SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 1 February 1973)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I have promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I shall be as brief as I can, and I shall follow that intention. In the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, very considerable changes were made in the law of succession. These changes have, I believe, worked well and they have been well received. The purpose of this Bill is to amend Sections 8 and 9 of the 1964 Act, and it has no other purpose. The reason why that is necessary is that, in place of the traditional rights of "terce" and "courtesy", there were established "prior rights", to assure the position of the surviving spouse in marriage; and, as these were expressed in terms of money they have inevitably been eroded by the influence of inflation. It is to restore the former position that this Bill is presented to the House.
These rights arise only in cases of intestacy, and in such cases, under the principal Act of 1964, the surviving spouse was entitled to the matrimonial house up to the value of £15,000. He or she was also entitled to £5,000 of plenishings. Over and above this, if there was 706 issue he or she was entitled to £2,500, and if there was no issue to £5,000. If one calculates the influence of inflation over the intervening period—and I shall be very happy to go into the figures, if necessary—the value of property since 1964 has risen by about 100 per cent. Accordingly, in the Bill the value of the matrimonial house is now put up to the sum of £30,000, which just about restores the position of the surviving spouse to what it was in 1964. In regard to the plenishings and the sum payable from the general estate, I think the figures in the retail price index are about right and they point to a figure of 60 per cent. in this case. Accordingly, the plenishings which can be retained in intestacy by the surviving spouse go up from £5,000 to £8,000, while the payment from the general estate in the event of issue will increase from £2,500 to £4,000, and, where there is no issue, from £5,000 to £8,000. This puts the surviving spouse in a comparable position to what he or she was in in 1964.
The Bill also looks to the future and provides for the Secretary of State to have power to make increases in these cash amounts, as and when it may seem necessary. It is suggested that he should do so by laying before this House a draft Statutory Instrument, which after the normal period of 40 days will be made in the normal form. I think that this is a wise provision for the future, because I am afraid that none of us can be assured that the present value of money will remain steady. This is very similar to the procedure which has already been adopted for England, and only last July the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor laid a Statutory Instrument which had the effect of raising what are called statutory legacies in England, to a figure more in line with the current value of money. I think that this is a desirable amendment to the principal Act, which I commend to the House. However, it is not intended to relieve anyone from taking proper legal advice when that is found necessary, and it would be quite wrong to think that the Bill would avoid one's taking that line. Conditions vary with almost everyone, and it is important that they should be examined both under the terms of this Bill and under the general conditions of succession. I think that this Bill is essential if prior rights 707 are to be maintained at their 1964 level. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, I rise on this side of the House simply to say that we welcome the Bill which the noble Earl has introduced. We think that the figures included in it restore the position to what it was when the principal Act was passed. But, more than that, we are grateful to the noble Earl for including in the Bill provision for making changes in the future by Statutory Instrument, which will prevent further Bills having to be introduced to meet new circumstances. For all those reasons, we are grateful to the noble Earl and are delighted to support the Bill.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH)
My Lords when my noble friend Lord Selkirk was elected a Scottish Representative Peer at the same election as myself —I think 27 years ago—the gain of your Lordships' House was at the same time a loss to the Scottish Bar, where he had practised before the war with distinction. That he has not lost his skill in advocacy and explanation is clear from the way in which he has commended to your Lordships this small measure concerning what, to a layman is a very complicated branch of law. At least, it is a little less complicated than it was in the days of my own apprenticeship, when we had to know these legal rights by heart: we have at least, in the 1964 Act, got rid of the mysterious rights of "terce" and "courtesy", even if we are left with jus relictae, jus relicti and legitim.
As my noble friend has said, it is a limited measure but it is none the less valuable for that. It does not change in any way the legal standing of surviving spouses. It seeks only to bring up to date the provisions which were enacted in 1964; and to ensure that, if the amended figures proposed here need to be adjusted in future to take account of further changes in the value of money or property, this can be done more readily and conveniently by Statutory Instrument.
So on behalf of the Government I welcome this useful measure and commend it to your Lordships.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for the welcome that he has given to this Bill, and may I also thank the Government for the assistance with which they have provided me? Perhaps I should add that the Scottish Law Commission are taking a general look at the effect of the 1964 Act. That has now been in operation for eight years and it is wise and proper that they should do so, and we wait with interest to hear what comments they have to make.