 Rai'r byw ymddiadau ymddiadau ymddiadau ymddiadau ymddiadau mae'r ddadig o'r byw a'u cy pleas ac ymddiadau amdderech yn cael y dyfodol y mesurau. Rydyn nhw'n gwybodaeth â mynd i dw i'r byw, mae'r byw a'u mynd i'r Creudau Pw trzex i'r dyfodol ymddiadau, a'u bwysig iawn, llei'r parw yn ei gwybodaeth, ac i ddiogelau a'u ddiongechur ac i gwneud yr amigdag. The division bill will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage three. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press the request to speak buttons to speak. If they are joining us remotely, please place an RTS in the chat function, but to do so as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list. Anybody who was not paying attention is now paying attention. Now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. Group 1, the resignation and removal of trustees, and I call amendment 1 in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments 2, 2A, 3 and 4. Minister to move amendment 1 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Currently, the amended section 5 provides that a sole trustee must have accepted offers in writing or otherwise have acted in such a way as to indicate that they have accepted offers. I understand that the policy intention behind the stage 2 amendment was to make sure that the office of sole trustee is not forced upon someone against their wishes. Amendment 1 provides flexibility in the way that the office can be accepted but does not fundamentally alter the policy intention. A sole trustee would still have to accept offers, but this could be done verbally in writing or by some other means. Deputy Presiding Officer, moving on, I intend to support Stuart McMillan's amendments. Amendment 2, if amended by amendment 2A, will mean that, where there are two or more professional trustees appointed, who are each no longer a member of the regulated profession or are not entitled to practice, when it comes to a decision to remove either of them, neither of those trustees are to be regarded as able to make the decision. This will prevent a potential and undesirable impasse. I understand that Mr McMillan, in light of comments from the Law Society, has decided not to proceed with part of the amendment which would have built on the stage 2 amendment I brought forward, which allowed co-trustees to remove one of their own where the trustee being removed has been appointed in their capacity as a member of the profession but ceased to be a member of that profession and extended it to the professional trustees who provide their services through a company or partnership. I understand that whilst the Law Society agree with the principles, they have concerns about potential unintended consequences. It is therefore sensible to take more time to look at this issue and I will be happy to continue working with the member to consider how any further changes may be made in other legislation. Amendments 3 and 4 are in my name. A person who has been removed from office as trustee may require to take certain actions after being removed. This might include updating information held in statutory registers and failure to do so may result in criminal liability. While I believe that in the overwhelming majority of cases, trustees would take the sensible action of informing removed trustees of their date of removal but I understand that this is not always the case. For example, in a small family trust, relationships between trustees may be so strained that what appears to be sensible and practical to us is not to them. My amendments provide a clear statutory statement that will be of assistance to professional and non-professional trustees. Where a trustee is removed from office, they must be given notice of their removal as soon as reasonably practical after the decision is made. I move amendment 1 in my name and I would ask the chamber to support the other amendments in the group. I call Stuart McMillan to speak to amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group. First, I want to speak to amendment 2 and to end my name. Those are handout amendments from the Scottish Government after discussing an amendment that I proposed with the Government. I want to thank the Scottish Government who have worked with me on this particular issue. Amendment 2 came about because of an issue raised with me by constituents. The existing provision provides a loophole such as if a trust has three trustees and two of the trustees appointed are referred to in subsection 1 of section 7, i.e. incapable, convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, sentenced to imprisonment on conviction of an offence or imprisoned for contempt of court or for not having paid a fine. When it comes to a decision to remove either of them, neither of those trustees are to be regarded as being able to make a decision. Thus, the majority for making that decision would be one. This would help to maintain the integrity of any trust. Subsection 1d goes further, as the minister touched upon, including members of the regulated profession. On Friday, the Law Society was in contact with the Scottish Government to highlight two potential unintended consequences of 1d. Hence, the reason for the manuscript amendment 2a, which I am grateful for your agreeing to accept. Maureen Wightfield. I am very grateful to the member to give way on that point. We heard from the Minister guiding the legislation that this will be looked at going forward. Is the member aware of any specific legislation that may be available over the next few years of this Parliament that any changes could be encompassed in? Discussions have had with the Government centre around the bill that is currently going through the Parliament, the regulation of legal services. That is certainly a piece of legislation that I will be working with the Government on to try to tighten in this particular regard. The Law Society has advised the following, firstly, that the provision could be used inappropriately, and secondly, that it would act as a deterrent to the use of corporate trustee bodies and that this would have an economic impact. I do not fully agree with the consideration from the Law Society, but I do respect its opinion. I was therefore content to attempt to go partway to fixing the issue, as compared to not trying at all, hence the reason for the manuscript amendment. I therefore ask members to support the amendment 2, as amended by amendment 2A. In this first group of amendments, I want to put on record that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting all amendments in these stage 3 proceedings and to recognise the work of the minister to listen to stakeholders and to the DPLR committee in order to strengthen the legislation at stage 2 and again today. Given the explanation that we have had from Stuart McMillan and the addition of the manuscript amendment 2A, we are content that the amendments before us represent the views of stakeholders and strike the right balance. I therefore do not plan to make any further comments in relation to the other amendments this afternoon. We will pick up some broader points in the main debate. I understand that my colleague Jeremy Balfour may have some further comments in relation to some of the amendments, which he continues to take an interest in. