Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill

David Nuttall Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

I remind the House that I am a solicitor and notary public, although I no longer hold a practising certificate for either profession.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) on using this opportunity to introduce his Bill in such a selfless way. Few could have anticipated that debate on a Bill with as dry a title as Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill would have resulted in references to unprotected sex in the back of a motor vehicle; that will certainly enliven those who read Hansard, I am sure.

I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying, in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. All too often in recent months, Members on both sides of the House, including those on the Treasury Bench, have got those two terms muddled up, and have muddled them in the minds of the electorate. Historically, there has been a clear division in law between tax avoidance and tax evasion. If the Bill comes into use, by way of a disclaimer somebody might say, “That’s tax evasion, or avoidance,” but there is a big difference between the two terms, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire for making that clear.

Many Members, if they had come fifth in the private Members’ Bill ballot, would understandably be tempted to go down the road of popularism, and to use the opportunity to jump on whichever bandwagon happened to be passing. It says a great deal about the public-spiritedness of my right hon. Friend that rather than go down that path, he used the opportunity that he gained in the ballot to bring before the House this Bill, which, with the best will in the world, can be described only as a legal and technical measure. As I shall mention later, it has gone through what can only be described as a very long and tortuous period of gestation to be with us this morning. The Bill may be a technical measure, but it could affect many people in years to come. Many a family may well be profoundly grateful for the changes to the law of succession that the Bill seeks to introduce.

So what problem does the Bill seek to solve? Essentially, it would prevent grandchildren from being punished for the sins of their parents. In common law, it has long been the rule—often referred to as the forfeiture rule—that when someone unlawfully kills a person, they cannot benefit from the person’s estate. In short, they cannot inherit property from the deceased person whom they have murdered or otherwise unlawfully killed. Of course, even non-lawyers may be familiar with that common-law rule, as it has featured in many a murder mystery story over the years. Fans of Agatha Christie-type whodunnits may well have come across the rule as part of an interesting subplot to many a gripping yarn.

The forfeiture rule is an example of the general legal principle that a person should not be allowed to profit from his or her crime. That general common-law rule was, of course, enshrined in the Forfeiture Act 1982, which has been mentioned. I should like to clarify that the Act makes it clear that when someone is convicted of murder, the court has no discretion over whether to enforce the rule; it is only when a person is convicted of manslaughter that the court is given discretion over whether to apply the forfeiture rule in full.

As the House will be aware, a person who dies without making a will is said to have died intestate. When someone dies intestate and leaves no spouse surviving, but only a child, the law would, in the ordinary course of events, provide for that child to inherit the mother’s or father’s estate, but of course, in accordance with the rule to which I just referred, a problem arises if the son or daughter has unlawfully killed their parent.

That is more or less what happened in what is usually referred to as the leading case on the subject, which set in train the whole sequence of events that led to the Bill being brought before us this morning, and that is the case Re DWS (deceased), which was eventually quoted in the Court of Appeal in 2001. To understand the background to the Bill, I submit it is essential that the facts of that case, and the details of the judgment given, be examined, because it gives the best explanation of why the Bill is so essential.

In 1993, the son, whom I shall refer to as RS, murdered not one parent but both—Mr and Mrs S. Neither Mr nor Mrs S had made a will, and they were survived not only by their son, the murderer, but by his son—their grandson, T. T was a minor, and claimed in the court action the estates of his grandparents through his mother, who was acting, in legal terms, as his next friend, as he was of course too young to bring the action himself.

To understand the case fully, it is essential that we know what other surviving relatives there were. Mr S did not have either parent surviving him, but he did have his sister, Winifred. Sadly, by the time the case was heard, Winifred had died; she died in April 1995. The House will recall that the murder took place in 1993. Her estate was therefore represented by the persons who became the first, second and third defendants in the action. Mrs S was in a similar position; she did not have a surviving parent, but she did have a brother, Jack, and a sister, Gladys. However, although they both predeceased Mrs S, the sister, Gladys, had two children, who became the fourth and fifth defendants in the case.

