REDUCTION OF PERIOD OF POSSESSION NECESSARY FOR PRESCRIPTION FOL LOWING ON TITLE AND POSSESSION FROM 20 YEARS TO 10 YEARS (Hansard, 11 May 1970)

§ Mr. Wylie
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert: (2) The provisions of this section shall apply only to actions commenced after the expiry of two years from the commencement of this Act. This Amendment seeks to simplify subsection (2), which seemed to be very elaborate. The point was raised in Committee, and the Minister said that he would consider it. Perhaps he will tell us why he must insist on his version and what is wrong with our two-line alternative.

§ Mr. Buchan
I have considered this point very seriously, and I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) will not think that I am deserting objectivity when I say that we adhere to the view that the negative provision, clumsy as it is, is right.
The Clause reduces the period of prescription to 10 years, and the purpose of subsection (2) is to give persons against whom prescription is running an opportunity to assert their rights under the old law before the new reduced period becomes operative, otherwise they might find themselves deprived of legal redress overnight.
The point about subsection (7)(1) is that it reduces the period of positive prescription for all purposes. The Amendment would, in terms, have the effect of weakening or restricting the subsection by 917 making it apply only to actions taken after the specified date. We are concerned not only that these provisions should be stated to apply at the stage of litigation, but should become part of the general law of the land. They are to apply in every respect as from the commencement of the Act apart from the specific exemption in Clause 7(2). This is why we feel it is necessary to couch that aspect in this negative form.
Accordingly, we have drafted a specific exclusion, which is precedented. Not only that it seems to be right that to subsume within general legislation that the exclusion should be expressed in this negative form. It should also be said that the Amendment would make difficulties because it does not fit in with subsection (3).

§ Mr. Wylie
The provisions of subsection (1) are in statutory form. They lay down provisions of general application, presumably. I do not quite follow why Amendment No. 24 impinges on the essential statutory provision. However this is not a matter on which we want to have a long discussion. I have no doubt the Minister has taken expert advice and accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.