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament has agreed. I call amendment 2, in the name of Stuart McMillan, already debated with amendment 1, Stuart McMillan to move or not move. I call amendment 2A, in the name of Stuart McMillan, already debated with amendment 1, Stuart McMillan to move or not move. I call amendment 2A, be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament has agreed. Stuart McMillan to press or withdraw amendment 2, as amended. To press. Thank you. The question is that amendment 2, as amended, be agreed, are we all agreed? Yes. yn cael ei sgwysig, sydd oes yn rhoi i amgylchau'r lleidw i ddim yn siaradau pwyllteidol. A oes yn unrhyw y myf Sen Pol, mae'r honnod i'r sgwysig yn ar yma i gael eich sgwyd gwysig. Mae'n garfodd rhai i ddim yn rhoi, mae'r sgwyd wedi'u rychwun yn ymwiel yn ei ddweud o'r ymddangas i ddych chi i mengen, ond hun yn ei gael ei ddych chi'n rychwun i ddim yn ynnu i ddim ynnu. Stac holders has since pointed out that the large public trust may be intended to benefit the public at large rather than a particular section of it. My amendment 5 and 6 take this into account and clarify the matter. These amendments will not allow a trustee to participate in decisions in which they have a particular interest specific to them as an individual. Going on to amendments 14 and 15 in my name, these pick up on a concern raised at committee at stage 2, which was voted on but defeated. Having discussed the matter further with the Law Society and the Scottish Law Commission, I have decided to bring forward today these amendments slightly adjusted from those lodged at stage 2. My view is that these amendments are able to deal with the issue identified by the Law Society without unnecessarily widening the protection that section 30 offers to beneficiaries. Deputy Presiding Officer, now turning to section 32 of the bill, this provides that as a default provision, a trustee is personally liable for any loss to the beneficiary, which arises either from the trustee's own acts or omissions or for any loss to the beneficiary, which arises from a co-trustee's breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty in certain circumstances. Some questions have been asked about how this section interacts with other sections of the bill on trustee liability, and I think that this matter can be usefully clarified. Therefore amendments 16 and 17 will make clear that a trustee's personal liability in terms of section 32 is to be read together with the bill as a whole. Section 32 will not impose an unqualified personal liability for losses sustained by a beneficiary as a result of the trustee's actions or omission. Amendment 18 is a minor amendment meant to ensure consistency of terms used in certain sections of the bill imposing personal liability on trustees. In some sections, the drafting used is private property, and in others it is personal property. This amendment means that the term used throughout the bill will be private property. Amendment 19 replicates change made to section 353 at stage 2 so that the bill is consistent. Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, my amendment 20 is a minor amendment meant to ensure consistency of drafting. While the amendment substitutes wording, it does not affect the underlying policy intention. I move amendment 5 in my name, and I ask the chamber to support the other amendments in the group. Dears. Thank you Minister. No other member is asked to speak if there is no other point, Minister wishes to make. I will ask the question that amendment 5 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed. I call amendment 6 in the name of the Minister. I already debated with amendment 5 Minister to move formally. Move Presiding Officer. Thank you. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed. We turn to group 3, sale of heritable properties to charities. I call amendment 7, in the name of the minister, grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. I call on the minister to move amendment 7 and speak to all the other amendments in the group. Minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Section 17B of the Bill was added by Jeremy Balfour's amendment at stage 2 of the bill. This amendment allows a charitable trust to sell heritable property, such as an old church building or a town hall, at less than best value if the purchaser is another charitable trust. At stage 2, I expressed my concern about the drafting of section 17B and the concerns of the Scottish Charity Regulator. Amendments 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12, in my name, are in an attempt to bring the section more into line with similar provisions in the Bill on Trust Law and link the section more closely to charity law. Firstly, my amendments make sure that the charitable trust selling the property must have the power to do so, and charity trustees must have regard to their statutory duties under charity legislation. This will help to prevent situations where charitable trustees sell heritable property that is essential to delivering the trust's purposes. My amendments also seek to widen the scope of section 17B so that all kinds of charities in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK can benefit from Jeremy Balfour's amendment. Currently, the purchasing charity must take the legal form of a trust, but currently only 12 per cent of registered charities in Scotland do so. My amendments will allow a charity registered in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK taking any legal form to benefit from this section. I understand that charities often work across different jurisdictions in the UK, and this amendment will be of benefit to them. The amendments also include a power to broaden this out in the future. Finally, amendment 11 is a transitional amendment that applies this section to all charitable trusts created after the section comes into effect and is without prejudice to any current common law position. I would like to pay my thanks to Jeremy Balfour for engaging constructively with me on this issue. I move amendment 7 in my name and I ask for the chamber to support the other amendments in the group. No other members have asked to participate in the debate. Minister, I invite you to wind up with anything else you wish to add. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. I call the amendments 8, 9, 10, 12 and 11. All in the name of the minister, and all already debated with amendment 7. I invite the minister to move amendments 8 to 10, 12 and 11 on block. Moved on block. Thank you. I would ask if there are any members who object to a single question being put on amendments 8 to 10, 12 and 11. No. Then the question is that amendments 8 to 10 and 12 and 11 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed. We turn to group 4, nominees, regulations about what constitutes a good cause subcustodians. I call amendment 13 in the name of the minister. In a group on its own, I invite the minister to move and speak to amendment 13. Minister. