HC Deb 19 February 1964 vol 689 cc1292-5
Mr. Ross

I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out from "evidence" to "that" in line 22.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

With this Amendment, if it be convenient for the House, could be discussed the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in page 15, line 23, to leave out "proper".

Mr. Ross

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

We now move to a less abstruse but still very important question. There has been some advice given today by hon. Members who have now fled the scene that it would save a lot of trouble in these matters if people would only make a will. It is one of the easiest things in the world to make a valid will in Scotland all the person has to do is to write it out in his own handwriting and sign it.

The Government seem determined to make things much more difficult, and so we have in Clause 21 the importation of the qualification that the court must be satisfied by evidence consisting at least of an affidavit by each of two persons. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) took exception to this and, although it was pointed out to him, with some validity, I think, that this is pretty well the rule and practice at present, my hon. Friend still felt strongly enough to put this Amendment down.

The Amendment in my name which we are discussing at the same time is for the purpose of avoiding doubt and difficulty. It is far better in legislation, wherever possible, to avoid epithets and qualifications, particularly those which will lead to difficulty and which add little or nothing to the sense of the law or, indeed, obscure it.

8.15 p.m.

Who will define what "proper" handwriting is? I am sure that the Clerk at the Table could inform the House about my handwriting. I have four or five different styles of handwriting depending on the time of day, the type of pen I use, or whether or not it is one of the rare Thursday evenings when I hope to catch the 11.40 train and I want to get Questions in before I leave. I do not know whether any one of these could be described as my proper handwriting.

Mr. Willis

None of them is handwriting.

Mr. Ross

I hear what my hon. Friend says. If he means that none of them is legible, that is a view which I must resist. If he refers to my relaxed style of handwriting, which is a rather more ornate Italian script, he is probably right in saying that it is not handwriting, for it is really a form of art. But is it "proper"?

Handwriting may depend upon the state of health of a person. What of the man who has a stroke, who is not able to write with his right hand and who learns to write with his left? He still knows what he is doing and it is still his handwriting. But is it his "proper" handwriting? Does the word add anything at all? Will it confuse a court or confuse witnesses who wish to say. "Yes, this is in the handwriting of the testator"? I sincerely hope that the Government will think again about it.

On this matter, they have had the advice of the Solicitor-General, because, by the time we got to Clause 21, he had arrived on the scene. We see the trouble which he has caused. Now that he has had time to settle down, he will, I am sure, after two and a half weeks' mature consideration, agree that it is time he took this word out.

Lady Tweedsmuir

I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will be happy to know that I have great pleasure in saying that we accept his Amendment to leave out the word "proper".

The first Amendment, on the other hand, is one of considerable substance. Clause 21 provides that confirmation shall not be granted on a holograph will unless the court is satisfied by evidence consisting at least of an affidavit by each of two persons that the will, including the signature, in the handwriting of the testator. If the words consisting a. least of an affidavit by each of two persons were deleted, the court, in order to be satisfied that the writing and signature were the handwriting of the testator, would have no requirement as to the nature of the evidence it was necessary to have for this purpose.

I feel, therefore, that the Amendment cannot be accepted. If it were accepted, some courts might continue their present practice of accepting as holograph a will which is produced on an unopposed application for confirmation if the will itself contains a statement to the effect that it is in the handwriting of the testator. The purpose of Clause 21 is to ensure that this practice does not continue.

I suggest therefore, that we should leave the Clause as it stands in one respect, but that it will be greatly improved, particularly for lay people like myself who hope in later years to read what, I trust, will be an Act, by the fact that the disposition will be in the handwriting of the testator. I could not agree more with what the hon. Member said about handwriting. Mine gets worse and worse as the years go on.

Miss Herbison

The noble Lady has just said that she hopes to be able to read this Act in later years. Does that mean that we shall have an election before the Bill can go to another place?

Lady Tweedsmuir

No. But I always keep my fingers crossed for any piece of legislation for which I am responsible and about which I care.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 23, leave out "proper".—[Mr. Ross.]