The proceedings on behalf of T, the young grandson, were launched in 1995. T, through his mother, sought grants of administration covering the estates of both his grandparents, and he sought a declaration that he was entitled to those estates once he reached the age of 18. The grants of representation were made, and the only issue with which the judge—His Honour Mr Justice Blackburn, in the first instance—had to concern himself was the entitlement of T to the estates. It was accepted at the trial that the son, R, was disqualified from benefiting from his parents’ estate under the principle of public policy enunciated in a number of cases, the leading case being the 1892 case of Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association.

As Mr S died intestate, the devolution of his estate fell to be determined in accordance with the provisions of sections 46 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Section 46(1)(ii) states:

“If the estate leaves issue but no husband or wife the residuary estate of the intestate shall be held on the statutory trusts for the issue of the intestate”.

When Mr S died, he left issue in his son, RS, and his grandson, T. With RS ruled out because of the forfeiture rule, the question was whether the grandson could inherit. I cannot put it more succinctly than the trial judge, who said:

“The plaintiff’s entitlement arises, if at all, under the statutory trusts set out in section 47(1)(i).

Under the terms of that provision, however, the plaintiff, as the son a child of the intestate, can qualify only if he is within the definition of: ‘issue living at the death of the intestate who attain the age of eighteen years or marry under that age of the intestate who predeceases the intestate’.

On its face therefore, section 47(1)(i) requires:

(a) that as issue of a child of the intestate, the plaintiff should

(i) be living at the death of the intestate”—

which of course T was—

“(ii) attain the age of 18 or marry under that age”—

although that was not yet achieved, the grandson might have gone on to do so—

“(b) that his father, RS, being a child of the intestate, should have predeceased the intestate”—

which was not the case. The judge concluded:

“Literally applied, therefore, the plaintiff cannot satisfy the conditions laid down for him to take.”

The counsel instructed to represent T, Mr Barlow, submitted that the crucial section 47(1)(i) should be construed as though RS had predeceased his father. Not surprisingly, the judge rejected that submission:

“Persuasively though the argument was put, and sympathetic though I am to the plaintiff’s plight, I cannot accept Mr Barlow’s submissions. In my view the relevant authorities do not justify such an approach. If anything they assume that as happened of course, the offender must indeed be taken to have survived his victim.”

It was then necessary to determine whether Winifred’s executors—the House will recall that Winifred was the murdered man’s sister—should inherit. The difficulty was that, if her estate was to benefit, compliance with section 46(1)(v) was required. That provision requires the intestate to have died without husband or wife, or issue or parent. However, there was issue, because both the son, RS, and the grandson, T, had survived. There were two possibilities for the court to consider.

First, as the conditions set out in subsection(1)(v) had not been satisfied, Winifred’s estate could not take, in which case, the estate of Mr S would pass to the Crown as bona vacantia. In view of the current state of the public finances, some people in the Treasury may well think that there ought to be more cases in which the Treasury stands to benefit, but that was not a matter that the court took into account. Secondly, notwithstanding the non-satisfaction of the conditions required for the operation of that subsection, the next available class could nevertheless take, where a person from an earlier class, although in existence, is disabled from taking.

Although it appears from the situation that prompted those questions that Winifred’s estate was entitled, it was not one that, according to the research undertaken by counsel, had been the subject of a decision in any previous reported case. The question had arisen—and had been considered in the context of a disclaimer, rather than in the application of the forfeiture rule—in the case Re Scott (deceased) and Widdows v. friends of the Clergy Corporation in 1975. I do not propose to go into the facts this morning; suffice it to say that the decision in that case was that if one class of potential beneficiaries had disclaimed, and there were no members in subsequent classes, that did not prevent members of a class with a lower entitlement from inheriting.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend is dealing with two important cases, but does he agree that they illustrate that our intestacy provisions are defective, and that the Bill seeks to put that right? The intestacy rules are a default mechanism, designed to help people who did not make a will, by channelling their property to their nearest blood relatives. Those cases show that there is a defect in that mechanism that is enabling further, distant relatives to benefit in those narrow cases, which is something that the Bill seeks to put right.

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Reading in even more detail the transcripts of those judgments, it was clear to me that the judges, certainly at first instance and again in the Court of Appeal, struggled with that dilemma, because they knew that in cases of intestate succession the will of Parliament was that the closest issue to the deceased should inherit, whereas the operation of this rule meant that more distant relatives were taking. In the case Re DWS, they concluded reluctantly that, with the best will in the world, they could not override the wording of the 1925 Act.

