FEUDUTIES, MULTURES AND LONG LEASES (SCOTLAND) (Hansard, 24 January 1968)

§ Mr. James Davidson (Aberdeenshire, West)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to invalidate any future feu charters or multures; to enable superiors, vassals, etc., to require the redemption of existing feu duties, etc., and to require local authorities to provide loans in certain circumstances for this purpose; to authorise compensation on termination of long leases; to modify or alter feudal and similar conditions; to enable allocation of feu duty to be required; and for purposes connected therewith. In asking the leave of the House to bring in the Bill, I remind hon. Members that this is the second occasion within a year that I have sought their leave to do so. Today, I do not intend to go into any great detail about the precise form and purpose of my Bill. With one or two minor modifications, it will be the same as that which was printed on 13th June, 1967. Its purpose is self-evident from its title—the elimination of the feudal system, which is an anomaly in a modern society in the 20th century, and one of the main obstacles to development in Scotland.
As long ago as 1789, in France the National Assembly sought to destroy the feudal régime in its entirety. It was declared that men were born free and equal in rights and remained free and equal in rights and that the State existed to preserve the citizens' enjoyment of his rights. Yet in Scotland in 1968 we still have a feudal system which allows feudal superiority to be bought and sold over the heads of the vassals or proprietors of the land, and along with the purchase of the right to collect feu duties often goes the right to control or obstruct development regardless of any decision which may have been made by the planning authority.
It frequently happens, for example, that feudal rights over the land are sold to English-controlled companies which then have planning authority over land in Scotland. It is common to see newspaper advertisements for feu duties for sale or on behalf of clients wishing to purchase feu duties as a form of investment. Seldom is the vassal or proprietor, the individual who pays the feu duty, 410 given the opportunity to redeem the feu before it is sold, and——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is very difficult to address the House against a background of conversation.