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. One specific issue that surfaced during the stage 1 proceedings concerned the use of nominees and subcustodians in certain situations. Amendment 13 is in response to those views that section 19, as drafted, might not go far enough in capturing the ways in which trusts are used in the financial services sector. This is an extremely technical matter involving financial regulatory arrangements and how trustees can use a nominee custody structures and b subcustodians. My officials have been discussing this matter, but it has not been possible to reach a conclusion in time for stage 3. Clarification may nevertheless help to alleviate concerns that trustees will not be complying with trust law where they use custodian arrangements in practice. Accordingly, amendment 13 introduces a narrow power to allow Scottish ministers, by regulations, to specify particular circumstances which may constitute a good cause for the purpose of section 19, 8. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Maen nhw'n fyw. Roedd gyda hynny maen nhw'n mynd i gyrwysgir yn gyrsgir gyda'rddiannol, ac yn ddiwylliannol wedi i gyrwysgir, ac yn gweld wahanol y dim groesur iawn y ffordd yn y niw, rei arwyddoch chi'n dechrau, i'w meddwl i gael ffiltrwyd i'r nhw ar y ddiweddau, a beth yw ychydig o'r prifysgwil i'r dod o siaradau gyda'r troi'r rhai, o edrych yn brosigol i'n gymryd mwyach o'r drafodol, I move amendment 7 in my name. Does the minister wish to add anything further? The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Amendment 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are all in the name of the minister and are all already debated with amendment 5. I invite the minister to move amendments 14 to 20 on block. Does any member object to amendments 14 to 20 being put under a single question? No. The question is that amendments 14 to 20 are agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. We move to question 5, protectors. I call amendment 21 in the name of the minister and a group on its own. Minister to move and speak to amendment 21. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A protectors function is to ensure that the trustee of a trust is appropriately discharging their duties. While it is almost certainly possible to provide for a protector under Scott's law currently, the bill provides legal certainty on this matter. Section 49 of the bill also provides a statutory list of example powers which a trustee may confer upon protectors. Ultimately it will be up to the trustee to decide whether any particular power is conferred on any particular protector and this will depend on the individual circumstances of each case. Having considered the drafting of the list of example powers further and having heard further from the stakeholders, I've concluded that some of the powers could be stated differently so that they are more in line with the protectors role. Amendment 21 does that. It removes the illustrative references to protectors directing trustees as to who may enjoy a beneficial interest and its place provides a more consistent approach to the list of illustrative powers that may be conferred on protectors. Deputy Presiding Officer, I move amendment 21 in my name. Thank you. Again no other members have asked to speak. Minister, anything you wish to add? No, the question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Thank you. I call, we move to group 6, trusts which may have their purposes altered. Call amendment 22 in the name of the minister in a group on its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment 22. Minister. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Section 61 of the bill is about the alteration of trust purposes and attempts to balance the trusters' wishes against the wishes of beneficiaries before an application can be made to the court to alter trust purposes. When the bill was introduced, this section did not apply to private purpose trusts or public trusts but after consultation with the Scottish Law Commission about the policy behind this section, it became clear that it should apply to private purpose trusts. When the section was amended at stage 2, the exception for public trust was removed unintentionally. This is contrary to the intention behind this section, which is that the trust purposes of public trust should not be altered by the way of an application under section 61. Amendment 22 resolves both these issues and I move amendment 22 in my name. Minister, no other members have sought to speak. Is there anything else you wish to add, minister? No. The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Are we all agreed? Yes. Parliament is agreed, and that ends consideration of amendments at this point, as members will be aware. At this point, the proceedings, Presiding Officer, is required understanding orders to decide whether or not, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter. That is, whether it modifies the electoral system or franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of this bill, in the Presiding Officer's view, no provision of the Trust and Succession Scotland Bill relates to a protected matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Before we move on to the debate, I call on Angela Constance to signify Crown Consent for the Bill. Cabinet Secretary. For the purpose of rule 9.11 of the stand-in orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Trust and Succession Scotland Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The next item of business is a debate on motion 0169 in the name of Siobhan Brown on Trust and Succession Scotland Bill. I invite members wishing to participate in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. I call on Siobhan Brown to speak to and move the motion. Minister, around seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by thanking the members of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their thoughtful and helpful consideration of the Trust and Succession Bill. I very much welcome their thorough scrutiny of the bill. I would also like to thank the committee clerks for all their hard work and those stakeholders who contributed views and their time as part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. This bill is a Scottish Law's commission bill, and I would therefore like to thank them for their considerable work which went into this law reform project. In particular, I would like to thank Lord Drummond Young, who, even though he is no longer chair of the commission, has given his time very generously. I know that he is in the public gallery this afternoon, along with Lady Payton and Charles Garland from the commission. The Scottish Government has also had some very useful engagement with a number of stakeholders. My officials have met with the Law Society of Scotland on several occasions. They've met, too, with the Society of Trusts and the State Practitioners Scotland and the Office of the Charity Regulator in Scotland. Their practical experience was especially important in helping me reach policy decisions on the content of the bill. Throughout the process, I've listened carefully to the views expressed to the Scottish Parliament and to those of the committee, and the bill was amended as a result. I was happy to lodge amendments at stage 2 to implement some of the committee's thoughtful recommendations, particularly in relation to the package of amendments aimed at increasing the safeguards for sole trustees. This was a particular concern raised by the committee after hearing evidence directly from trustees. I've also been pleased to support some of the amendments made by the committee at stage 2, and I've had very helpful engagement with Jeremy Balfour. For example, Jeremy Balfour's amendment that extended and indeed doubled the time limit during which a