HL Deb 01 July 1948 vol 157 cc255-66

9.48 p.m.

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun to the Motion for the House to be put into Committee—namely, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, as a considerable time has elapsed since this Bill was last before your Lordships' House perhaps I may be permitted briefly to recall the reasons for its slow progress. A Second Reading was given to the Bill in your Lordships' House on January 22, and during the debate Lord Saltoun objected to Clause 2, and, to some extent, to Clause 3. The Bill passed its Second Reading and the Committee stage was put down for February 5 when, if I may say so, a somewhat one-sided debate took place on an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. I say that it was a one-sided debate because eight of your Lordships supported Lord Saltoun and only one took a contrary view—that was myself. In those circumstances, there appeared to me to be no alternative but to move the adjournment of the debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote one sentence of what I said, to recall to your Lordships' memory what happened. I said: In the light of the debate it seems to me, from the point of view of common sense, that the wisest thing this House can do is to allow me to move that the debate be adjourned. Your Lordships will remember that a month later, on February 26, I announced the Government's intention to appoint a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Macmillan to review further the processes of registration of writs in the Sasines Office, and, thereafter, to consider the case for introducing registration of title to land in Scotland.

The Committee have now reported on the first term of the remit, and have come to the conclusion that the proposal in Clause 2 of the Bill—namely, the future replacement of the minute book by the search sheet as guide to the record—should not be proceeded with. The Committee propose, however, some minor improvement in the procedure for registration. I need not remind your Lordships that the proposals in Clause 2 are of a highly technical nature, and they had been the subject of investigations on three occasions previously—twice by strong legal committees—and when they were included in the Bill there was good reason to think they were generally agreed. This expectation was not fulfilled, and as the result of the debate in this House the Government agreed that the matter was one for further expert inquiry. This inquiry has been undertaken with remarkable expedition by Lord Macmillan's Committee, and I should like on behalf of the Government to express our debt to Lord Macmillan for his valuable help on this abstruse subject. The matter is essentially one for the experts.

The findings of Lord Macmillan's Committee are in disagreement with those of the Fleming Committee of 1928 and 1932. After further consideration, the Government are prepared to accept wholly the recommendations of the Macmillan Committee and have put down Amendments accordingly. In the Report of the Committee two matters are dealt with which are not within the scope of the Bill, but I should like to say a few words on them. They relate to the shortage of staff in the Register House and to the discontinuance, owing to the war, of the annual accounts showing the revenue and expenditure of the Sasines Office.

On the first point, the amount of work of the Sasines Office measured by the intake of writs has risen steeply in the last two or three years, after a marked decline during the war; and the number of staff is below the requirements, notwithstanding that, as in the Civil Service generally, hours of work have been increased and longer periods of annual leave curtailed. As your Lordships are aware, on the one hand there is often pressure to increase the staffs of particular branches of the Civil Service to enable them more effectively to carry out their duties and, on the other hand, the size of the Civil Service as a whole, and the calls made by it on the limited man-power resources of the country, are a frequent subject of attack. We are, however, all agreed that the delay in the registration of writs should be reduced as soon as possible, and it is hoped that it will be possible substantially to strengthen the staff of the Sasines Office in the immediate future.

On the second point, the Government readily agree that the issue of annual accounts showing the balance of revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office should be resumed, and steps are being taken accordingly. Having made this statement, I have only to add that I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' approval, and that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, may agree to withdraw his Amendment and let the Bill now proceed. The Amendments which I shall then proceed to move are all designed to bring the Bill into line with. Lord Macmillan's Report.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morrison for what he has said. Indeed, I have reason for a great deal of gratitude. I want once more to express my thanks to my noble Leader, the Marquess of Salisbury, for the support he gave me on that occasion and to those noble Lords who also supported me, one of whom is here to-night—Viscount Simon. I am very grateful to him. Then is one noble Lord to whom I must give thanks but whom my thanks cannot reach. I refer to Lord Thankerton, and I could wish si quidquam mutis gratum acceptumque sepulchris accidere e nostro Calve dolore potest. If only one's gratitude could reach beyond the tomb, I would like to feel, for my own satisfaction, that that noble Lord, the death of whom so many of us deeply deplore and whose presence we shall abidingly miss, could hear the gratitude I would like to pay him on this occasion.

