HC Deb 25 March 1927 vol 204 cc823-32

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SKELTON

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

I cannot offer the House so interesting or attractive a Debate as we have had on the last Bill but I can promise to be extremely brief because, although there are many Clauses, the main objects of the Bill are extremely simple. Further than that, it is a Bill not of my own construction but a Bill approved, after careful discussion, by a Committee of the more important legal bodies in Scotland. The object of the Bill is to bring up to date the Scottish legal system, particularly in connection with land where in some of its details it has grown out of date through its age. Several Bills proposed by this legal Committee have been passed into law, and this is the last of them. As all Scottish Members are aware, and as all who are interested in land tenure are aware, one of the main systems of tenure in land in Scotland is the system of feu, whereby the owner of a piece of land grants a feu charter to the person desiring to acquire the land, the result of which is that the holder of the feu charter becomes the owner of the land, subject to the payment of a perpetual annual price, called a feu duty. The main object of the Bill is to enable the feuar or holder of the ground to redeem the feu duty by means of the payment of a capital sum of money and thereafter to relieve himself of the necessity of the annual payment to the person from whom he has obtained it.

The secondary object of the Bill is to deal with long leases. There are in Scotland a few long leases; some are of the great length of 999 years but the others are of the more familiar length of 99 years. The second part of the Bill deals with them and proposes that it shall be possible, at the initiation of the lessee, to convert these long leases first of all into a feu and then redeem them as with other feus. That, however, is a comparatively unimportant part of the Bill, the main object, as I have said, being the redemption of feu duties and the relieving of the feuars from the burden of these annual payments. The Bill contains a large number of Clauses and the subject is highly elaborate and technical, because in dealing with land tenure an elaborate system has grown up. The proper consideration of these Clauses will really be in the Scottish Grand Committee if I am fortunate to get a Second Reading for the Bill. I do not think it is necessary to go through the Bill Clause by Clause, but I would point out that the ancient system of Scottish land tenure, namely, the feudal system, has during the last 12 or 14 years been in the process of being rapidly brought up to date. In the year 1914, the feudal casualties which used to be paid by the vassal to the superior were swept away, to the great advantage of all, whether they gave or got the feus. Similarly, I hope to be able in this. Bill to go a further step in the simplification of the land system which, although it has been simplified and it is working well in its main lines, has still connected with it some ancient characteristics which could very well be dispensed with.

Sir ALEXANDER SPROT

I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion. This Bill will effect an improvement in the life of Scotland as far as the holding of land for building purposes is concerned. The hon. Member who has moved the Second Reading has put before us very clearly the objects of the Bill, and I trust it will be considered non-contentious, and that even at thi3 late hour we may be able to have a Second Reading to-day. The feuing system in Scotland covers by far the largest part of the tenure of land for building purposes; and it is a very good system. It is a much better system than that which is so well known in England, and especially in London— namely, the 99 years' lease system, which gives rise to a great deal of discontent and many grievances. The present Government propose to reform that system. We do not know the terms of the Bill to be introduced, but we do know that the Government propose to reform it. The Scottish feuing system is far superior to it because, under the Scottish system, a person desiring to build a house obtains from the owner or superior of the land a feu charter, under which he has to pay a certain sum each year and he becomes the owner of the site of his house in perpetuity. When one attempts to explain the system to English people and has put the whole matter as clearly as possible, the interlocutory one is sometimes faced with is, "When does the land go back to the landlord"? They do not seem to understand that under the feuing system it never goes back so long as the feu duty is paid, the house and land remains the property of the person who built the house.

We have removed all feudal casualties, or they are in process of being removed, which were a source of great complaint. These are in course of being extinguished altogether, and this Bill is another step forward and allows any person who wishes to avoid the inconvenience of having to pay his feu duties every year to offer to the superior an annuity in Consols which would bring in to him the same income. Nothing could be fairer or more equitable than that. The feu duties are regularly paid. They are a very favourable form of investment in Scotland because they pass from hand to hand, and have done for centuries, and are not the property of the original superior who granted the feu charter. They are frequently sold, and they are held largely by churches and hospitals and other benevolent institutions as well as by private individuals. I submit that this Bill is really a non-contentious one, and will be greatly to the advantage of all concerned in Scotland if it was passed. In regard to Part II, which refers to long leases, we have not many cases in Scotland of long leases. The number is not anything like so great as in England, and not nearly so great as the number of cases of land held under the feuing system; but they do exist here and there. This Bill proposes to give the tenant under the circumstances the opportunity of converting his long lease into a feu. By paying a certain amount more per annum that he is paying under the long lease, he would obtain a feu charter which would give him possession for all time coming. That I consider to be a step in the right direction, because our object ought always to be, with regard to the holding of land, to encourage those who are the owners of their own houses and to remove all grievances and causes of friction which may exist. That is the object, so far as I understand it, of this Bill, which has been already explained by my hon. Friend, and I beg to Second the Motion for Second Reading.

