§ 14. Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Halliday Report.
§ Mr. RossFor the present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on 10th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 1343–4.]
§ Mr. CampbellWhy cannot the Government yet proceed, on the basis of this useful Report, with changing and modernising the feu system and conveyancing?
§ Mr. RossThe way the hon. Gentleman puts it one would think that this was a modest and slight change, when in fact it would change the whole land tenure structure of Scotland and is completely revolutionary. We have discussed this with all the authorities in Scotland, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have received varied reactions. This must be the subject of further discussion and consideration and, as early as possible—I hope before the end of this Session—I shall make a further statement.
§ Mrs. EwingIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general public in Scotland resent the heavy cost of conveyancing fees, which are partly due to the intensely complicated method? Does he agree that the public realise that it is full of mumbo-jumbo and that this brings the law into disrepute? Would he press for legislation to simplify the law on conveyancing?
§ Mr. RossYes, this is one aspect, and only one, of the Halliday Report. I assure the hon. Lady that, as far as I know, Scots object to all kinds of legal fees. I am glad to be able to enrol her into the anti-lawyer lobby, although I suspected earlier that that would not be worth while. We are considering conveyancing to see whether there are certain aspects which might be separated from the main issue, and whether we could promote a separate Bill for those.
§ Mr. DewarWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the question of feu duties is a complicated one, many proposals in the Report are much more simple and could be intro- 518 duced much more quickly and would simplify the conveyancing procedures and spare my colleagues in the legal profession the embarrassment of charging high conveyancing fees?
§ Mr. RossI am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend. He will note what I have said—that I am still considering the possibility of separate legislation on this aspect.
§ Mr. WylieI hope that the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this useful Report will not be coloured by his well-known antipathy towards the legal profession.
§ Mr. RossI have been very kindly to the legal profession. Everyone here has. All the supplementary questions so far have come from the legal profession. It is time that we heard the layman.
§ Mr. James DavidsonSpeaking as a layman, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a debate not only on the Halliday Report but on the whole feudal system is long overdue, that a majority of legal opinion would maintain that the whole system of feu duties and the feudal system could be easily dealt with by separate legislation, and that those parts of the profession who do not agree with this are those who consider simplification to be a vice?
§ Mr. RossEveryone wants reform, but they cannot seem to agree on its nature and how the financial problems which arise will be dealt with. Everyone wants feu duties abolished, but the consequence is the question of who would undertake the financial burden which is inevitably involved.