Seòmar agus comataidhean

I might take issue with the Scottish Government’s justification for not taking the action that is called for, but it is clear that it does not intend to take it. In the absence of any willingness on the Government’s part to consider the petition’s aims, I am minded to endorse the suggestion that we close it. Does that have the committee’s support?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Monica Lennon very much. We will keep the petition open and see where we go from here based on any work that might be done elsewhere in the Parliament.

PE1904, which was lodged by Christina Fisher, is on changing Scots law to disqualify estranged spouses from making claims on an estate. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to define in law the difference between a legally married cohabiting couple and a legally married non-cohabiting couple for the purposes of ensuring that an estranged spouse cannot inherit their spouse’s assets.

When the committee considered the petition previously, we agreed to write to the Law Society of Scotland, the Family Law Association, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission. We have now received some detailed submissions from the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Society of Scotland, which have been very helpful. Members have had sight of both submissions in their papers for this meeting, so I do not need to repeat what they say in detail, but I will mention some general points.

The Scottish Law Commission explains that

“There is no legal definition of ‘estrangement’ for the purpose of Scots family law ... When spouses and civil partners separate, there is no change of legal status”

until

“they divorce or their civil partnership is dissolved”.

It also notes that

“many couples who separate reach agreement on financial matters before”

that divorce or dissolution.

The Law Society of Scotland advises that, in its response to the Scottish Government’s 2019 consultation on succession law, it suggested that a solution might be to use

“the test of ‘living together as husband and wife/civil partners’ before the surviving spouse could inherit”

where there was no will to

“resolve current anomalies”.

The current submission acknowledges that that test might be unfair to couples who are separated due to one partner being in long-term care.

The Law Society suggests that there might be

“merit in considering the potential introduction of a time-requirement before excluding a survivors’ prior rights and legal rights”.

The submission also notes that it is open to anyone

“to alter the terms of their will following a separation should they wish to do so”.

It further notes that, although there may be situations in which a deceased person

“had no longer intended or wished for a separated spouse or civil partner to benefit from their estate, but they had not amended their will accordingly ... such ‘hard cases’ would not merit altering the law”,

given the impact that that might have more widely.

There is recognition of the issue, but there is also a clear view that tackling it could have much wider ramifications than the injustice that it would potentially address would merit. Do colleagues have comments or suggestions?

Agenda item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first new petition is PE1923, which was lodged by Peter Watson. It calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to change the Scottish higher-rate tax threshold to £37,501, aligning it with the rest of the UK—it invites the committee to set the Government’s budget, in part. That threshold was correct at the time when the petition was submitted.

The petitioner believes that that alignment should happen due to the recent uplift in the block grant for Scotland. He notes:

“the increased revenue to the individuals and families will be recycled through the economy creating growth, whilst rewarding hardworking people.”

The Scottish Government explains in its submission that, although the UK Government announced what was described as a significant increase in the block grant for Scotland, it believes that there has been a real-terms cut in day-to-day funding in each year of the spending review.?The Scottish Government goes on to state that it does not support the action that is called for in the petition as it believes that it would provide a tax break to higher-income earners while disproportionately affecting those on lower incomes.

Do members have views on the petition?

Is it a big class? Are there a lot of people in it?

Is it a big school with lots of people?

That is very encouraging. I was absolutely hopeless at maths.

You are here because you have lodged this petition. Can you tell us why you thought that the petition was a good idea and what you hope that it will do? Why did you think that it would be a good idea to write to the Scottish Parliament? Was it because we can get things done?

That is great. What are you going to say to her?

I hope that you are going to do some straight talking and not let her flannel you or put you off—make sure that you get straight through it. Essentially, you want everybody to have a reusable water bottle. You have a water bottle with you today—is that the sort of bottle that you are thinking of?

I note that Arina Russell was nodding quite a bit to some of that. Do you want to contribute to this conversation, Ms Russell?