The whole of Scotland will be grateful to these noble Lords, and to one noble Lord in addition—Lord Macmillan—for the work he has put in and for the extremely illuminating and clear Report, which will stand for all time as an account of the system of registration of writs in Scotland. Any noble Lord who cares to read it (I am sorry it has only been produceable in this House since half-past three this afternoon) will get a grasp of the subject which will stand him in good stead. It is a very illuminating Report, and most beautifully written. As I say, the whole of Scotland will be indebted to that noble and learned Lord for the work he has done. It is a work which shows us the depth of the precipice over which we were nearly precipitated on February 5 last, because he has explained quite clearly—it must be clear to everybody who reads the Report—that had the Bill been passed in its then form, it might have thrown the whole of the records of Scotland into inextricable confusion. That is a matter which affects more nearly the general run of the population of Scotland than it would in England—we are all aware of our excellent system of registration. It would have gone home to every one of us.

There are two further matters to which my noble friend Lord Morrison referred, upon which I would like to touch. One is the question of economy. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that the idea of the Bill was to effect saving in time and man-power—that is, of course, in money. If your Lordships turn to page 13 of the Report, you will find that the Register of Sasines is a revenue earning department and that section 25 of the Act of 1868 requires that the fees to be drawn should not be 'greater than may reasonably be held sufficient for defraying the expenses of the said department or the improvement of the system of registration'.… That means that this is not a revenue earning department. The income of the department is to be used either for cheapening the registration or for improving the service. On page 12 of the Report Lord Macmillan reports, what we all know and what is acknowledged: At present the staff of the Register House is quite inadequate in number for the proper performance of its duties. The work of registration has fallen into unprecedented arrears extending to as much as seven or eight months and the public are suffering accordingly. Then at the bottom of page 13 the Report says: From this it appears that in the years 1937–38 and 1938–39 there were surpluses of £16,127 and £14,358 respectively. Then it goes on to say: The gross revenue for 1946–47 shows a very large increase over the figures for 1937–38 and 1938–39, indicative of a great increase in the business of the department. As my noble friend Lord Morrison stated, no accounts have been kept, but Lord Macmillan suggests: It is improbable that they"— that is the expenses to be set against the income— can have risen from £14,135 in 1938–39 to £62,712 in 1946–47. So there must still be a considerable surplus in this department. We were asked to pass this Bill for the sake of economy, because it was impossible to pay what the Government were supposed to pay for the cost of the registration of our writs in Scotland, when all the time this department is self-supporting, is making a large income to the tune of at least £16,000, and is perfectly able to pay the additional salaries for further staff to prevent the arrears extending to seven or eight months and the public suffering accordingly. I really think this is a matter to which attention should be drawn in Parliament, and I hope my noble friend Lord Morrison will ask to have it looked into.

There is one other point I should like to make on this question. I am moved to do so because the danger from which we have escaped is so great. In his speech on the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, stated to your Lordships that the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland had been consulted and had raised no objections to the proposal. That sounds very well, but I would like to state who are the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland. They are a body appointed by Statute of 1933, and although 1933 is the date when the second proposal of the Fleming Report was finally resisted by the profession, I draw no sinister deduction from that. But the General Council of Solicitors was appointed then, and it was given by Statute duties entirely connected with the discipline in the profession—purely disciplinary matters.

I have the Statute here, and I have a great deal of information about it. However, I want to be as brief as I possibly can be. From time to time efforts have been made to increase the scope of this body, and all branches of the profession have steadily resisted it. They do not look upon it as really representing the profession. Efforts have been made all the time. Sometimes the Council have passed resolutions granting themselves more powers, and sometimes other things have been proposed. They have always been resisted and defeated. When it is said to your Lordships that the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland have been consulted and have raised no objections, the impression given to your Lordships may be fallacious. It does not necessarily mean that this Council represents the opinion of the profession in Scotland.

Futhermore, I have been told that the General Council of Solicitors themselves have said that they did not support the proposals in any way; that the only comment they made when the proposals were laid before them was that it was a highly controversial matter, and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all. What I have said on that subject bears out what I said on the Second Reading. The constitution of councils and committees of this kind, unless they really represent the people they are suppose to represent, is merely a method of gratifying the very natural instinct for the increase of their own power by administrative departments. The most efficient departments are those which, naturally, wish to extend their power. That is a most important thing to control and check. To control and check it, I think there is no instrument in the Constitution more suitable and effective than the vigilance of your Lordships' House as it is at present constituted. That vigilance has shown itself in the past, as it has shown itself to-day, and I am grateful for the support your Lordships have given me, without which I should have been able to do nothing. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

10.4. p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, may I say just one word about this, as I intervened on the occasion when this was last before the House?—although, of course, I have no qualifications whatever to speak upon this highly technical subject of Scottish procedure. It seems to me that the person who really deserves to be congratulated upon this matter is the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It was he who challenged the assertion that this Bill, in the form in which it was presented, would be generally approved. As a result of his argument—assisted perhaps by the argument of others—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, very sensibly, accepted the idea that there should be an expert inquiry. Now we have had that expert inquiry, and from Lord Macmillan, who was the Chairman, and his four or five colleagues we have had a unanimous Report.