The judge decided that the case provided a common-sense if not entirely logical answer to the problem arising from RS’s disqualification from benefit. The Treasury was not represented in that case and decided that it would not even appear, so I think that the judge was looking for a way to ensure that at least someone in the family benefited, which is why he seized on the case of Scott as a way out. He stated that, if necessary—and he did not think that it was—the same result could be achieved by implying that the words “capable of taking” were added after the words “no issue’” in section 46(1)(v). The inclusion of those words was another way around the problem.

When I read the details of all the cases, it seemed rather odd that the judge was prepared in effect to add the words “capable of taking” into an Act. However, when it came to the previous rule, there was no way round it. Had he not made that decision, and found a way to get round the forfeiture rule, perhaps we would not be here today and there would be no need for the Bill. As a result of that approach, the estate of Mr S did not pass to the Crown as bona vacantia, but to Winifred’s executors.

That, of course, all led on from a murder in 1993. The case began in 1995 and reached the Chancery Division at Newcastle-upon-Tyne in March 1999. The decision was appealed on behalf of the grandson and the case went to the Court of Appeal in November 2000. Three years later, in July 2003, the Department for Constitutional Affairs asked the Law Commission to review the relationship between the forfeiture rule and the law of succession. In particular, the terms of reference specified that the review should be carried out with reference to the difficulties highlighted in the case Re DWS (deceased).

[Mr Knight]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there was no suggestion at all in the case Re DWS that the grandchild had in any way aided and abetted the murder? He was an innocent potential beneficiary who lost out. Indeed, I believe that at the time of the murders the grandchild was only two years of age.

[Mr Nuttall]

I was not aware of the precise age of the grandchild, only that he was a young minor. I apologise: the preamble to the law report does state that RS had a two-year-old son, so it is fair to say that at that age he was entirely innocent. His mother, as I mentioned earlier, was acting on his behalf to ensure that he would not suffer as a result of the acts of his murderous father.

The Law Commission embarked on an investigation of the matter. It was asked to explore ways in which the law might be reformed to prevent the apparently unfair outcomes of the sort that occurred in that particular case. In October 2003, the Law Commission published a consultation paper entitled “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”. It was in July 2005—another two years having passed—that the commission published its report. We can see how the years passed—it was 10 years since the start of the case and 12 years since the original murder.

In the introduction to its report, the Law Commission stated:

“It is clearly right to exclude a murderer from inheriting, but it seems unfair to exclude the murderer’s children as well. This outcome appears arbitrary: it is not based on public policy, but it is a by-product of the way the intestacy legislation is drafted.”

The Law Commission’s recommendations in its report of July 2005 were, first, that there should be a statutory rule that when a person forfeits the right to inherit from an intestate through having killed that intestate, the rules of intestate succession as laid down in sections 46 and 47 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended, should be applied as though the killer had died immediately before the intestate.

The Law Commission recommended, secondly, that when a person forfeits a benefit under an intestacy through having killed the deceased, but as a result of the reforms, property devolves on or is held for a minor descendant of the killer, the court should have the power to order that the property be held by the Public Trustee, who should administer it so as to avoid benefit to the killer. Thirdly, when a person forfeits a benefit under a will through having killed the testator, the will should be applied as though the killer had died immediately before the testator unless the will contains a provision to the contrary.

The fourth recommendation was that where a person forfeits a benefit under a will through having killed the deceased, but as a result of the reforms property devolves on or is held for a minor descendant of the killer, the court should have power to order that the property be held by the Public Trustee, who should administer it so as to avoid benefit to the killer. Fifthly, when a person disclaims an inheritance either under a will or under the law of intestacy, the inheritance should devolve as if the person disclaiming had died immediately before the deceased. The sixth and final recommendation was that when a person loses a benefit under intestacy by dying unmarried and a minor but leaves children or remoter issue, the property should devolve as if that person had died immediately before the intestate.