§ Mr. Davidson
It has sometimes been said that the feu duty system is something peculiar to Scotland and, therefore, a matter for pride. I should like to quote from a letter published in the Scotsman of 10th March, 1967, which said: It is good to see Mr. James Davidson, M.P., campaigning against the feudal system. Not only are its evils obvious, but it was never immemorial, natural or universal. It is a weed which, in the opinion of some historians, grew up in the chaos of the breakup of the Roman Empire. The old Germans as described by Tacitus had no feudal system. It never took root in Norway, which today cherishes its ancient odel system…under which the owner of odel property had no superior over him, not even the King… The Norwegians are thus pre-eminently, and have long been, a real property-owning democracy, and we should not allow ourselves to lag behind in that respect. It is also of interest to note that David I's feudalising drive in Scotland is said to have met with strong though unsuccessful Celtic resistance. It was on 4th August, 1789, that feudalism was finally abolished in France. Feudal dues and services at that time were made redeemable by purchase. All personal services, as distinct from dues on peasant properties, were abolished without compensation. What is more, no manorial dues had to be redeemed unless the landlord could show an original title to the land. How many of our feudal superiors today could show such a title?
I should like to quote from a modern feu charter presented and recorded as recently as February, 1967: …the said piece of ground and others hereby disposed of and under me, the said A, and my heirs and successors…as immediate lawful Superiors of the same, in feu form and heritage, for ever for payment to the Superior by the said B and his foresaids…of the sum of £8 sterling yearly…". The feu charter goes on to say exactly what kind of house must be erected upon the land and says that the superior must approve the plans, elevations, specifications and materials, how the property should be fenced, how sanitation should be provided and, at the end of a whole 411 list of restrictions, to state that the feuar cannot sell or dispose of the piece of ground until he shall have first made a written offer to sell the same to the Superior at the like rate or price that may be offered by any other person". The feuar is finally wrapped up and tied down by the condition that if any restriction is broken, the land reverts to the superior. There is no mention of the superior being obliged to refund to the feuar the price paid for the land. We may well wonder whether the land really has been bought, but in legal terms the purchaser has become the proprietor. In practice, this allows the superior to hold down the value of the property by means of his private planning authority and simultaneously to retain the right to buy it back by his right of pre-emption.
Unfortunately, under the Ten Minute Rule there is no time to quote many of the letters which I have received from all over Scotland, but I should like to quote from a few in the short time at my disposal. The first comes from Glasgow and says: The feu duty on our 3 apartment 'Wimpey' semi-detached bungalow is fairly high (£12 per annum) but what goes against the grain is that this is paid to Woranes Investments Ltd., of 31 Hammersmith Grove, London, the local landowners, Keir & Cawder, apparently having sold the land to them. Another comes from Edinburgh and encloses a cutting from a newspaper. The cutting says: Lord Bruce, the 42-year-old heir of the Elgins, is using his right of pre-emption to buy houses, shops and hotels in the Forthside village of Limekilns on his estate. And families wanting to live in the picturesque village are objecting. Any offer they make for a house has only to be equalled by Lord Bruce—and he automatically becomes the owner. He uses his right of pre-emption to out-buy others. Already Lord Bruce owns two hotels, a sub-post office, general store and many houses on his estate of Broomhall. For generations, the house owners have paid feu duty in kind. The next letter comes from Sutherland and says: This feudal crime not only lingers, it flourishes. Hence all power to your elbow. I am writing as an old age pensioner with half a century of activity in the Labour movement. Alas! The majority of the Labour M.P.s have no intention of abolishing this particular crime or any other. 412 Another letter, from Lanarkshire, says: I am writing to you regarding long leases. I live alone in a small house left to me by my father. The lease ends in 1969, and I shall be put out of the house unless I pay the current market value of the house. This I will not be able to do. The next concerns a property in Perthshire. It says: The property known as 'Burbank', Strathtary, was willed to me four years ago with eleven years of the lease to run. As far as I can understand, I shall have to get out in 1974, receiving no compensation whatsoever. I have take this matter up with the Laird. His solution was to perpetuate the lease at a cost to me of £2,750 plus legal costs. As far as I can see the ground on which the house is built has no development value. I have one from my constituency, which says that it is with direct reference to a Captain Farquharson of Ballater. Has it occurred to you that this same man is a member of the Deeside and District Licensing Court and should therefore have no financial interest in the granting of licences, which he so obviously has if by granting a licence to an applicant the Licensing Court are also assisting in lining the purse of the Farquharson Estate. Although most of the letters that I have received support my Bill, not all of them do. Perhaps the most representative of the bodies opposed to the termination of the feudal system is the Scottish Landowners' Federation. I would remind the House that I am a member myself, but, just as when I was an attaché in Moscow I used to read the newspaper Pravda, I like to read the Federation's quarterly journal.
I want to read a paragraph from a letter which I received from the secretary of the Federation last March. He said: Obviously there must be some alternative to a straight sale of land by disposition because, generally speaking, the burdens in a disposition are only enforceable against the purchaser and do not transmit against subsequent purchasers. However the feuing system enables conditions to run with the land. That seems to me to be the whole crux of the matter. Should there be any burdens at all, other than rates? Is not planning permission by the local authority sufficient safeguard against misuse of land or impairment of amenity? Should it be possible for a landowner to sell a bit of land on conditions that can be transmitted to the proprietor in perpetuity? If it is necessary to have an alternative to a straight sale of land by 413 disposition, what is wrong with a liberal system of leasehold, provided that it ensures that the tenant receives proper compensation for any improvements when the lease runs out?
If the termination of the feudal system were to have the unfortunate result of deterring landowners from selling land for development, surely existing legislation is sufficient to overcome that difficulty. Rating by site valuation is another means of encouraging liquidity of land for development.
My Bill does not seek to deprive individuals or companies of their investments. It is an attempt to break the stranglehold of the feudal system by giving both parties to a feudal charter the right to redeem the feu, to terminate the archaic system of multures, and to ensure that tenants are entitled to full compensation if a landlord resumes the land at the expiry of a lease.
If the Government refuse to give time for my Bill——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is seeking to bring in his Bill under the Ten Minute Rule.

§ Mr. Davidson
Mr. Speaker, I have timed my speech for 10 minutes, but there were a number of interruptions when I started to speak, as I am sure you will appreciate. I will bring my remarks to a close now.
If the Government refuse to give time for my Bill, and if the life of the present Parliament draws to a close without any move on the part of the Government to terminate the feudal system, the Labour Party in Scotland will stand indicted on yet another count, and thousands of people will be disappointed, not least the shade of Robert Burns, whose birthday falls tomorrow.