ENACTMENTS REPEALED (Hansard, 11 May 1970)

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill represents the first stage of the far-reaching reform of land tenure in Scotland which was foreshadowed in the White Paper published in July, 1969. I believe that the White Paper created a new, forward-looking climate of opinion in Scotland in respect of land tenure, and that abolition of the feudal system and its replacement by a totally new system has now come to be widely accepted as an aim which is both desirable and attainable.

It is certainly significant in this connection that during the debates on the Bill no one has called in question the need for fundamental reform of land tenure in Scotland; indeed, there has been a good deal of pressure for speedier advance towards the major legislation which will bring that about. Since the White Paper was published last summer we have lost no time in bringing forward the first-step legislation which was promised in it.

That legislation, in the form of the Bill, is, however, important in its own 937 right. It contains the first significant reforms for nearly half a century in this important area of the law of Scotland; and following on the White Paper, it has helped to create the new climate of thought about which I have spoken.

The Bill has two major themes running through it: remedies for certain of the worst abuses of the feudal system; and long-overdue reform of the law relating to the conveyancing of property. Part I contains two important measures of social reform. In the first place, people burdened by unreasonable land conditions will be able to seek relief from these conditions by applying to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. Second, vassals are enabled to obtain an apportionment of unallocated feuduties, thus freeing themselves from the reality or the threat of having to act as unpaid debt collectors for superiors.

The law of conveyancing is simplified in a number of useful ways: by the reduction in the period of positive prescription from 20 years to 10 years; by the creation of a new simplified form of heritable security and the reform of the law regarding present types of securities —anyone who has followed the debates and the Amendments suggested and accepted both in Committee and on Report will realise just how complex this is—and by the changes to conveyancing law set out in Part IV. These provisions will, for example, simplify the legal work associated with house purchase.

I have been greatly encouraged by the general welcome given to the Bill during its earlier stages. The criticisms that have been made of its provisions and the Amendments which were put forward in Committee related in the main to points of procedure and practice rather than to matters of fundamental principle. The criticisms, however, were useful; and, as the House will have seen during the Report stage, we have given effect to a number of the suggestions which were made.

Our debates on the Bill in Committee and on Report have underlined a number of important points which are relevant not only to the Bill itself, but to the work of major reform that lies ahead. Perhaps I may mention three that seem to me to be of special importance.

938 First, the complexity of the problems and the technical difficulty of reforming the law in this field have been strongly underlined. I am sure that everyone who has heard of or has read the debates on the Bill will accept that there is no scope in land tenure reform for facile and sloganised answers to problems.

Issues of the highest importance to the individual and to the community are at stake; and the most painstaking preparation is necessary if these issues are to be dealt with properly in legislation. Given the difficulty even of the present Bill, hon. Members who served on the Committee are to be congratulated on dealing with it so quickly and so thoroughly. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has revelled in unravelling the entanglements and the complications of Scottish feudal law, certainly merits my congratulations, and those of members of the Committee.

My second point is that the value of wide consultation has been made apparent. We have been fortunate in having available to us, both before and since the introduction of the Bill, the comments of a wide cross-section of those engaged in the practical day-to-day work associated with land transactions; and the Bill is better for their advice.

We are most grateful to all the organisations and individuals who have taken the trouble to put forward comments on the Bill. I must single out for special thanks Professor J. M. Halliday, who has continued to act as consultant to my Department.

Thirdly, we have rightly had our attention drawn to the need to consider the wider implications of feudal reforms. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), for example, among others, underlined that in seeking to make rapid progress with feudal reform we must not concern ourselves only with the rights and obligations of an individual superior or vassal.

We must look closely at the effects of any reform on the rights of third parties —for example, co-vassals and owners of neighbouring property—and, indeed, on the community at large. This was a very important theme running through the earlier stage debates; it has been kept in 939 mind in relation to this Bill and will similarly be in our minds in the preparation of future legislation.

So we pass to the final stage in this House of an important Bill. It is a milestone on the road to the fundamental reforms proposed in our White Paper. With the help of hon. Members and of those concerned with land transactions in Scotland, I look forward to the abolition of the feudal system and to its replacement by a new system more suited to the needs of Scotland and of the Scottish people.

§ Mr. Gordon Campbell

We recognise that this conveyancing Bill puts into effect many of the proposals of the Halliday Committee, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) when he was Secretary of State in 1964. In general, it will, when enacted, bring about improvements in the law of conveyancing in Scotland. It does not deal with all the Halliday recommendations, but with some of them. It also, in the first few Clauses, makes some changes in the feuing system.

The Secretary of State has reminded us of the White Paper which the Government issued a few months ago, in which they foresaw the abolition of the whole feuing system, but they have not yet informed us or anyone else how that is to be carried out. The changes in the Bill, which include the allocation of feu-duty amongst proprietors, underline the fact that the feuing system is to continue; that it must continue until radical changes are proposed. The variation and discharge of land obligations is the other main point dealt with in the changes in the feuing system as it exists.

These changes are not contentious in principle, and we have aimed in Committee and on Report to make improvements in the Bill. There are two or three other changes which we would like to have made to which the Government have not agreed, but the large number of Amendments on the Notice Paper today, to many of which the Government have agreed, is a reflection of the extent to which we were able to suggest changes in the Bill.

On Second Reading, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edin- 940 burgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) suggested that it would be better to use the sheriff courts instead of the Lands Tribunal for the variation and discharge of land obligations, but he is satisfied that the Government have largely met his arguments, in as much as the tribunal is to work part-time. We feel that there will not be enough work for a full-time tribunal.

It is clear that the Government will put forward other Amendments, as a result of our suggestions, in the other place, but there is very little in the Bill about the feuing system. The Secretary of State has announced the intention of radical changes, but the Bill contains only changes in the existing system, with no hint of how its abolition is to be carried out. We have made it clear that we favour a major reform in the system of land tenure in Scotland. The Government also favour a major change, as their White Paper made clear. The main question remains: how is this to be done? On this, there appears to be no decision by the Government yet, and certainly no announcement—the key point being the terms of redemption of feu duties.

It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite trying to characterise superiors or feuars, because numbered among them are the Church and other reputable institutions which we would all wish to help and not penalise. Therefore, any solution must be thought out so as to be completely fair to all parties. That is our interest, as I hope it is the Government's in changing an outmoded system which needs to be reformed and which, in the application of high feu duties, has become unpopular in Scotland in recent years.

I pay a tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands. The whole House has been grateful for his knowledge and application in these technical matters. Many of his suggestions have been accepted or converted into Government Amendments. We are frequently reminded how fortunate we are to have one practising Scottish advocate in the House. But not only has he helped us in that regard: he has also made a close examination of all these conveyancing matters and has contributed largely to the Bill's improvement.

I would also, with respect, congratulate the Under-Secretary on having coped 941 with a highly technical Bill without my hon. and learned Friend's legal background. He had a very heavy burden to bear.

In the reform of the feuing system, this is not a milestone, as the Secretary of State claimed. It is more of a yard-stone. It has simply scratched the surface of reform. That task remains for a future Government.