Seòmar agus comataidhean

The issue here is about political choices. The UK Government has made choices and the Scottish Government has made choices. The Scottish Government’s choice has been not to intervene to get rid of this policy. That is a choice that the cabinet secretary and her Government have made.

We all need to work to help the most vulnerable in our society. Let us start talking more about what we can do in the Scottish Parliament and what the Government can do, and let us stop talking about other Parliaments that we have not been elected to.

I asked the question of both Ms Forbes and Mr Swinney, but neither of them answered, so perhaps the minister will. If it is so concerned about children growing up in poverty, why has the Scottish Government failed to deliver on its promise on free school meals by now? Why the delay if the Government is so concerned?

Not at the moment.

Of course it will not, because Government is not interested in looking at its own failings. It would rather deflect than own up to the mess that it has made.

Today, we have seen tactic number 1 from the Green-nationalist playbook: members shout about something that the UK Government is doing, while sitting on their hands and not taking action that it is well within their competence to take.

The truth is that, if the Scottish Government really cared so deeply about the two-child cap, it could do something about it. I say to Kevin Stewart, Alex Cole-Hamilton, Kate Forbes, Marie McNair, Maggie Chapman, Bob Doris and Collette Stevenson: here is the good news—we, in this Parliament, have the power to deal with the issue here and now. This Government has decided to sit on its hands and do nothing about it, except slag off other Governments.

That is not student politics—it is school politics. It is simply members shouting at somebody else while taking no responsibility themselves. This Government could decide to give those families more money if it wanted to, but it has chosen simply not to do that.

Let us look at the number of children in temporary accommodation that the Scottish Government has put into trouble. Actually, I do not take responsibility because, like Ms Forbes, I was elected to this Parliament to deal with the issues that we are responsible for. If I wanted to go to Westminster, I would have gone there—depending on the electorate—but I chose to come here. The point is that we have the powers, but SNP ministers sit on the front bench and are simply happy to point fingers at other Governments and do nothing.

I thank all the members who have taken part in the debate. I also thank the Law Commission, the clerks to the committee and those who gave evidence to the committee for all that they put before us.

As Oliver Mundell said in his speech, the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1. However, a lot of work needs to be done at stages 2 and 3. The Scottish Government still has a lot of heavy lifting to do.

I absolutely agree that trust law needs to be changed. There cannot be any other area of law in which my grandfather, my father and I were taught the same thing at university. That it is three or four generations old shows that it is time for reform.

I am disappointed by the Government’s response on succession law. There is general agreement, both in the legal profession and in academia, that it is just tinkering with the system. This was an opportunity to make major reforms in succession law, but, for whatever reason, the Scottish Government has decided not to take that opportunity. The minister, in her response to the committee report, has said that there will be no further changes to succession law during this parliamentary session. I fully accept that to change succession law would be controversial and that there is no major agreement out there. However, the role of Government is, surely, to lead, and this was an opportunity for us to reform succession law to bring it into the 21st century. Instead, we are tinkering at its edges and simply introducing changes in two areas instead of having a major reform. That is a disappointment.

I agree with Mr McMillan that that might be a way forward, but—again—it is something that we will have to look at.

I agree with Mr Kerr to some degree that people should be making a will. However, I remind Mr Kerr of a great advert that the Law Society brought out in the 1990s, which said that

“It’s never too early to call your solicitor.”

Obviously, that is seen to be true today.

We have to ensure that the language is not good only for lawyers, but is also good for the people who work on trusts day in and day out, so that we do not get caught out. If we can avoid lawyers being involved in things, that can only be good news.

I agree with Martin Whitfield on the concern that he raised about the interplay between trusts and charities. I asked a number of questions about that of the expert witnesses. Again, we need to be clear in our thinking about how we are going to proceed on that.

Finally, we need to look again at codification, which was raised by Mr Kerr and Mr Whitfield. We have waited 100 years for the bill, so we could probably wait just a wee bit longer. If the minister is simply concerned about time, I think that we could pause to do that. If there is a more substantial reason why she thinks that that is not possible, I would be interested to hear it.

The bill is long overdue. It will be welcomed by civic society and the legal profession, so I look forward to voting for it at stage 1 tonight.

Well, this is stage 1; stage 2 is still to come. I encourage Alasdair Allan to read the evidence that was given to the committee—in particular, that from the professors of law from the University of Dundee. The issue that I have is that succession law needs to be brought into the 21st century, but that is simply not happening. If the member looks at what has been said by both the Scottish Law Commission and the academics, it is absolutely clear.

Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) rose—

That is an interesting question for debate. However, it is clear that succession law needs to be reformed, that the Government has had 14 years to do so, that it had an opportunity either in this bill or in other legislation to introduce that reform, and that it has told us that it will not touch the matter for another two and half years at least.

I move on to trust law. We need to seek clarification on, and to have amendments in, a number of areas, as the bill goes through Parliament. First, there is a danger—a number of members have pointed to this—that we will put people off becoming trustees. Evidence is already out there that it is becoming harder to find people to be trustees and to do that work for certain trusts—especially for small trusts, which play a really important role in communities. We have to be careful that we do not put people off; the perception is—it is, perhaps, just a perception—that one could face financial problems if one were to become a trustee. It would be helpful for the minister to lodge amendments to clarify that point at stage 2.

Secondly, there is an area with which all members of the committee have struggled. We need to think more about the definition of “incapacity”—the Government is already thinking about it and there is no clear way forward. Emma Harper and Oliver Mundell raised that issue in the debate. We have to be really careful and confident that whatever definition we ultimately come to, as a Parliament, will meet not just the lawyers’ needs but the needs of trustees, particularly trustees of small trusts, who do not want to keep going to lawyers.

That is the most disappointing answer that I have heard in a long time. Many organisations have been waiting for years for a changing places toilet. One of them, in Dunbar, has made a business plan and identified a site and all it is waiting for is the fund to open. Why is there a delay when the United Kingdom Government has delivered so much money across the whole of England?

To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to start accepting applications for the £10 million fund for changing places toilets that was announced in the 2021-22 programme for government. (S6O-02550)