cohabitant has the right to make a claim on the deceased cohabitants' estate where there is no will. We have also agreed adjustments to others today to ensure that they work as intended. The bill also addresses some important issues where someone has died without leaving a will, which is unfortunately a relatively common occurrence. I'd like to briefly remind the Chamber about some of the key provisions in the bill and what they are intended to achieve. Most of the provisions in the bill relate to the law of trusts and can be found in part 1 of the bill. The bill makes important changes to the powers of trustees. The current legislation dating back to 1921 no longer gives trustees the powers they need to administer a trust effectively, making it difficult for trustees to comply with their paramount duty, which is to give effect to the trust purposes in the best interests of the beneficiaries. An important reform is the conferral of a default general power which replaces what is an inflexible, complex and restrictive statutory list of powers. As a result, trustees will be able to have all the powers that a competent adult has in relation to their own property. The bill will also reform the duties placed on trustees. These changes will better reflect the need for transparency in modern-day trusts. For example, the bill will clarify what information a beneficiary is entitled to, expect or request from the trustees. The information duties of the trustees go to the heart of trust's law and these reforms will enable beneficiaries to exercise their power to hold the trustees to account. The bill also makes a number of important changes to the way that trusts are administered and how trusts these are appointed, removed or resigned. Many people in the Chamber today may be aware of the fallout from the failure of McClure's solicitors, perhaps through their constituents. I was pleased that collectively we have been able to bring forward amendments at stage 2 and 3 to respond to the significant practical difficulties that co-trustees may have in removing a trustee who was appointed as a trustee in their professional capacity and is no longer a member of their profession. The bill cannot resolve the wider issues caused by the collapse of McClure's. I know that this is a matter that Stuart McMillan has a keen interest in and we recently met to discuss what could be done to help those who have found themselves caught up in this situation. I welcome the engagement with Stuart McMillan on this issue and I look forward to working constructively with him on those matters in the future. Part 2 of the bill deals with some reforms of the law of interstate succession. The bill will implement a Scottish Law Commission recommendation of 2009 so that where a person dies without a will and is survived by a spouse or a civil partner but not by children, the spouse or civil partner will inherit the whole of the net interstate estate. The Scottish Government consulted on this back in 2015 and there was agreement with this proposal and the Scottish Government's response committed to implementing the recommendation. I am pleased that we have therefore been able to address this issue which, depending on the composition and size of the state, can result in the bulk of a state passing to parents or siblings rather than the surviving spouse. This is not what people expect to happen and the bill will remedy this situation. Opportunity has also taken to amend section 2 of the Succession Scotland Act 2016 to clarify the drafting so that it is not open to any unintended interpretation. Finally, in respect of reforming the law of succession, I was very pleased to table amendments at stage 2 which will address the unacceptable prospect of a convicted murderer continuing to act as an executor to their victim's estate. There is some uncertainty about the current position in Scots law and the amendments will place beyond any doubt that an executor who is convicted of or is being prosecuted for, the murder or culpable homicide of the deceased will be regarded as unfit for that office and can be removed by the court and that a sheriff must refuse any application for appointment as an executor datif in the same circumstances. These amendments fulfil a previous commitment made by the Scottish Government. They also implement a recommendation made by the committee and I hope that they will bring the necessary legal certainty to those who are currently experiencing this difficult situation. I am convinced that the provisions in this bill will result in reforms to the law which will be of benefit to all those involved in trusts. I move that the Parliament agrees that the Trust and Succession Scotland Bill be passed. I will call on all of them. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in today's debate and to confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at decision time. As the minister has already outlined, this is the first major overhaul of trust law in the century and having listened to the evidence brought forward, it is clear that much-needed modernisation will provide clarity and make the law in this area more user-friendly. While it stops short of a full codification of trust law, what it has done is capture those areas on which there is broad consensus. Given that this is a Scottish Law Commission bill that has come through the DPLR committee, it probably strikes the right balance. I know during this stage 1 debate that there was some discussion about whether it could have done more both in terms of trusts and in terms of succession. The way that it has come to this Parliament explains why some aspects of the bill are more modest, as it is sought to be less political, less controversial and to look at moving the law forward, because, like many areas that this Parliament has responsibility for, it does not always appeal to politicians that such bills can find it difficult to get chamber time. I welcome the process that is now in place with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Obviously, no-one is ever wishing for more work for themselves, but I think that, as a committee, we have been able to work well and given the committee a new area of interest. I only have one outstanding, significant concern in relation to the bill, and that is around how public awareness raising will be taken forward. It was a theme again of that stage 1 debate. Those are very significant changes to trust law, and it is exactly how those changes are going to be communicated to many of the smaller charities, organisations and individuals who operate in this space, many of whom have been doing the same thing for a long time, many of whom, on the passage of the bill, will likely get updated professional advice. I think that the Law Society are right when they highlight in their briefing for today that a comprehensive publicity and awareness raising campaign for trustees, their professional advisers and the wider public in interacting with trustees is essential. We have seen through the passage of this bill that it is not always the most interesting area that captures everyone's interests straight away. I recognise that there is some difficulty in getting people to engage, and that was even the case with some stakeholders and some people working within this area itself. People do not always have the time and energy, and sometimes in this Parliament we can think