asked the Minister for Justice if he proposes to introduce legislation to amend section 113 of the Succession Act, 1965, to provide that a renunciation of the legal right thereby provided may be revoked at a later date.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Succession Act.
39.
The answer is "No". Provision for renunciation was made in section 113 of the Succession Act, 1965, in order to inform testators and their spouses of one of the courses of action open to them if they wished to make a family arrangement that would not be affected by the new law of succession. The renunciation of a legal right is, of its very nature, an irrevocable step. To provide for revival of a legal right which has been renounced would defeat the whole purpose of Part IX of the Succession Act and would mean that married testators could never settle their affairs with any degree of finality. Of course, if a renunciation has been obtained by fraud, undue influence or duress, it can be set aside in the same way as any other agreement. It should be unnecessary for me to stress that a person should renounce his or her legal right, or indeed any other succession right, only after the most careful consideration and on the best available advice.
Would the Minister consider the situation in which, after a renunciation is made, the spouse might acquire a considerable amount of property far in excess of all possible estimation at the time the renunciation was made? The circumstances could so change that the renunciation would have never been made if the subsequent circumstances were known. In such circumstances, it is a clear negation——
The Deputy may not make a speech.
Would the Minister agree that in such circumstances it is a clear negation of fundamental rights to deny such a person the right to amend his original deed?
No. It has been well accepted law in regard to the transfer of property and right to property that once the transfer has been effected, it is final unless for some stated reason, such as fraud or undue influence. There is no basic change in the law at all.
The renunciation is basically a question of governing property or the movement of property after death. Therefore, it is more equivalent to will-making than a deed passing property during lifetime. That is the essence of giving freedom in relation to liberty of renunciation in law. I think the Minister will agree with that: it is to allow people to make a decision governing the movement of property after death.
The Deputy and Members of his Party spent a long time in this House and in the other House opposing the idea of having legal rights at all. He now comes along, having argued that the renunciation was right, and complains that decision is now working against legal rights. This is in ease of the provision we introduced in the Succession Act and it was generally welcomed by all Parties. The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
I am not trying to have it both ways. Will the Minister take another look at the situation which arises if the family circumstances or the circumstances of any one spouse change dramatically from the time the renunciation was first made?
The Deputy is well aware——
——that the Minister made a bags of the whole Succession Bill and that it is going from bad to worse.
I refute that absolutely.
(Interruptions.)
And his predecessor made a bigger bags of it.