. Does the committee agree to draw the order to the attention of the Parliament on reporting ground E as there is a doubt as to whether article 4 is introverace? I welcome the fact that the Government is going to take action to ensure that the proper order is in place before the date is planned. However, by laying an order, which is a negative instrument rather than the affirmative order that we would have expected, we carry with us the risk that something that is thought and, I think, agreed with the Government to be outroverace, a big one, outwith the powers that are granted by the primary legislation. We carry the risk that that ends up in the statute book even though it will never have legal effect. I urge the Government to consider whether it has steps that it can take revocation or ensuring a motion not to proceed that nothing further be done or that other method should be explored to ensure that the instrument does not reach the statute book. If it had, of course, been an affirmative instrument in the first place, that instrument would have only reached the statute book following a resolution of Parliament. By being a negative, it can reach there by other means. I urge the Government to, if possible, take all the action that it can to make sure that it does not reach the statute book. I would speak in support of what Stuart Stevenson has just said. In addition, I do not think that it should reach the statute book and thereafter be sorted, so to speak, in as much as it carries reputational damage for the Parliament. Why did it get there in the first place as well as the Government? I think that we would urge the Government in every possible way to try and amend this and to keep it from the statute book. I think that it appears to be unusual in that we have not had a case before or at least not very many cases where it has potentially been ultraviries. Therefore, I think that we need to take more firm or more serious action about this. Therefore, I certainly support referring it back to the Government initially and then, depending on the Government's response, perhaps ourselves or some other group within Parliament need to look at it again. We are required to report this week, so we need to make that decision this week. I think that we need to encourage the Government to find a way of making sure that this is not on the statute book. There are routes open to it and routes open to us on reflection. On that basis, the committee clearly agrees to draw that to the attention of the Parliament. Does it also agree to draw the order to the attention of the Parliament on the general reporting ground for the drafting error? The community writes by Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015-400. Regulation 13D2 is de facto drafted. The reference to the 15th of April 2015 should be to the 15th of April 2016. The Scottish Government proposes to lay a correcting instrument before the commitment to the regulations on the 15th of April 2016. The meaning of regulation 22 could be clearer in that it does not specify to whom the Scottish ministers must provide a copy of a community body's modified memorandum, articles of association, constitutional or registered rules. The Scottish Government is undertaken to clarify the provision through a further instrument. The meaning of regulations 1 and 23 could be clearer. Regulations 1 and 23 relate to, respectively, application and savings. Their effect is that the regulations will apply in respect of community rights to buy, deriving from an application that is made by a community body on or after the 15th of April 2016. The previous legislation regime is saved in respect of applications that are made prior to that date. The regulations do not contain any interpretive provision specifying when an application is made for those purposes. There appears to have been an unusual or unexpected use of the enabling power in section 52-3 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. The power enables Scottish ministers to prescribe the form of return to be used by a balater for the purpose of notifying Scottish ministers and various other parties of the information specified in section 52-3A2F. Section 52-3A specifies the result of the balater's piece of information, which must be so notified by the balater. However, the form prescribed in schedule 11 to the regulations does not contain an entry for the balater to notify the result of the balater. Does the committee agree to draw the regulations to the attention of the Parliament on the following reporting grounds? One, for defective drafting under reporting ground I. Two, under reporting ground H, as the meaning of regulations 22, 1, 2 and 23 could be clearer. Thirdly, under reporting ground G, as the way that the enabling power in section 52-3 of the 2003 act has been used appears to be unusual. No points have been raised by our legal advisers on the seed potatoes, fees and Scotland regulations 2015, SSI 2015, 396, if the committee can turn with that instrument please. To enter item 6, instruments not subject to any parliamentary procedure, the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, commencement number 3 and savings order 2015, SSI 2015, 399. The meaning of article 3 could be clearer. Article 3 provides that modifications of parts 2 and 4 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003, made by the provisions