This is really a very strange story, about which the best thing to be said is that it is going to end quite happily; therefore, we do net want to go back to unnecessary matters and previous complaints. I ventured to say, on an earlier occasion, that I doubted whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could put his hand on his heart and say that he understood all its contents. With his usual candour and fairness, the noble Lord replied by saying that he was unable to put his hand on his heart and say anything of the bind. It is not a good plan to carry through Bills without understanding what they mean, and the result in this instance has been that the whole of the Bill is now to be turned completely inside out.

I am glad that Clause 2 of the Bill is to be struck out on the Motion of the Government. That was the whole point of the controversy. If Clause 2 had stood, these things which are called minute books and printed abridgements and indexes would be discontinued—and the Macmillan Report shows that that would be a most foolish thing to do. Similarly, it would have provided that there was instead to be a separate series of search sheets according to forms to be prescribed by an-Act of Sederunt. This again is quite an impracticable proposal which could only produce confusion. The Government, however, under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, have behaved very wisely in saying that they had better find out from an independent Committee how the matter stands. Most sensibly the Government now say, "Let us strike out Clause 2." Indeed, they do something more. They say, "Let us take this Macmillan Committee's Report, which made a few suggestions as to how matters might be improved, and substitute those suggestions for the original proposals." Least said, soonest mended!

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD SCHUSTER in the Chair]:

LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following two new clauses:

Provisions as to recording in Register of Sasines.

"2. The following provisions shall have effect with regard to the recording of writs in the General Register of Sasines—

  1. (a) the names and designations of the presenters of writs shall not be entered in the minute book;
  2. (b) each page of the minute book shall be signed by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland or by a deputy duly authorised by him in that behalf, and no further signature shall be necessary for the authentication of the minute book; and in particular it shall not be necessary that the minute book be signed by the presenter of a writ or in the case of a writ transmitted to the Register by post by a clerk in the office of the said Keeper;
  3. (c) the transmission in accordance with section ten of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act, 1868, of copies of printed abridgements or minutes and indexes to sheriff clerks shall be discontinued and that section shall cease to have effect.

Amendment of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 64. s. 6.

3. Section six of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be amended by the substitution for the words from 'attach to his signature' to 'and thereafter' of the words 'stamp the words "by post" in the presentment book and thereafter enter.'"

The noble Lord said: May I thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for their comments? I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount has said, that the main credit for this is due to Lord Saltoun for the action he has taken. The new Clause 2, which has already been referred to, is designed to give effect to a recommendation of Lord Macmillan's Committee, and the new Clause 3 is consequential on Clause 2 (b). I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clauses.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Macmillan's Committee.

Amendment moved— Leave out. Clause 2.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Power to make Acts of Sederunt regarding the Register of Sasines]:

LORD MORRISON moved to delete paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph (a) is unnecessary, since the requirements, so far as practicable, can be met by agreement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.10 p.m.

LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b), to omit "register volumes." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 42, leave out ("register volumes").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 43, leave out ("search sheets") and insert ("minute books").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("of rubrics and preambles in the register volumes").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON had given Notice to move to leave out paragraph (c) and insert— (c) requiring that subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, where reference is made in a writ presented for recording in the Register to a writ previously recorded therein, the reference shall specify, as well as the date of such previous recording, the register volume and folio in which the writ is so recorded. The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House I should like to make a small alteration in the wording of this Amendment. I wish to insert the words "in such cases and" after the opening words "requiring that." The Amendment that I am now moving therefore will read: (c) requiring that in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed…", and so on, as printed on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is of a drafting nature, but it also meets a point of doubt that arose in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I hope that the Amendment in the form in which I have moved it will meet with his acceptance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— ("(c) requiring that in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, where reference is made in a writ presented for recording in the Register to a writ previously recorded therein, the reference shall specify, as well as the date of such previous recording, the register volume and folio in which the writ is so recorded".)—(Lord Morrison.)

LORD SALTOUN

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for meeting me on this matter. It is absolutely right now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 8, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 4, line 17, leave out paragraph (g).—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Consequential amendments]:

LORD MORRISON moved to omit Clause 5. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.

First Schedule [Consequential and Minor Amendments]:

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Leave out First Schedule.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:

LORD MORRISON

This also is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, leave out Lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential upon paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 18, column 3, at beginning insert ("The words 'and the names and designations of the persons by whom' and the words 'immediately signed by the presenter of the writ and also by the Keeper, and'").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, Line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 26, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 31, and insert ("sections ten, twenty and").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MORRISON

This Amendment is also consequential upon the leaving out of Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.