The following year, in 2006, the then Labour Government accepted the Law Commission’s recommendations and included the provisions to implement them in part 3 of a draft civil law reform Bill which they put out for consultation in December 2009. Seven of the eight respondents to part 3 of the consultation on the Bill supported the reforms and agreed that the new law would be fairer and simpler to operate.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I have been listening with rapt attention to this modern-day “Bleak House”, although I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the prose is not quite as eloquent as that of Charles Dickens. Given that the Bill proposes a remedy to the particular difficulties that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted in the cases that he has placed before us, is he not prepared to accept the Bill and allow it fair passage through to its Report stage?

[Mr Nuttall]

I certainly wish the Bill well. I am about to express my concern at how long it has been held up in the legislative process. The report from the Justice Committee referred to that.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am loth to disagree with the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who always makes fine points, but on this occasion may I encourage my hon. Friend to give us a full explanation so that we can thoroughly understand why the Bill is necessary? Legislation is a big and weighty matter and should be brought in only for major issues where there is real concern. We need to understand that, and I am grateful for the fullness of my hon. Friend’s explanation, which I hope will be even fuller.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Bill would not be before the House had it not been for the original case. It raises the question how many other cases in solicitors’ offices throughout the land have been determined on the back of that Court of Appeal case without ever going to court because the solicitors would say, “We know what the law is because of the Court of Appeal ruling in that case.” Many cases may have been dealt with in that way.

It has now been 18 years since the murder, and 10 years since the judgment, which raises the question of how fast we have progressed with the matter.

[Mr Knight]

As far as I can ascertain, having looked at the figures, the Bill will affect about 200 cases a year.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful information. If we extrapolate from that, disregarding the fact that the legal proceedings took six years from their launch to their conclusion, we can calculate that in the past 10 years around 2,000 cases have been affected by the delay in bringing the matter to fruition.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) referred to the evidence that Professor Beale gave to the Justice Committee when it prepared its sixth report, which was part of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure for the draft Civil Law Reform Bill. Professor Beale had indicated the difficulties in implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations. With regard to limitation periods, one problem was that the delay had been so long that new cases had come along in the meantime and changed the legal position.

The Secretary of State for Justice at the time, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), had accepted that there had been delays in implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations. He said that the draft Civil Law Reform Bill had “been in process” since he had been at the Ministry of Justice. He said:

“One of the difficulties… is that this is an important measure but there have always been other… demands on the legislative programme in the past which have meant that it has been squeezed out, because it is worthy—I actually think very important in terms of what it is doing—but it has not been seen as such a high priority.”

I am sure that those affected by that in the 2,000 cases would think that it is an extremely high priority. He continued:

“That is the honest trust about it… There has also been an extensive period of consultation.”

Well, he is certainly right there. He continued:

“The original proposals, for example, in respect of damages following fatal accidents, which were in the Law Commission proposals, have themselves been refined since then. But if you are saying: ‘Does that take 11 years?’, the answer to that is no.”

There are clearly problems with the procedures. If the case highlights anything—it is perhaps something that the House should look at—it is how the recommendations of the Law Commission are put into legislation. The Minister might have something to say on that later.

The Justice Committee did much pre-legislative scrutiny on that draft Bill and produced an excellent report on it, so it is interesting that the coalition Government have now announced that they do not intend to proceed with it. Were it not for the good fortune of the decision by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire to adopt the Bill after his name was drawn in the ballot, I wonder how long the work of the Law Commission and the subsequent legislative scrutiny of the Justice Committee would have languished in the parliamentary waiting room.

If the Bill passes into law, the position would be clarified by virtue of the inclusion of proposed new section 46A, which provides that where a person is entitled to inherit on an intestacy but has either disclaimed their right or is precluded from inheriting by the forfeiture rule, that person is to be treated as having died immediately before the intestate. Clause 2 makes a similar provision to cover cases in which a person dies having left a will and a beneficiary under that will either disclaims or is precluded from inheriting by virtue of the forfeiture rule. Clause 3 provides that in the tragic case of a single parent under the age of 18 dying intestate and leaving a child or children surviving, the estate of the intestate—

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Would my hon. Friend explain a little more about the circumstances under which a testator could leave provision that would not be affected by the Bill? I have been unable to work out how a person who is murdered could have expected and anticipated that in their will. Would he elaborate on that point?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the problems is that the affairs of a person who is murdered are left hanging in mid air. If they have not made a will, their affairs might be left to the vagaries of the intestacy laws. If they have made a will and have been murdered by their son, law might provide for the estate to pass to that son anyway.