of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act 2015, commenced by this order, have no effect in relation to a number of specified rights interests and powers deriving from a community interest in land, where the application to register that interest was made by a community body before the 15th of April 2016. The instrument does not contain any interpretive provisions specifying when an application is made. Does the committee agree to draw this instrument to the Parliament's attention under reporting ground H, as the meaning of article 3 could be clearer in that respect? Gender item 7, the Criminal Justice Scotland Bill. The purpose of this item is to consider the delegated primaries provisions in the bill, as amended at stage 2. The stage 3 debate on this bill will take place later today. The committee should therefore agree its conclusions today so that they can be captured in a report prior to the debate. Members will have noted that the Scottish Government has provided a supplementary delegated powers memorandum and will have seen the briefing paper to the committee. It is proposed that members may wish to find each of the new or substantially amended delegated powers to be acceptable. Members will also note the correspondence from the Scottish Government regarding a proposed stage 3 amendments which relate to delegated powers. It is suggested that members may also wish to find these amendments to be acceptable insofar as they relate to delegated powers. Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the delegated powers in the bill that have been asserted or substantially amended at stage 2? Gender item 10 inquiries into fatal accidents and sudden death etc. Members are invited to consider the delegated powers contained in the bill as amended after stage 2. Stage 3 debate will take place on Thursday 10 December. Therefore, members should agree their conclusions today. After stage 2, one power to make subordinate legislation has been added. Section 10A3 inserts new subsections 2A to C into section 15 of the Legal Aid Scotland Act 1986 financial conditions. Subsection 2B places a duty on Scottish ministers to make regulations providing for the alternative financial conditions, which will apply with certain family members to make an application for civil legal aid in respect of a fatal accident inquiry. Regulations affecting financial conditions in the 1986 act are usually subject to the affirmative rather than negative procedure. Does the committee agree to report that, one, it is content in principle with the power in section 10A3 and, two, it recommends the bill be amended at stage 3 to make the power subject to affirmative procedure? Gender item 9 smoking prohibition Children in Motor Vehicles Scotland bill. The purpose of this item is to consider the delegated powers provisions in the bill as amended at stage 2. Stage 3 debate for this bill will take place on Thursday 17 December. Therefore, members should again agree their conclusions today. It is proposed that members may wish to find all the new and amended powers acceptable. Does the committee agree to report that it is content with the delegated powers in the bill, which have been amended or removed at stage 2? At which point, I am delighted to welcome Bill Wilhasse, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, who has come, I suspect, hot foot from elsewhere in the building. I am delighted to say minister that we have managed to get through the rest of the programme. We are now coming back to agenda item 3, which is the succession Scotland bill. I just need to make sure that everybody is comfortable and that I have actually got the right papers in front of me. We turn now to the formal stage 2 proceedings on the succession Scotland bill. I welcome the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs, who is accompanied by Joe Clark, the head of civil law reform units, Rosalind Wood, who is solicitor and Amanda MacFarlane, parliamentary council from the Scottish Government. For the purposes of stage 2, members should have copies of the bill, as well as the marshaled list and groupings. At this point, we are dealing with section 1. I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister group with amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Minister, if you would like to move amendment 1, please and speak to other amendments in the group. Thank you, convener, and apologies for the delay. I am glad to be here and get away from Justice Committee for a while. Those amendments do a number of things. First, amendments 1, 5 and 6 amend section 1 to ensure that a provision in a will appointing a person's spouse or civil partner as guardian continues to take effect, even if the marriage or civil partnership is terminated. We are grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting the potential for an anomalous situation under the bill in respect of the appointment of guardians. As we set out in a letter to the committee following the stage 1 evidence sessions, we acknowledge the concerns raised in evidence that, as the appointment of a guardian can be made not only in a will but in separate documentation, there may be a risk of treating guardians differently according to the documentation that has appointed them. For that reason, we concluded that it is not appropriate to apply different outcomes to guardianship provisions made in a will, as opposed