Mr. MAXTON

It is somewhat difficult to pass from the atmosphere of wild birds to that of feu duties and long leases in Scotland. I do not know much about this Bill and its purposes, and I gather from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder that they do not know very much about it either. The Seconder said so.

Sir A. SPROT

I do not think I did. I do know. I have some practical knowledge.

Mr. MAXTON

Almost your closing sentence was "So far as I understand it."

Sir A. SPROT

I may have used that form of speech, but I do not admit that. I know nothing about the subject.

Mr. MAXTON

I am not suggesting that. I understand that you have a modicum of knowledge about it, as I have, and as everybody in Scotland has. You know about the receiving of feu duties and I know about the paying of them. One cannot live in Scotland without knowing. But if the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) is right in saying that this Bill is making a very important change in the Land Law of Scotland, which he told us has come down to us from Roman times—that is about two thousand years, is it not, Mr. Speaker? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought you could have aided me, but I see that you are in the same difficulty as myself. Let us say that it is two thousand years. If the land system has come down from that time, it seems just a trifle impertinent to come forward at 20 minutes to four o'clock on a Friday afternoon and to wipe out by a Private Member's Bill the old standing law of Scotland that was imported from Rome in the days before Rome was governed as it is just now. I do not want to go through the Bill clause by clause, but it seems to me that the main purpose of this Bill is to anticipate possible evolutionary changes in land holding in Scotland, that instead of having an annual right to a feu duty, instead of having the right to draw a feu duty for 999 years, paid in half-yearly sums, the landlord expects under this Bill to get a corresponding value, a capital sum, in Consols, deposited at his bank so that in the event—

Sir A. SPROT

The hon. Member has appealed to me and so I answer him. Only on the application and at the request of the feuar voluntarily.

Mr. MAXTON

I know that a very large proportion of the feuars in Scotland may be inclined to drop into this trap. The landowner, instead of a hypothetical feu rent, instead of this half-yearly feu duty, would have deposited in his bank £2,000 worth of Consols, which he in his folly believes to be a much more secure form of profit than the possible payment of feu duties. That seems to be the great advantage of this Bill, that you substitute what is regarded as a more portable form of property, believing that it can be carried away in the event of anything serious happening or of any Government coming into power which might propose to alter the position of influence and power which the landowner has held in Scotland up to now. This is an attempt to make provision against future contingencies. It seems to be too important to be brought before this House when there are only eight Scottish Members present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten!"] Let us be quite accurate. I apologise. There are 11 altogether, or about one-sixth of the total representation of Scotland, and we are asked to give a Second Heading to a Bill which contains three Parts, 28 Clauses, 22 pages, and Schedules A, B, C, E, F, —and F has two Sections in it—G, H, and I. Is not that, Mr. Speaker, in your judgment a piece of great effrontery on the part of the hon and learned Member who has introduced it? Last week, at this time, a very important Bill was brought in in the same way and we had just the same length of time to dispose of it, namely the Scottish Midwives and Maternity Bill, affecting public health and infantile mortality in Scotland. In response to an appeal to my better nature —which I agree is not an important part of my composition—I agreed to let that Bill go through. But surely it is too much, to work one's better nature overtime on two successive Fridays and to allow a Measure like this an opportunity of getting on to the Statute Book.

If the Bill passes this afternoon and goes to the Scottish Grand Committee it will be carried there, because the Government have taken care to put a majority of English Members on the Scottish Committee. Their one interest is that the discussion on any Bill should not last more than a single forenoon. That is the only interest of the English Member in a Scottish Bill. He does not want to be brought in on three forenoons in the week. So, this Bill will be disposed of in one forenoon and when it comes here again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury will find five minutes for it some night after 11 o'clock for Report and Third Reading. Poor old Scotland is thus saddled with more legislation. The fact that it is introduced by a member of the senior branch of the legal profession in Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, makes me pause. That is a body for whose Members I have a high regard, as far as their learning and intelligence are concerned, but I am suspicious of their motives in so far as new legislation is concerned. This Bill is introduced by a distinguished member of the Scottish Bar. But the more distinguished they are, the more reason you have to keep your eye on them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who supported the Bill adds to great distinction in military circles the functions of a considerable landlord in the West of Scotland.

Sir A. SPROT

And also of a Member for the county in which he is a landowner, and previously the Member for another county in which he is a landowner.