that everybody is watching and listening to every word that is passed, and they pick up even within the legal profession every bill that gets passed. I will be keen later in the debate to hear more from the minister in that regard. That said, I am sure, unexpected challenges and unintended consequences may arise as a result of those changes. They are, as has been said, significant. I think that we have to do better in future at scrutinising the success of legislation that we pass and to evaluate whether or not it actually delivers the changes set out. I could go back through all of the things that the bill does, but the minister set that out herself pretty comprehensively. As I close, I would simply suggest that, as a Parliament, we do not wait another century to review the law in this area given its significance and central importance both financially and to Scottish society. That is an area that we pay a bit more interest to. In closing, I would simply like to thank all those at the Scottish Law Commission, the many witnesses and organisations who have given their time and energies to get the bill to this point today. I know at times it must seem like a thankless task and deeply frustrating when your area of expertise and legal practice is not always given the attention that it deserves. I hope that the passage of the bill provided colleagues to support it and I urge them to do so. It shows that those processes do work and are worthwhile. The many reports that the Scottish Law Commission has spent time on now seem to be proceeding with pace. I will leave it there and just say thank you. I thank the committee clerks and all those involved in bringing forward this bill. It is a technical bill, but it will have real impacts on people's lives. Hopefully it will stop issues such as McLeures. The solicitors McLeures went into administration two years ago and the victims of McLeures's action group held a meeting for the MSPs in the Parliament to raise awareness of the seriousness of the issues that were faced by clients of McLeures. Many of them have family protection trusts as well as wills, lasting powers of attorney and the like. There are an estimated 100,000 clients who are affected and the vast majority of those people are totally unaware of the issues stemming from McLeures going into administration. Clients that have trusts with McLeures solicitors, as trustees, can often not sell assets because the solicitors are still on land registry records. That results in some property standing empty for two to five years, forcing families to maintain properties without being able to take any action such as sell or rent them. Campaigners of the victims action group highlighted issues with accessing and understanding documents. Many of the clients are now elderly. Often it will be their children or close family who are left trying to make sense of everything while the responsibility for looking after elderly parents are indeed worse going through a period of grief at the same time. Campaigners spoke of having to pay £750 administration fees to get McLeures trustees to sign off trusts at the same time as receiving letters from solicitors trying to indemnify McLeures and their associates from any future legal action. The experience of those individuals highlights the human impact of what happens when trusts are not administered or managed appropriately and lessons must be learned and processes put into place to make sure that this does not happen again. I hope that the legislation does that but those impacted by McLeures need help now. I ask the Scottish Government to look at this because Police Scotland will not get involved, the Law Society will not get involved, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission will not get involved. Someone needs to set up an investigation and make sure that those affected are assisted properly and get the appropriate settlement to their concerns. Bob Doris. I am very grateful for the member giving way. The victims of McLeures would also state that most people who have been let down by McLeures as yet do not know their victims and it is vastly underreported. Do you share my concerns that for years to come this could continue to unravel and they need some serious attention now? I absolutely agree with Bob Doris and also pay tribute to him for giving voice to the victims of McLeures and inviting them to the Parliament to speak to MSPs. I absolutely agree with that and urge the Scottish Government to act to support those people. The minister said the bill will make things better for spouses and civil partners who die without a will. It was also highlighted that work needed to be carried out on making sure there were better protection for cohabities, people who had not formalised their relationships. With societal changes that is more and more common where people have been together for a long period of time, raised families have grandchildren together but do not have a will and are not protected in any way. On that vein, I would encourage the Government to ensure that people are aware that they should have wills and should have power of attorney because families need to know what they expect and families need to be protected when somebody dies. That is not for someone at the end of life the moment someone has dependence or is in a relationship with someone else that they would wish to protect. They need to set those things in order so that their loved ones can better represent their wishes should the worst happen. Can I just finish, Presiding Officer, by paying tribute to the Law Commission? They do a power of work, valuable work looking at the law and looking to update it. Much of their work goes unnoticed and quite often not coming before this Parliament when it should. It is timely that this bill is now coming but there is more of their work that needs to be looked at. So we need to, maybe as a Parliament, look at how we deal with law commission work to make sure that it gets the attention it deserves and that our law remains up to date. With that, I will finish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Ms Grant. We now move to the open debate. I call for Stuart McMillan to be followed by Maggie Chapman around four minutes, Mr McMillan. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First of all, I will touch upon the McLeol situation. The answer to that is in the committee because all constituents came to me with their concerns, some who have certainly been seriously affected. My one point of caution I would urge colleagues is that when having dialogue with constituents, please give them factually accurate information. The SLCC is the organisation to do the complaints, not the Law Society of Scotland. With that, I am hosting an event on the 15th of January in my constituency for constituents to come along because of the situation that the constituents have faced because of McLeol. I urge other colleagues to do likewise if they have a large number of people in their patches who have raised the issue with them. I would like to echo the comments from others with regard to the SLCC and their work in the bill and also for supporting the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee scrutiny of the bill. The extension of the remit of the DPRC has been an important advancement in the Parliament for helping to deal with the SLCC reports that have been completed but time