to any other documentation. The second set of amendments 4 and 9 changed the term fail to survive in sections 1 and 2 of the bill to ensure that it is clear what is meant is that the person died before the test date are. As the committee is aware through their scrutiny of the bill, the timing of death is critical in succession law. Someone must survive to inherit, and equally sometimes for another person to inherit it, it must be clear that the person on whom their inheritance is conditional has died before the test date are. The same may be applicable to other testamentary wishes such as appointments. Failure to survive does not necessarily mean that a person can be regarded as dying before another person. A person who fails to survive the test date are at the same time as them. In some cases, to achieve the policy objectives in the bill, it is important that it is clear that a person died before another person. For example, in section 1, if the test date are appointed their ex-spouse or ex-civil partner as executor and also made provision that their sibling should be the executor, if their spouse or civil partner predeceases them, it is arguably not clear from the section as it stands that the sibling could be appointed because it is not clear that the ex-spouse or ex-civil partner would be treated as having predeceased. Amendment 4 therefore amends section 1 to ensure that a former spouse or civil partner is to be regarded as dying before the test date or for the purposes of the will. Amendment 9 amends section 2 to make it clear that a former spouse or civil partner is to be regarded as dying before the other spouse or civil partner where there is a special destination of property in favour of a spouse or civil partner and the marriage or civil partnership is terminated. There are other references in the bill to failure to survive and we propose similar amendments to some of those other references and we will come on to discuss those amendments later. Amendments 2 and 8 are small but nevertheless important amendments that are intended to place beyond doubt that death must occur after the termination of a marriage or civil partnership in order for the presumptions introduced by sections 1 and 2 to apply. Section 1 of the bill provides that wills made in favour of a former spouse or civil partner are effectively revoked by the legal end to the relationship. Section 2 makes equivalent provision for the revocation of special destinations. It is not the policy intention that the presumption of revocation introduced by sections 1 and 2 of the bill should apply where a marriage or civil partnership is annulled after the death of the testator, a presumption that the testator intended to sever ties with the former spouse can only be drawn if the testator was aware of the legal separation. Whilst the circumstances in which this could occur are both narrow and unlikely, we nevertheless see merit in amending these sections to put it beyond doubt that they only apply where the legal termination takes place before the testator dies. This ensures that there is no possibility of the arrangements under a will or special destination being picked apart years after the testator's death. In their written evidence, the Law Society of Scotland suggested that section 1 should apply where the testator either died domiciled in Scotland or has heritable property in Scotland. In effect, it wanted section 1 to apply where Scots law of succession currently applies under private international law. At present, section 1 only applies where the testator is domiciled in Scotland. We agree with that view. Under Scots rules of international private law, succession to immovable estate is governed by Lex Situs, the location where the property is situated. In the contrast, succession to immovable property is governed by the domicile of the deceased at death. Scots law of succession will therefore apply where testator dies domiciled out with Scotland but owns heritable property in Scotland. However, as I have said, section 1 does not presently cover that. To remedy the position, amendment 3 removes the condition at section 1, subsection 1d, which requires the testator to be domiciled in Scotland. That means that section 1 will apply in accordance with the normal rules of private international law. It will therefore now apply where the testator had heritable property in Scotland but died domiciled out with Scotland. The Law Society of Scotland is content with this approach, convener. Finally, in this group, amendment 7 is a minor amendment that addresses the suggestion made by the Law Society of Scotland in the written evidence to the committee that, as it stood, this section may not apply in the situation where properties such as business premises are held in the name of a couple and a number of other people so that a special destination in favour of a former spouse or civil partner would not be revoked in these circumstances. Generally, we would rely on the provisions of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform Scotland Act 2010 to extend the singular to the plural. We noted, however, that in section 2 we expressly refer to survivor or survivors and do not rely on the 2010 act. The amendment is intended to provide for both consistency and clarity in terminology. Do members have any comments to make? I take it therefore, minister, there will be nothing that people want to add. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed or we agreed. Thank you very much. I now call amendments 2 to 6. All in the name of the minister and previously debated, I invite the minister to move amendments 2 to 6 on block. Formally moved, convener. Thank you very much. Do members have any objection? Can I ask for the generality where the members are expecting to have any objection in the future to moving them on block? Thank you very much, that's helpful. Therefore, the single question whether amendments 2 to 6 are agreed. Thank you very much. The question now is whether section 1 is agreed or we agreed. I now call amendments 7, 8 and 9. All in the name of the minister and all previously debated, I invite the minister to move amendments 7 to 9 on block. Formally moved, convener. Thank you on the basis that members do not object to a single question. Are members happy to agree those amendments? Thank you very much. At which point the question is whether section 2 is agreed or we agreed, please. Section 3, the rectification of wills and execution of documents. I call amendment 10 in the name of the minister grouped with amendments 11, 12, 13, 35, 36 and 37. I ask the minister to move amendment 10 and speak to all others in the section, please minister. Thank you, convener. The draft Scottish law commission bill contained a provision at section 27, subsection 10c, which enabled a sheriff in the sheriffdom where confirmation of the will was obtained to have jurisdiction to consider an application for rectification of a will or take action to give effect to the will as rectified. The other grounds for jurisdiction in the bill are based on the habitual residence of the testator. An introduction at introduction and equivalent provision was inadvertently not included in the bill. Shrevel jurisdiction for confirmation hinges on the domicile of the testator, which may in a small number of cases be different from the testator's habitual residence. We therefore consider that the bill should be amended in line with the Scottish Law Commission bill to ensure that the sheriffdom in which confirmation is obtained always has jurisdiction as it is foreseeable that beneficiaries may be located where confirmation is obtained. The amendment remedies the oversight and reflects that our policy intention is always to murder provisions of the Scottish Law Commission bill in this respect. The amendments to section 14 are simply to alter the corresponding provisions there, so that the drafting structure of the two similar provisions are more aligned. I move amendment 10. Thank you very much minister. Do you members have any comments to make? The question is that amendment 10, I do need to check, forgive me minister, that you don't wish to add anything. Can I in the generality ask whether you are ever expecting to want to add if the members have not made any comments? I would be happy to leave it to me. Thank you minister. I think I'm just trying to speed up the process, forgive me. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you very much. I now call amendments 11, 12 and 13 in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 11, 12 and 13 please. I ask members whether they agree. The question is that amendments 10, 11 to 13 are agreed, are we all agreed? Thank you. The question therefore is whether section 3 be agreed, are we agreed? The question is whether sections 4 and 5 be agreed. It takes us to section 6, where the death before the legacy vests, and I call amendment 14 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25. Thank you, convener. There presently exists a common law rule that if a legatee within a certain class dies after the date of the will, but before the date of vesting, his or her issue take the legacy unless the will provides otherwise. Section 6 of the bill places this common law rule on a statutory footing with some modification. One modification that the Scottish Law Commission recommended was that the class of legatees should be confined to direct descendants of the testator. In the course of discussion with the Scottish Law Commission, we came to the conclusion that it is presently drafted that section C may not give effect to that intention because, while section 6 clearly applies where there is a legacy to several people, there is nothing to say that all those people require to be direct descendants of the testator. Those amendments are intended to place beyond doubt that section 6 should apply only where the legacy is left to one or more direct descendants. It should not apply where legacy was given to several people, some of whom were not direct descendants. During the evidence sessions on the bill, Professor Roddy Paisley raised another issue about this section. He suggested that the section should be amended to change the reference from names to identifies. That was because, in his view, the provision may not apply if a testator failed to name a beneficiary and instead identified them by class, for example my son or my brother, etc. We know that in the stage 1 report that committee recommended that this suggestion be taken on board. The amendment also deals with this point as there is no longer reference to names and the provision will clearly apply where a testator identifies a beneficiary, however that is done, for example by class or category or by name. I move amendment 14. Thank you