Mr. MAXTON

And representing here about 3,000 people who are not landlords. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that every interruption will be gratefully received. I would call the attention of the House to the arrangement of the Clauses on the front page of the Bill:

  1. "1. Feu duties to be redeemable.
  2. 2. Notice of redemption of feu duty.
  3. 3. Method of redemption of feu duties.
  4. 4. Over feu duty to be redeemable.
  5. 5. Discharge of right to feu duty.
  6. 6. Purchase of feu duty by person other than proprietor.
  7. 7. Purchase of feu duty by proprietor of part of the feu.
  8. 8. Conditions in feu charter still enforce-able.
  9. 9. Feu duty purchased may be redeemed.
  10. 10. Provisions applicable to case of increasing and diminishing feu duty.
  11. 11. Act to apply notwithstanding declarations to the contrary."
That is absolutely the best one. Act to apply notwithstanding declarations to the contrary. Clause 12 says something about prohibition, and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Scrymgeour) is not here. Its title is: Prohibition of sub-infeudation annulled in certain cases. Clause 13 has for its heading Conditions in feus as to pre-emption annulled. Clause 14 is the most valuable one of the whole lot. It gives Definitions for Part I. I am perfectly certain every Member of the House, after having heard the first 13 Clauses will agree that definitions are very urgently required. We come to Part II which deals with "Long Leases." There is a difference between a long lease and a feu. The hon. and gallant Member for North Lanark and I understand it quite clearly. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"] Is it fair to ask me, with such a short time at my disposal, to go into the methods of feus in Scotland to satisfy the curiosity of an hon. Member from the North of Ireland? Perhaps after adequate explanation, I may accept some of these Clauses, but I am not going to accept any Clause 1 do not understand. We come to Clause 16 Conversion of leases where not less than 200 years is unexpired into feus. As I said in my opening remarks, Scottish landlordism extends from the time of Julius Caesar. I remember now that the date, which you, Mr. Speaker, did not know, of Julius Caesar's occupation, was 55 B.C. Mr. Speaker nods his head in assent. The year 19S2 is 18 years short of the 2,000. Why should we not just wait, and then have a great year of jubilee, as was laid down in the times, of the Old Testament, earlier than those of Julius Caesar? The authorities are divided as to the exact length of time of the historical period dealt with in the Old Testament as compared with the Roman period, but 2,000 years from the establishment of the Scottish land owning system we can keep as a great year of jubilee and have the land returned to all the people. If that were done, there would only need be a simple one-Clause, two-line Bill, and no need for this great clumsy 22-page, 28-Clause Bill, with Schedules A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I. A Bill like this is introduced on a Friday afternoon under the guise of a private Member's Bill after the House is exhausted, discussing in very great detail and with very considerable heat the question of the protection of wild birds. We are asked to leave the wild birds and come back to feu duties, long leases, and sundry propositions of that description. If I had no other objection to the Bill, I would base the most profound objection to it on a Clause I have just seen for the first time. Sub-section (3) of Clause 1 says: The Sheriff shall, on the application of any party interested, determine the annual money value of any feu duty. It was only on Wednesday last that we were discussing the conditions of sheriff clerks and procurators fiscal, the employes of the sheriff. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were not prepared to grant decent retiring allowances to these officials, and it was proved beyond dispute that the sheriffs had kept them doing the most important part of their work on very mean salaries indeed. Now we are asked that these same sheriffs, these same fellows who have exploited their clerks shall, on the application of any party interested"— Who can say who is an interested party? It might be just some impertinent busy body, not necessarily in Scotland, but possibly in Lancashire or even in this House. These sheriffs who cannot fix decent wages for their clerks shall determine the annual money value of any feu duty. That is too big a power to put into the hands of a man who has not shown himself too capable of using the power which he already possesses, and on that ground alone I would be prepared to do my best to see that this Bill does not get a Second Beading. I would have liked if there had been time to have heard the views of the Lord Advocate on this matter. I hope that I am not doing him a service in adopting the attitude that I am taking towards this Bill. Private Members seem to have so lost their sense of independence or their sense of the importance of the position Which they hold in this House that practically every Friday in this Session some private Member instead of using his place in the ballot to bring forward some Measure in which he is keenly and strongly interested barters his birth-right for a kindly nod from his party leader, and, if he sits on that side of the House, he brings in a Measure that really is a Government Measure, a Measure that has been drafted by some official in some Government Department. He brings in this Measure on a Friday afternoon when a lot of Members have gone off home and when the rest of us are bored stiff and are anxious to get finished. Thus an important piece of legislation may slip through its Second Reading, and everybody knows that that is the crucial test that a Bill has to go through. I for one am not going to be a party to helping the Government, if I may use the word without offence, to "sneak" through legislation which they are perfectly certain they could not get if they brought it forward in an honest, straightforward manner. This Government, with a very small legislative programme in front of them, could very easily put on their programme—

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday neat.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Four o'Clock until Monday next (28th March).