HL Deb 24 October 1968 vol 296 cc1559-60

Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out Clause 2.

Schedule 1, page 14, line 17, leave out paragraphs 3 to 7.

The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:

Because the Amendments are at variance with the purposes of Part I of the Bill, which is designed to confer on illegitimate children the same rights in the estate of a deceased parent as those enjoyed by legitimate children.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. Noble Lords will recall the proceedings in this House on the several occasions upon which this part of the Bill was debated. They culminated in the acceptance by your Lordships of Lord Drumalbyn's Amendments deleting the provision giving illegitimate persons the only indefeasible right of succession conferred by the Bill: the right to legitim out of their parents' estate. My Lords, I can add little to what I said then. The Government remain firmly of the opinion that in this matter of principle the right and the just course to pursue is to give illegitimate children the right of succession in their parents' estate which legitimate children have. For this we must retain in the Bill the original Clause 2 and the consequential paragraphs in Schedule 1. I am in complete accord with the reasons for the disagreement to these Amendments in an other place, and for that reason I now ask that the House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, here we have something which I put forward and which a majority of your Lordships were good enough to agree with. This matter has gone back to another place and it was very fully debated yesterday. The other place have confirmed their view—in fact it was the first time the other place had dealt with this point in detail, apart from the Committee stage. My Lords, I regret their decision. This clause is different in kind altogether from the first clause, which deals with succession in intestacy. This involves the overriding of the express wishes of a testator in favour of illegitimate children and in that respect gives the same right to them as to legitimate children. I still do not feel that this is right, but I would not advise my noble friends to contest the view of the majority as expressed in another place.

On Question, Motion agreed to.