very much. Do members have any comments to make? The question is therefore that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. I now call amendments 15 to 25, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move these amendments 15 to 25 on block. The question then is whether amendments 15 to 25 are agreed. Are we agreed please? Yes. Thank you. The question is whether section 6 be agreed to. Yes. Thank you. The question is whether sections 7 and 8 be agreed to. Section 9, survivorship. I call amendment 26 in the name of the minister group with amendments 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32. I ask the minister to move amendment 26 and speak to all others in the group please. Thank you convener. Section 9 is another section where the term fail to survive is used. This section deals specifically with what should happen in a common calamity. Amendment 26 ensures that where a benefit is conferred on a third party, on the condition that another person predeceses the testator and that person dies in a common calamity with the testator, they will be treated as having died before the testator to enable the legacy to pass to the third party. By ensuring that a legacy can pass to a secondary beneficiary where the testator and the primary beneficiary have died in a common calamity, it is also less likely that in these circumstances the estate will become in testate. Additionally, in evidence, a number of witnesses have said that the interaction between sections 9 and 10 that deal with survivorship are not clear. The committee had some sympathy with these concerns and recommended in the stage 1 report that section 10 subsection 4 should be amended so that in some circumstances both sections may apply and that this would avoid an estate falling into intestines. I appreciate the committee's concerns. The rules to deal with survivorship are by their nature quite complex, given the need to take account of a range of different situations and avoid unintended effects. Before turning to the amendments that I propose are made to section 10, it may assist if I set out for the committee what we are trying to achieve to sections 9 and 10. Section 9 is a modified restatement of the existing general survivorship rule, which states that where two people die at the same time, for all purposes of succession, they will each be treated as failing to survive the other. In effect, they are written out of each other's estates. For the purposes of succession, the policy intention is that estates should go to the surviving family or beneficiaries. In contrast, section 10 deals with a narrow and particular set of circumstances for which the existing law does not provide a satisfactory solution. Those circumstances cover where property is to pass to one member of a group of people depending on the order of death and members of the group are involved in a common calamity. All members of the group are potential beneficiaries and have equal status in the sense that the testator's intention is that any one of them could benefit from the legacy. In those circumstances, the new rule provides that the property will be divided equally among their estates. Section 10 does not apply if the property is to pass under a will and the testator is part of the common calamity. This is because the general rule is that a beneficiary should survive the testator in order to benefit from a right of succession under a will. Where the testator is part of the common calamity, then the rule in section 9 should apply. It would not be appropriate for other people who have died in the calamity to benefit from the testator's estate. That ensures that any legacies will vest in the estates of living family members or legates rather than in the estates of deceased beneficiaries who have not survived the testator. We therefore do not think that it is appropriate to amend section 10 subsection 4 so that the rule in section 10 applies when the testator is part of the common calamity. We accept that there is merit in clarifying the circumstances in which section 10 is to apply. Amendment 30 therefore sets out in full the various scenarios when property may transfer to one member of a group depending on the order of death. In doing so, we hope that this sets out more clearly the different scenarios that are intended to be covered by the Law Commission's report as set out at paragraph 660. I also propose some other minor amendments to section 10 to make it clear that the rule applies whatever the means by which property is to pass to members of a group. That is to address a separate concern that has been raised that the reference to property passing under a will or obligation might not cover property that passes under trust provisions. Separately, although I do not accept that section 9 and 10 will necessarily result in more intestines, the amendment proposed to section 9 that will have the effect of avoiding one of the intestines scenarios that has been raised. We are therefore confident that we are addressing the concerns that the interaction between the sections is unclear and may result in more estates falling into intestines. I move amendment 26, convener. I now call amendments 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 27 to 32 on block. Thank you. The question is that amendments 27 to 32 are agreed. Question is that section 10 be agreed. Question is that section 11 be