[Mr Knight]

My hon. Friend, like me, is a lawyer, so I hesitate to suggest this to him, but is not the answer to that question that any good will has a default position? If a testator gives to a son a share of the estate, which might be a 100% share, and that son then murders the testator, thus becoming prohibited from inheriting under the forfeiture rule, a good will would state that in the event that a son does not inherit, the estate should go to person A, B, C or whoever. Does my hon. Friend agree that a well-drafted will should cover that eventually? In my view, a will that does not do that and merely gives money to one person, without stating what will happen if that person cannot inherit, is an appallingly drafted will.

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) has taken that comment on board. It was exactly the point I was about to make. I would add that I am sure that professionally drawn wills would, in the vast majority of cases, make further provision for substitution. As I know from experience, many wills are made at home—home-made wills—in which case people might not be so careful or think that it is even necessary to think beyond their nearest and dearest. They simply write their will at home, with two witnesses, and leave it at that. In such circumstances, if that person had an only child and that child murdered the testator, there would of course be nothing that the testator could do about it. However, if the person dies within a year of the act, it can still be classed as murder. The person might linger and still have appropriate testamentary mental capacity to make another will and change it. I could imagine those circumstances arising, although I accept that they would do so rarely.

Clause 3 provides that in the tragic case whereby a single parent under 18 years old dies leaving a child or children surviving, the estate of the intestate is distributed as if the single parent had died immediately before the intestate. That point was covered adequately in the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.

My right hon. Friend thinks that the issue will affect 200 estates a year, but in future many thousands of estates will benefit from the proposals in the Bill. One thing is certain: many families will be for ever grateful that this measure was brought before Parliament. I certainly wish it well, I am pleased to see that Members on both sides of the House support it, and I trust that it will have the support of the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I think that, in fact, my right hon. Friend was a little more successful: he was drawn fifth.

[Mr Djanogly]

I am very grateful for being put right on that point, so fifth place it was. My right hon. Friend could no doubt have chosen any one of numerous topics from his own extensive experience without consulting anyone, and I am sure that it would have been a topic well worth debating and, perhaps, legislating on. Instead, however, he decided to consult the Law Commission and ask whether any of its recommendations, as he said earlier, were suitable for a private Member’s Bill and unimplemented. Those discussions led him to the commission’s draft law reform (succession) Bill, which was published in the Commission’s 2005 report, “The Forfeiture Rule and the Law of Succession”.

The provisions of that draft Bill had, by the time my right hon. Friend was considering what to do with his place in the ballot, been published with minor modifications as part 3 of the draft Civil Law Reform Bill. Those provisions, which my right hon. Friend adjusted in the light of the response to the distribution of estates provision in the draft Civil Law Reform Bill, form the basis of the Bill that we are debating today.

As the Minister responsible for the general law of succession in England and Wales, and as a Minister in the Department that sponsors the Law Commission, I am doubly pleased to be able to announce the Government’s support for this Bill on the law of succession; and I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) that the Opposition support the Government’s position in that context.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked why the commencement date is not three months after Royal Assent, and the simple answer is that that is to allow the professionals and others to prepare for commencement: there will be wills to be re-looked at and so forth. Before considering the substance of the Bill, I should like to record the Government’s thanks to the Law Commission for its work on the forfeiture rule and the law of succession.

Law Commission Bills are by their nature likely, legally speaking, to be very technical, and this Bill is no exception. There is more to a law reform Bill than technical accomplishment, however; we have to be sure that it delivers the desired policy outcome effectively and efficiently. In that respect, the Bill has the additional advantage of having already in effect been carefully scrutinised by the Justice Committee. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has paid careful attention to the Committee’s conclusions, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who as Chairman of the Justice Committee considered the draft Civil Law Reform Bill and, I am delighted to say, has returned to that role in the current Session. I am also grateful to the other hon. Members who served on that Committee with him when they scrutinised the draft Civil Law Reform Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North asked in different ways about the Law Commission’s wider Bill and the Government’s attitude to the commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the law is modern, simple and accessible, and we hold the commission’s work in high regard. I am confident that the measures flowing from the Law Commission Act 2009, both the protocol and the duty to report annually to Parliament, along with the new House of Lords procedure for Law Commission Bills, will help to improve the implementation rate of commission proposals. A higher rate of implementation will help to ensure more effective and accessible law, delivering better value for money as valuable Law Commission work is put to good use.