had not managed to be found in Parliament to implement the legislative changes that have been suggested. Something that Oliver Mundell touched upon earlier. The DPRC is supportive of the role that it has in scrutinising certain SLCC bills. In the last year, the committee has led on to SLCC bills move over to transactions and also this one. In 2024, the committee will be embarking on another SLC bill that has just been introduced, the Judicial Factors at Scotland bill. That bill is long overdue with some aspects of the present law dating back to 1690. Today I am not speaking as the convener of the committee but I know colleagues past and present who have the pleasure of serving on the committee and encourage the Scottish Government to continue to keep the pipeline of SLCC bills coming. The committee is always ready to scrutinise those that meet the criteria for the consideration by the committee. I would also say gently to whips of all parties that members serving some time on the Delegate and Personal Reform Committee would actually provide a greater understanding of some of the vital and sometimes unnoticed work that takes place in this Parliament. In my opinion, the DPRC and also the Public Audit Committee provide invaluable experiences. I would like to thank those who contributed to the committee's scrutiny of the bill whether in writing or by appearing before the committee during one of the evidence sessions. We are very grateful for the time and energy given to help the committee in its work. I would also like to thank committee members for their scrutiny of the bill. We do work well together as Oliver Mundell touched upon scrutinising all the bills that we encounter and we all have got the same goal to improve them to ensure that good laws are created. Oliver Mundell touched upon the trust and succession over 100 years that this law has been in existence. Certainly I do encourage the present and future Scottish Governments whatever their colour to ensure that it is not another 100 years that this has changed. I also know that our work actually is noticed within the relevant business sectors as the feedback does come back to the committee from time to time. I would also like to thank the minister and her team for the way that they have worked with the committee to get the best possible outcome for this bill. That collegiate approach has been appreciated by everyone in the committee. Finally, I want to thank the first class clerking team that we have. I know that they enjoy the scrutiny of the SLC bills as it also provides another experience other than the secondary legislation that we deal with every single Tuesday. They assist us tremendously well with the recognition for their dedication. The committee has had some successes during the course of the stage 2 and also stage 2 scrutiny. For example, following the amount of stage 2 the bill includes the following provisions that were recommended by the committee. Incapacity, explicit reference to the right of a trustee deemed incapable by fellow trustees to go to court to challenge the decision. Also the definition of incapacity is now able to easily be updated in the bill anticipating upcoming changes to the area of law in the context of the final report of the Scottish mental health law review. The second point is the ethical investment. Following representations at stage 1 and amendments at stage 2, the bill now makes it clear that unless the legal document creating the trust says otherwise ethical, social and environmental considerations are relevant when trustees are choosing between otherwise comparable and suitable investments. The committee hopes that this is a small but tangible step towards helping us on our net zero journey. My amendment today will also help provide some additional safeguards to help protect the integrity of trusts and also trustees. The committee also recommended that the bill should be amended to clarify that the law does not permit an unlawful killer to be an executor of a victim's estate. That new section 6A and 73A of the bill inserted at stage 2 deal with those convicted of or being prosecuted for murder or culpable homicide. I will clarify that such individuals are unfit to be the executor of the victim's estate and such can be removed from this role by the court. The committee recommended as a priority the timely implementation of section 104 order of the Scotland Act 1998. This is something that has come up not just in this bill but also the movable transactions bill. Thankfully the discussions are well under way between both Scottish and UK Governments and all committee members are very pleased with that. We hope that this is commenced as soon as possible. With that, I will conclude and look forward to supporting the trusts and successions Scotland Bill tonight at decision time. Thank you very much. I now call Maggie Tartman to be followed by a bill kid around four minutes. I would like to begin by thanking the Scottish Law Commission for their detailed decisions on more than a decade on the different elements of this bill. I'm grateful to the Law Society for their work and suggestions, the briefings I've received from them and the conversations we've had about this area of law. I put on record my thanks to Stuart McMillan and the whole delegated powers and law reform committee for their consideration and scrutiny work. Scottish Greens welcome this technical legislation that seeks to deal with the complexities that over a century of acts and amendments have created. The consolidation is the most significant development in trust law for over 100 years. It's intended to simplify our trusts and succession law and make it easier for solicitors, trusters, trustees and beneficiaries to understand their legal rights and duties. During the stage 1 debate of this bill, I raised the need to ensure trusts support positive environmental and social objectives to enhance our environment and community wellbeing. I also stated that on land holding trusts, we believe in the Scottish Greens that offshore trusts, blind trusts and private trusts that exist for tax avoidance or ownership secrecy should not be allowed to hold land. Primary beneficiaries of land holding trusts should demonstrate the productive use or development of land for good while being locally accountable and accessible. We also want our succession law to support collective benefit and fair inheritance principles and not to be used to further contribute to Scotland's land problem. We remain concerned about the historic inequalities that are embedded in the structures and concentrated patterns of land ownership and powers within succession law must be considered as part of our wider land reform for community benefit considerations. However, perhaps those issues go beyond some of the technical parameters of the bill that we discussed today. In conclusion, I just want to reiterate my thanks to those who have got us to where we are today. I look forward to supporting this bill at decision time and also to an update on the section 104 of discussions that Stuart McMillan has referred to. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Chapman. I now call Bill Kidd. Again, around four minutes, Mr Kidd. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. As a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee I spoke in the debate on the proposed Trust and Succession Scotland bill in September at stage 1. