HC Deb 20 March 1936 vol 310 cc849-52

Order for Second Reading read.

3.51 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading in spite of the fact that the time available does not allow of a full discussion. It is not a new Bill. It is practically identical with one that was introduced in the last Parliament by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) which received a Second Reading without a Division and proceeded to a Standing Committee where it was considerably amended by the Government draftsman himself, passed through Committee with a very large majority in its favour, but did not have time to proceed to a Report stage. In the previous Parliament, a Bill with the same object of limiting the power of disinheritance was introduced and referred to a Joint Select Committee which, after full investigation of the subject, reported against the Bill but, in words which are fully summarised in the explanatory Memorandum, in favour of a Bill on exactly the lines on which this Measure is drawn. The Committee was satisfied that there was a substantial number of cases in which the present condition of the law lead to injustice, and that a Measure to allow a surviving spouse or child to apply to the Court to make provision outside the will deserves serious consideration by Parliament. In view of these facts, I submit that Parliament might well give a Second Reading to this Bill. The thousands of pitiful cases in which men and women are suffering under the present state of the law ought not to be allowed to wait longer for a remedy because of the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON

I beg to second the Motion.

I seconded the introduction of the Bill in 1930 and served on the Standing Joint Committee which considered it. The recommendations of that Committee were that we should follow the lines of the procedure in the Dominions, where power is given to the Courts to grant relief to members of the family of a deceased person who has in effect disinherited them. The whole of the opposition that we encountered in the Standing Joint Committee was merely on the question of procedure. The promoters of this Bill have sought to accede to the suggestions of the Committee by drafting it in accordance with their recommendations.

3.55 p.m.

Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE

Having heard the arguments of the Mover and Seconder, I should like to point out that the Bill rather transgresses against one or two important principles. As far as I read it, there is no provision to limit the amount that should be given to a testator's child which is not mentioned in the will. There might be something to be said if the Bill said that in the case where the testator was a rich man his children should not be a charge of this kind, or a charge against the Poor Law or against any other Government Department. This Bill has been discussed several times, and there is a certain amount of objection to it. If you related it to the Poor Law there would be a certain amount of reasonableness in it. If you do not, you have to take into account that a testator has not only cash of which to dispose but other things. He may be a chairman of a public company and have founders' shares, and he may have decided that certain children should not have possession of those founders or other shares because they might not be considered capable of carrying on the business. I could extend the argument—

Viscountess ASTOR

I hope you will not.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

This is a very important matter, and whether the Noble Lady likes it or not, we are dealing with realities, and not with sentiment. When the Noble Lady cuts right across realities, she will find that sentiment will not carry the child to the happy state to which she wishes to bring it.

Viscountess ASTOR

May I ask the hon. and gallant Member what on earth he means by that sentence?

Miss RATHBONE

I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to allow this very interesting point to be thrashed out in Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

I have dealt with only one aspect of the matter and referred to the question of founders' shares. There is another question to be decided of the man who has a landed estate.

Miss RATHBONE

rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

In view of all this interruption I am afraid that I shall have fully to develop my argument. If a man possesses an estate he should be entitled to say how it should be disposed of. I could very well give an account of the long discussions that we have had both on legal and other committees on this very point, hut we have had no satisfactory guarantees from the promoters of former Bills or of this Bill.

Miss RATHBONE

rose in her place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE

We have had no satisfactory guarantees under this Bill. I will deal wish the question of sentiment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) cannot expect to get Bills through at the last moment except by agreement. She is putting sentiment in the wrong place.

It being after Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock, until Monday next, 23rd March.