FEU (Hansard, 22 June 1965)

§ Mr. Mackenzie

It seems appropriate on a day when we celebrate the English style of Parliament founded 700 years ago and the signing of the Magna Carta, which gives a measure of freedom to so many people, that this afternoon we might spend 1472 a little time discussing a proposal which would give a degree of freedom to many people in Scotland.

The payment of feu duty in Scotland is something which is not fully understood, but which is always resented by vassals in Scotland. The reasons for the payments have perhaps been lost during the centuries. They have little modern meaning and certainly little place in a society which sets itself up to be a dynamic and modernising society.

The whole system of feudal superiority in Scotland started very many centuries ago. It was once said by a Member of this House that perhaps we in Scotland were a little more progressive in so far as a great deal of the land was nationalised. The right of land in Scotland lay in the main with the Crown and centuries ago the Crown parcelled out land for services rendered by the nobility. There were a great many people who took up a good deal of Scotland's land at the time of the Reformation and this was confirmed at a later stage by the Crown. Thereafter, the feudal system came into being.

The feudal superiors paid homage to the Crown which, in turn, parcelled out land in the county or shires to those who would serve the Crown. These people were known as the vassals and to this day we still talk in Scotland of feudal superiors and vassals. It was part of the duty of the vassal to serve his lord in time of war or at other times to support him and it was part of the duty of a feudal superior w support the vassal at all times.

A distinguished Member of this House once said that if feudal superiors in Scotland in the present day were to take their responsibilities seriously they might be prepared to meet that part of the burden of armaments which should normally be paid by the people of Scotland. However facetiously that remark was made, it is still true that there is this obligation. In the fullness of time the obligation to serve the lord was translated into money terms and the vassal paid his feudal superior, a feu duty in perpetuity, and this is something which exists today.

I have a letter from a man in my constituency suggesting that he would be willing to serve in the private army of his 1473 feudal superior provided that he did not need to pay feu duty. I have had another letter from a man in Dundee who, like wise, offered to serve in the private army of his feudal superior. His superior is a distinguished member of the Opposition and he made the provision that he must only be called on to serve his feudal superior for military and not for political purposes.

It may seem strange to many hon. Members of the House, particularly those representing constituencies south of the Border, that in 1965 a Scottish Member of Parliament should be talking in this way of superiors and vassals and all that goes with it. This seems to point to the urgent necessity of reforming all the land laws in Scotland. We have had over the centuries a great many reports, but precious little action. In Scotland, I am but a humble vassal paying my feu duty to my feudal superior. It may not be that someone in my position is entitled to offer any comment on this subject at all.

I can assure the House that there are thousands of other vassals like me in Scotland who do not like paying their feu duty and a great many who do not understand why they pay it because, in the long term, they get nothing at all for it.

At present, in Scotland we have such distinguished lawyers as Professor Halliday, of the University of Glasgow, with a committee, looking at the whole question of conveyancing. We have had it considered by the Muir Society and two years ago the Scottish Law Agents Society remitted to its conveyancing committee the whole question whether or not feudal superiority and all that went with it should be abolished. These people have had a great deal of difficulty in reaching any conclusion and we appreciate this. The business of a landlord is one of the most complex we have in Scotland. It is a great problem and one which has seen the light of day more in the past few years than at any other time. There is genuine concern, and I think that this is because in the years between the wars feu duty was purely nominal. One paid 5s., 10s., 15s., or 20s., to the feudal superior every year.

However, two things have happened to change the picture. First, there was 1474 passed the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which considerably enhanced land values in Scotland and feu duties reflected the increased cost of land which had to be paid in Scotland. Secondly, feu duty has become almost big business. It is an investment. A feu can be bought and a feu can be sold. The feudal superior in Scotland is now more likely to be the chairman of a large insurance company or of a speculative building company than a nobleman, as was the case many years ago. These modern feudal superiors, these men of business, are well aware of the obligations which are contained in the feu charter, and they use the regulations in it to the very limit.

These two factors have, in my view, had a very serious effect on the Scottish way of life. We now refer to "the property-owning democracy". We want people to own their own homes. We should encourage the spread of home ownership in all classes of society. What is happening in Scotland is very simple. I builder buys land from the landowner, the feudal superior. He is also entitled, with the consent of the superior, to buy the feu. It may well be that the cost of a piece of land is£5,000 and that the annual feu duty is£100.

This is translated into a 20 or 30 years' purchase price. The total sum of land cost and of buying the feu is, invariably, passed on to the people who have bought houses on modern estates in Scotland. The builder then becomes a feudal superior and, instead of letting his land at the old nominal charge of 10s. or a couple of pounds, charges about£15,£20, or£25.

Like, I am sure, many of my colleagues, I have had letters about this matter. One man in Dumbarton wrote to me saying that his feu is eight guineas, whereas a similar house has a feu duty imposed on it of£25. This is happening in Ayrshire. In one part of the county there is a feu duty of£3 whereas a few yards away it is£40 which is the result of new building. In my constituency, people who were paying£2 or£3 per annum a few years ago in respect of a very small house are now being asked to pay£15,£20, or£25. Hon. Members will appreciate why this matter has seen the light of day and why people are concerned about feu duty.

1475 When I indicated my intention of asking leave to bring in the Bill, I received a very large number of letters from people in all parts of the country. One group of letters which struck me particularly came from employees of a firm in Bedford. This firm desired to move north of the Border, thus bringing employment to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but it did not understand the question of feu duty. It was calculated that, if the firm transferred to Scotland each employee would have to find another£24 before he could meet his obligation. What chance have we of encouraging people to come to Scotland if they are to be hindered in this way?

There is a second anomaly which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) some months ago, when he pointed out that the feudal superior still exercises his feudal rights in that with a block of houses in tenement form the feudal superior is entitled to select one of the 16 or 17 tenants as the collector of his feu duty. If he fails to collect it from the other tenants he is liable to pay the whole feu duty himself, and, further, if he fails to pay the whole feu duty, he can be taken to court on a charge of irritating the whole feu. The House will appreciate that in Scotland this is not regarded as being very democratic.

Another quite serious point concerns industrial development. Many industrialists who have wanted to expand their businesses have raised problems with me. I had a letter from a man who exports considerably to North America. This is encouraged by the town and by the Government. He is given town and country planning permission and he is given a grant by the Board of Trade, on the advice of the Board of Trade's Advisory Committee, and yet when he applies for an extension in the Dean of Guild Court he finds himself opposed by his feudal superior. The feudal superior does not want to stop the extension, but he wants this man to buy the feu at a suggested 50 years' purchase price—about£5,000. In other words, this is a form of blackmail in respect of something without which this man cannot extend his business.

1476 My third and last point concerns the problem of many local authorities in Scotland. They are engaged in slum clearance, and they would wish at all times to buy the feu. The money for this must be borrowed over a period of years and at quite considerable cost to the ratepayers.

Feu duty is something which we regard as an injustice and we do not think that it is acceptable in modern times. We think that there must be a system which is seen to be fair. I trust that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill and will facilitate its passage.