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to update the chamber on the process of the proposed bill at stage 3 for consideration. I would like to thank all the members of the committee and, of course, all committee clerks and the legal team for their excellent work on the bill at stage 2. Noting as well the overwhelmingly positive contribution of the many witnesses and in particular the work of the Scottish Law Commission for their invaluable efforts prior to the introduction of the bill and their on-going support and research to ensure that the bill meets the aims and objectives of the proposals in a comprehensive manner enabling it to be passed by this chamber here at stage 3. The bill, when enacted, will be the most significant development in trust law for over 100 years continuing and extending the use of Scotland as a favourable jurisdiction for trusts. In my contribution at stage 1 I made note of concerns raised by stakeholders about the bill's default position on the personal liability of trustees for court expenses in cases in which the trust property is insufficient to cover any such costs. The committee's view was that the starting point should be that there is no personal liability on the part of trustees for expenses unless a court deems otherwise. I'm happy that amendments made to this section at stage 2 to remove personal liability for trustees where the trust property is insufficient to meet the expenses of litigation were passed by the committee and added to the bill in its final version. I also noted concerns regarding the bill's potential interaction with Scotland's journey to net zero and assured the chamber that the committee would work with the Scottish Government to amend the bill to explicitly allow trustees subject to the terms of the trust deed to choose to invest in ESG investments. Happily a new section 17a of the bill inserted at stage 2 covers trustees' powers to invest. It makes it clear that unless the legal document creating the trust says otherwise, ethical, social and environmental considerations are relevant when trustees are choosing between otherwise comparable and suitable investments. The committee also recommended that the Scottish and UK Governments pursue the implementation of a section 104 order to apply the changes proposed in the bill to pension scheme trusts to ensure the smooth running of the bill. I welcome the Scottish Government's commitment to work with the UK Government to bring forward such an order. One final point raised by the Law Society of Scotland is that given the changes that sit out in the bill represent very significant changes to trust law, it is essential that implementation is accompanied by a comprehensive publicity and awareness raising campaign for trustees, their professional advisers and the wider public interacting with trusts. I look forward to hearing the Government's plans in this regard. Finally, given that this will be my final debate in Parliament of 2023, I would just like to wish everyone here and all my constituents in Glasgow and Annesland all the best for 2024. Thank you. Hitting the microphone with your papers, there are other ways of gaining the Parliament, the chamber's attention. I invite Martin Wakefield. There are only four minutes, Mr Wakefield. I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I think the most recent attempt at awakening the chamber was more successful than you're whacking the microphone. Scottish Labour are in agreement and will support this bill later this afternoon, because as we've heard from a number of contributions both during the amendment stage and in this final debate, it has been probably far too long since a Parliament looked at this, and thanks have to go to the Scottish Law Commission for the work that they have done quietly in the background, slightly more forcibly and even slightly more forcibly, to bring this forward. And also the support from interested parties from the Law Society and the advocates and others who've responded to this. I, like others, would like to thank the committee for the huge work they did, both the members of the committee and the clerks that surround them but I'd also like to thank and put on the record the work of Stuart McMillan with regard to this particular bill and his ongoing interest in it because often the conveners go unthanked in this chamber and experience tells me and indeed knowledge of speaking with Stuart about the work that he's brought to this working with the Government and it's to the great thanks of the Government that the bill has been improved with cross-party support but to thank Stuart McMillan for his work in relation to this. There's a number of masses that it would be nice to hear in summing up which have been hinted at and I just want to draw attention to those. The first was raised both by Bill Kidd and Oliver Mundell about the importance of an awareness campaign. We've heard about the importance of Wales and the power of attorney that the ease and pressure it can lift on families if dealt with at the appropriate times. And I think it would be in that old-fashioned phrase money well spent to raise awareness both from MSPs to their constituents when they have the opportunity but also wider and through the Government to point out the importance of both vehicles, power of attorney and wheels so that choices can be made by people when they're able to make those choices without some of the crisis that can happen when it occurs either too late in the day that actually there are concerns about the validity of those who are casting them so it would be nice to hear from the Minister in summing up about that. I'd also like just to return in the short time that I have to the amendment that I intervened on which is in respect of section 19 now as amended within the Bill about the regulations about what a good cause could be and whether there are any actual specific good cause identify is that the Government are considering to bring in by way of subsequent legislation that would indeed be helpful and in summing up because it's nice to have a Bill that there is an agreement across this chamber on and a Bill that we've seen improve through its process and indeed as Oliver Mundell pointed out a Bill that maybe can come back through post-legislative scrutiny sooner rather than 110 years time that we can seek to make improvements I will leave it at that stage but just once again to express my thanks to all of those who've been involved I'm grateful Deputy Presiding Officer Thank you very much Mr Whitfield I now call on Jeremy Balfour for around 5 minutes Mr Balfour Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer hopefully you will hear some of his speech from where I'm taking part this afternoon so I am pleased to be able to speak today at the stage 3 of this important piece of legislation as others have commented it is over a hundred years to have seen a change in this law I'm aware that for many people perhaps given some of my fellow colleagues this can seem like a fully derived it can seem very technical but it doesn't have an impact in the day to day life of our constituents but even so I think it is an important Bill that will be welcomed by many people especially those within the legal profession and those who execute us and wills I think that broadly speaking we have before us a good piece of legislation and I