Five reports have been implemented or received Royal Assent over the past year: those on the rules against perpetuities and excessive accumulations, third parties’ rights against insurers, trustee exemption clauses, on reforming bribery and parts of its murder, manslaughter and infanticide reports.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also asked what we are doing about the wider Civil Law Reform Bill issues. Decisions not to take forward the Law Commission’s excellent work are always difficult, and they are not taken lightly. It is a difficult time at the moment, and the Government have to be realistic about what they can achieve when there are other pressing priorities and a reduction in resources.

A great deal of the Law Commission’s work requires primary legislation to implement it, and it is very difficult at present to secure parliamentary time for legislation that is not a high priority or that does not deliver significant financial savings. Deciding not to take forward the proposal in the Law Commission’s reports on damages, personal injury, medical, nursing and other expenses, claims for wrongful death and pre-judgment interest on debts and damages, was not easy. However, in the current financial climate we need to focus our resources on delivering key priorities.

Having said that, I think that the new protocol on best practice between the Government and the Law Commission, agreed in March last year, should help. The protocol aims to ensure that the Law Commission takes forward only projects to which Departments are fully committed; that there is a close working relationship during the project; that the Law Commission produces impact assessments looking at the costs and benefits of proposals; and that Departments respond quickly once the Law Commission reports.

The Law Commission will soon be putting forward proposals for its 11th programme of work. That will be the first programme agreed in the light of the new protocol, and I am confident that it will assist in reducing delays both in responding to the Law Commission when proposals are accepted and in implementing them.

However, neither the Law Commission nor the Justice Committee could function as effectively as they do without the support of those who respond to consultations and calls for evidence. The experts who give freely of their time and experience are perhaps the unsung heroes of law reform work. It is invidious to single out organisations or individuals, but I note that the Law Society and the Bar Council replied not only to the Law Commission’s 2003 consultation and the Ministry of Justice’s 2009 consultation, but gave evidence to the Justice Committee in 2010.

I would like to thank all those who have replied to the Law Commission, the Committee and my own Department over the years. Unsurprisingly, the Bill does not reflect all their views, but I can assure them that their comments were all carefully considered and taken into account. I am confident that this Bill would command the support of the overwhelming majority of them.

I will now explain why the Government are supporting this Bill. Obviously, we are pleased that the Bill represents a return on the investment of public money in the Law Commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the law is modern, simple and accessible. Usually, and properly, it is the Government who introduce Law Commission Bills; there is, however, no reason at all why the introduction of Law Commission Bills should be the preserve of the Government alone. Indeed, I would encourage hon. Members who in future years find themselves well placed in the ballot for private Members’ Bills to consider whether they might imitate the example of my right hon. Friend and discuss with the Law Commission whether any of its Bills might be suitable for debate. My right hon. Friend has set a very good example, and I thank him for that.

However, more fundamentally, the Government support this Bill because it will make the law fairer. To understand what is wrong with the law, it is necessary to go back to 1994 when a certain individual was convicted of the murder of both his parents; various hon. Members have referred to the incident. He was described in the press as an “evil conman” and

“a grasping son who repaid his parents’ lifelong devotion by bludgeoning them to death”.

He duly received two life sentences, but it is not the monstrosity of his crimes that underlie the Bill before us today—rather, it is what happened to his parents’ property, which was apparently worth more than £1 million and highlighted the problem with the law.

Apparently, the killer’s parents had made it clear to their son that they would not provide for him on their deaths; they would provide only for his young son, their grandchild. To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, if only they had made clear wills in favour of the grandchild, their apparent wish to support him would have been accomplished. However, no wills were found and their property was distributed according to the statutory intestacy rules.