agreed. Section 12 on forfeiture and I call amendment 33 in the name of the minister group with amendment 34. I ask the minister to move amendment 33. Thank you, convener. The forfeiture rule is a rule of public policy that, in certain circumstances, precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of that killing. Section 12 provides that in circumstances where a person has forfeited their rights to the estate of the deceased, their beneficial interest in trust property or their title to property by virtue of a special destination, they are to be treated as having failed to survive the deceased so that the estate can pass to other beneficiaries where appropriate. I have already outlined the reasons that the term fail to survive does not necessarily mean that a person can be regarded as dying before another person. For that reason, amendment 33 amends section 12 to make it clear that where a person forfeits rights of succession in the estate of the deceased under the forfeiture rule, they are regarded as having died before the victim. In terms of what is forfeited, section 12, subsection 1A refers to the rights of succession to the estate of the deceased. In their written evidence in section 12, the Trust and Succession law sub-committee of the Law Society of Scotland said that they agreed with the provision but would point out that legal rights are not technically a right of succession as classically defined. They suggested that the provision be amended to expressly include legal rights within the definition for the purposes of the section. We accept that there may be an issue here. Section 36, subsection 1 of the 1964 act, refers to the net estate as meaning the estate that remains after dealing with the debts that have priority over legal rights. The prior rights and, quote, rights of succession, the latter being undefined, unquote. That definition suggests that a distinction is to be made between legal rights, prior rights and, quote, rights of succession under their current law. The intention is that the forfeiture rule applies to any right that a person has to succeed to the estate of an individual unlawfully killed. The amendment will therefore put beyond doubt that the rights that are forfeited include legal and prior rights. The Latin terms in the first limit of the amendment are more commonly known as legal rights. I move amendment 33. The question is therefore that amendment 33 be agreed to. I now call amendment 34. In the name of the minister, I just debated with amendment 33. Minister to move, please. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to and will be agreed to. The question is that section 12 be agreed to and section 13 be agreed to. Thank you. Section 14, and I call amendments 35, 36 and 37 on the name of the minister and all previously debated, and I invite the minister to move amendments 35 to 37 on block. So, the question is that amendments 35 to 37 are agreed, are we agreed, please? The question is that section 14 be agreed to and section 15 to 19 be agreed to. I now call amendment 38. In the name of the minister, I just debated with amendment 39. A donation mortis causa is a gift with the following characteristics. It is made by the donor in anticipation of their death. It is made on the understanding that when the donor dies, the recipient keeps the gift, but that if the donor survives it should be returned to them. The donor can change their mind at any point and ask for the gift to be returned, and if the recipient dies first, then the gift is returned to the donor. This special form of gift is counted as part of the donor's estate for the purposes of any claim for legal rights in the event of intestacy. It is also liable for the donor's death on death in the event that the rest of the donor's estate is insufficient to meet them. Section 20 abolishes this special form of gift as a distinct legal entity. It does not prevent people from continuing to make gifts on such express conditions as they wish to impose and which the recipient is prepared to accept. In evidence, the view was expressed that the words in contemplation of death in section 20 subsection 2 do not appear to be necessary. The Scottish Government explained to the committee that the wording aimed to make clear that while donation mortis causa as a distinct legal entity is abolished, a gift may still be transferred to a donor on the same terms that a donation mortis causa was. The Scottish Government undertook to reflect further on the drafting of section 20 and has brought forward those amendments to address the point. The amendments do not change the effect of section 20. I move amendment 38. The question then is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed please? I now call amendment 39 in the name of the minister and already debated minister to move 30. Formally moved, Camilla. Thank you. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Yes. Thank you. The question is that section 20 be agreed to. Are we agreed? The question is that section 21 to 24 be agreed. Are we agreed please? Yes. The question is that the schedule be agreed to. Thank you. The question is that sections 25 to 27 be agreed. Are we agreed please? The question is that long title be agreed to. Are we agreed? And that completes stage 2 consideration of the bill. Thank you. And I think that completes the agenda and I now close this meeting. Thank you.