look forward to it partying in a few minutes time a number of my colleagues have addressed a number of the issues which have come up but I think it is important to see how this Bill has improved both by members and by Government engaging constructively and so I want to thank the Minister for her work on my amendments which I believe have improved the Bill even this afternoon but one disappointment I have is that we still haven't gone far enough on the law of succession I understand as my colleague said Oliver Mandell said we don't want a controversial or political Bill but I do hope that in the next 100 years we will see more radical reform of the successor law which still has many outdated provisions which aren't fit for the 21st century I know that the Scottish Government are going to consult on this and I hope that the next Parliament will pass a Bill on that I also want to thank those who have helped us as a committee and a Parliament get to where we are today the Scottish Law Commission the committee team the witnesses and those who helped our amendments I suspect this won't get much coverage in the media tomorrow on the days ahead but I do believe this Bill will and can make a difference to individualise for the better here in Scotland and I look forward to supporting it in a few minutes time thank you very much and I call on Siobhan Brown to wind up up to six minutes Minister thank you thank you very much I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this afternoon's debate there is general consensus that the law in Scotland on trust is outdated and the changes proposed in the Bill would make a significant and positive difference for those who use trusts in Scotland I hope it is clear that we've listened carefully to what has been said by stakeholders and by the committee and other MSPs during stages one and two trust law may sound remote and dusty but it's important to recognise that the law on trust impacts many of us trusts have an everyday utility and simply they are an important means of managing assets for people for example if you are a client of a travel agent or a solicitor your payments may be held in the form of trust you may set up a trust to control and protect your family assets or when someone is too young to handle their affairs or have suffered a serious personal injury as the number of blended families increase a trust can help manage assets between complicated and sometimes difficult family relationships I hope that it is clear too that this Bill matters it matters to all those involved whether that is a trustee a beneficiary or a trustee what the Bill does in terms of making things simpler and fit for monday purposes would be of great benefit to those involved in trusts if the Bill is passed today and I sincerely hope it will be there is still a lot of work to be done before the provisions will be capable of coming into effect we heard during stage one evidence sessions how important it is and the fact that there is sizeable pensions industry in Scotland that pension trusts are included in these reforms work has been under way for some time to engage with the UK government on the necessary section 104 order under the Scotland act 1998 to ensure that we won't be left with a black hole in the law and that pension trusts here will benefit from these reforms there is more work to do and we are committed to doing it and I am happy to support the amendment to cohabitation I was happy to support it I did make clear that we would not plan to bring into force this particular part of the legislation until such time as the other issues encountered by those attempting to apply for financial provision on the death of a cohabitiy are considered further and if necessary addressed I have written to the committee setting out my intention to consult on these issues and the consultation on recommendations made in the Scottish law commission's report on cohabitation and I intend for this to be published by the summer of 2024 there have been questions raised throughout the bill's passage about wider reforms to the law of succession going forward this was never the legislative vehicle for any such reforms the Scottish law commission has produced reports on the issue and we have subsequently consulted on several occasions now it was clear that there was no agreement amongst stakeholders and given the fact that the area of interstate law has a potential to impact on all of us it's very important that we take time to get it right over the last couple of years we've been pleased to fund work which has been carried out under the auspices of the Scottish civil justice hub to gather data and evidence including the attitudes of the public and to carry out research and policy this is not an area of law that has been forgotten quite the contrary that work has been ongoing and will continue and I'm happy to keep the committee updated on progress importantly the bill incorporates powers so that we have the tools and the flexibility to ensure that provisions can be kept up to date for example the committee at its stage 1 consideration recommended that it would be desirable in the bill to alter the types of trust applications that may be considered by the sheriff and those that may be considered by the court of session the Scottish government therefore brought forward a stage 2 amendment to allow the Scottish ministers to vary the definition of court so that either the sheriff court or the court of session can consider different types of trust applications another example is a definition of incapable the bill sets out the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as incapable for the purposes of the bill it aligns the definition in the bill with the wider incapacity legislation in Scotland in recognition that there are significant and far-reaching changes recommended to mental health legislation and that the precise nature of the changes that may be made in the future cannot be anticipated the bill was amended at stage 2 to provide Scottish ministers with a power to amend the definition of incapable to ensure that there was sufficient flexibility to allow trust law to keep pace with the evolving understanding of incapacity Presiding Officer, if I could just get to a few points that have been raised during the debate today Oliver Mundell, Bill Kidd and Martin Whitfield did raise the importance of public awareness one of the things I do know through discussions with my officials and the Law Society of Scotland I understand the Law Society and tend to publicise what is brought about by the bill with its members who are likely to comprise a significant number of professional trustees and professional advisors to Scottish Trust but I am happy to work with the profession to agree what for the guidance or awareness is necessary I know Rhoda Grant and Martin Whitfield echoed the importance of people making wills and powers of attorney and I think in our positions at MSPs we should all be highlighting this to our constituents wherever possible Moving on to section 19 and the good causes that Martin Whitfield raised discussions with the law firm of CMS Cameron McKennaw about covering the ring of faces is a specific example of the section 19 In conclusion Presiding Officer I would like to repeat my thanks to all of those who have given evidence to help improve the bill during its parliamentary process and in my name Thank you