HC Deb 19 February 1964 vol 689 cc1291-2
Lady Tweedsmuir

I beg to move, in page 15, line 2, to leave out from "who" to "intromits" in line 3.

This is a drafting Amendment. It does not have any effect on the meaning of the Clause.

Subsection (8) provides that For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the expression ' executor' includes every person who as executor, next of kin or creditor or otherwise intromits with or enters on the possession or management of any part of the estate of the deceased. The necessary meaning can be conveyed by saying simply that the expression "executor" includes every person who intromits with the estate. It is, in fact, unnecessary to say that this person may be acting as executor, next of kin or creditor or otherwise and the Amendment seeks to omit these words.

Mr. Millan

I suppose that the Amendment is simply a drafting Amendment in the sense that the remaining words can be regarded as quite comprehensive. On the other hand, we are giving a very wide definition of the term "executor" for this purpose, saying that it includes everyone who intromits with or enters upon the possession or management of any part of an estate. Presumably, this would cover everyone who receives a legacy and all the rest. Why is it necessary to have this very wide definition?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that, as subsection (8) makes clear in the opening words, it is only for the purposes of subsection (1) of this Clause that "executor" is being defined. This fairly wide definition is not being introduced for the general legal purposes of Scots law.

The narrow purpose for which it is introduced, looking back to subsection (1), is to provide for accountability for all Estate Duty in respect of heritable property which may become leviable or payable. In other words, to use a colloquialism, anyone who meddles with the estate becomes liable for the Estate Duty, It is for that narrow purpose.

Mr. Millan

Strictly, it would mean that anyone who intromitted with or entered into possession of any part of an estate could be accountable for Estate Duty on the whole. Is that really the position? Subsection (1) does not say that a person will be responsible only for Estate Duty on that part of the estate which he deals with or receives. Do we really want everyone who intromits or enters into possession of any part of the estate to be responsible for the whole of the duty?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I shall consider the full implications of the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Amendment agreed to.