§ The Lord AdvocateI beg to move, in page 73, line 15, at the end, to insert:
compulsory acquisition" does not include the vesting in a person by an Act of Parliament of property previously vested in some other person.The Amendment is consequential on the inclusion in Clause 6 of the new subsection (8). The reason for the Amendment is to make it clear that the vesting of property by Act of Parliament is not generally to be regarded as compulsory acquisition, because if that were not done, anybody purchasing such property from an authority in whom it had vested might be disqualified from claiming compensation under Part II of the Bill. We seek to insert these words merely to safeguard that position.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendment made: In page 73, line 23 [Clause 72], at end, insert:
previous apportionment" in relation to an apportionment for any of the purposes of this Act means an apportionment made before the apportionment in question, being—
Commander GalbraithI beg to move, in page 73, line 41, at the end, to insert:
means an amount ascertained in accordance with sections eighteen and nineteen, and 'original unexpended balance of established development value'.This is a drafting Amendment consequential upon the recommittal Amendment which dealt with the eight-sevenths. 1240 the interest supplement being included in the unexpended balance from the first.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The Lord AdvocateI beg to move, in page 73, line 44, after "include," to insert "marriage or."
The Amendment is designed to make it clear that transfers of land or claim holdings made as part of a marriage settlement are not to be treated as having been made for a valuable consideration. The effect is that such transfers in those circumstances would be treated as gifts and not as sales.
§ Mr. HoyI should like a little further explanation of this Amendment. It appears to me to be far too simple. This might be a valuable consideration. We know that when marriages take place among certain classes of people fathers get rid of their responsibilities by making disposals, even of land. I am thinking about many of our noble families. We have read about them from the pen of the right hon. Tom Johnston, who has explained all this very carefully to the people of Scotland. Is this another dodge under which people may get rid of some liability? It calls for some further explanation, and I am certain that the Lord Advocate, who is an expert on all these matters, will be delighted to give it to us.
§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Is it not a fact that marriage has up to the present always been regarded as "valuable consideration" and that, therefore, this Amendment is flying in the face of authority? Why should we wish to do that?
§ The Lord AdvocateI trust that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) did not intend to suggest that I was an expert in knowing dodges for avoiding liability; certainly the purpose of this Clause is far removed from any such object. Its purpose is to ensure that people who may assign property or claims in a marriage contract are not deprived of the rights which otherwise they would have had.
The expression "valuable consideration" occurs in Clause 9 (2) in relation to the assignation of claim holdings. An assignee—that is to say, the person to whom the right is assigned—who receives 1241 the claim holding as part of a marriage settlement would be ineligible to claim under Clause 9, and it would not be fair to put people into the position of being deprived of rights merely because they had assigned their rights to their prospective spouse. There is no sinister object behind this Amendment. It is merely an endeavour to say, so far as marriage settlements are concerned, that the fact that one prospective spouse assigns to the other a piece of property or a claim holding affected by the Bill is not to deprive them of the rights which otherwise they would have had.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ The Lord AdvocateI beg to move, in page 75, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(11) Any reference to an assignation in security shall be construed as including a reference to an ex facie absolute assignation qualified as a security by a collateral agreement.This Amendment ensures that what is known among lawyers in Scotland as an ex facie absolute assignation qualified as a security by a collateral agreement is to be included in the references in the Bill to assignations in security. That complicated collection of words is just another type of assignation in security whereby the assent is assigned completely—that is, ex facie absolute—and which is qualified at the same time by a collateral agreement. That is a normal method of conducting business under Scots law, and this Amendment is merely for the purpose of including that recognised type of assignation among the other assignations in security in Clause 10.
§ Mr. SteeleI do not possess the legal knowledge of the Lord Advocate and, while I regret that my legal adviser is not sitting on our Front Bench at the moment, I am hoping that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) will help me. I have been reading this Clause, and, much to my surprise, have been able to understand most of it. For instance, subsection (7) reads:
References in this Act to the local planning authority in relation to any land are references to the local planning authority for the district in which the land is situated.However, as the Clause proceeds my difficulties increase, and I find difficulty in understanding what is meant in sub-section (10) by 1242Any reference in this Act to the dominium utile in relation to land which is not held on feudal tenure shall be construed as a reference to the interest in the land of the owner thereof.This Amendment is entirely beyond me and the Lord Advocate was not able to make its meaning clear. I have moved many simple Amendments to this Bill in Committee and I was prevented from moving many other simple Amendments. We ought to understand the Amendments we make in a Bill, and, therefore, I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us how this new subsection would work. I am sure that by this time, with his quick imagination, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have thought of a simple example which he will be able to give us immediately.
§ Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)Withdraw the Bill.
§ Mr. RossIt is getting a little late for that.
During our discussion of an Amendment yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) was interrupted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, not in the best of tempers, who invited my hon. and learned Friend to speak in another language because he did not understand Latin. Yet a Latin phrase has been inserted in subsection (10) and it is proposed to insert another in a new subsection (11). I am satisfied that the Joint Under-Secretary has not come here without knowing its meaning, and, therefore, he should explain in layman's English or in "guid braid Scots" what this means to the satisfaction of all of us.
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Hector HughesI rise not for the purpose of attempting to explain this or any other Amendment but to protest against the whole Clause being quite contrary to what an interpretation Clause should be. An interpretation Clause is designed to enable those who are concerned with a statute to understand it and administer it. The people who will have to administer this Clause, unless they be lawyers, are not at all helped by an Amendment such as the one now proposed, which is couched in language of a highly technical character. Its meaning 1243 may be clear to lawyers, judges and advocates but it certainly will not be clear to those who have to administer the Bill when it becomes an Act. A fortiori, it will not be clear to the unfortunate people whose money and land are dealt with under the Bill.
On these grounds I submit that the House should reject the Amendment. An interpretation Clause should be not merely in name but, in fact, a Clause which will interpret various difficult words and phrases in a Bill. This Clause is the very reverse of that. The words and phrases dealt with in Clause 72 are purported to be explained, but they are not explained. Their meaning is made still more obscure and the administration of the Bill made still more difficult. On these grounds alone, I ask the Government to withdraw the interpretation Clause and to redraft it in words which those who will be concerned with its administration will understand.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerWe are dealing only with one Amendment and not with the whole Clause.
§ Mr. HughesI said Clause, but I meant Amendment and I was protesting against an Amendment being drafted in highly technical language which was obscure to the ordinary layman. My hon. Friends have already drawn attention to the fact that some of the words are in Latin. I do not cavil at that. Any educated person will understand words and phrases in Latin, but where such words are found in a Clause that purports to be an interpretation Clause designed to assist persons who are concerned with the administration of the Bill and its affect on their land and money, the Clause is far from being an interpretation Clause. Sir Charles—
§ Mr. HughesMr. Deputy-Speaker made a mistake in calling me by a name not my own yesterday, so I venture to hope that he will forgive me for having called him Sir Charles instead of Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy-SpeakerI apologised to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ Mr. HughesI apologise, too. I hope that I have made my meaning clear—that this Clause which purports to be an 1244 interpretation Clause is a Clause of opaque obscurity which will make the meaning of the Bill more difficult to understand if the Amendment is inserted. I hope, therefore, that it will be rejected.
§ Amendment agreed to.