HL Deb 15 February 1979 vol 398 cc1449-65
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and the Prince of Wales as Prince and Steward of Scotland to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Land Registration (Scotland) Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord McCluskey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 [Registration.]

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

("(3) The creation over a registered interest in land of any of the following interests in land—

  1. (i) a heritable security;
    2. 1450
  2. (ii) a liferent;
  3. (iii) an incorporeal heritable right, shall be registrable; and on registration of its creation such an interest shall become a registered interest in land.

(4) There shall also be registrable—

  1. (a) any transfer of a registered interest in land including any transfer whereby it is absorbed into another registered interest in land;
  2. (b) any absorption by a registered interest in land of another registered interest in land;
  3. (c) any other transaction or event which (whether by itself or in conjunction with the recording of a deed in the Register of Sasines or with registration) is capable under any enactment or rule of law of affecting the title to a registered interest in land but which is not a transaction or event creating or affecting an overriding interest.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which I beg to move, will have the effect of replacing Clause 2(3). It is in essence a change in the drafting of that clause. The new drafting emphasises that certain interests in land are registrable and become registered interests on being created over interests which are already registered. Amendment No. 3 is consequential upon this. I think it is proper that I should make some general remarks about the new clause if these Amendments are accepted.

Under the clause with these Amendments, subsection (1) would deal with what is the first registration of unregistered interests in land. Subsection (2) excludes certain special cases from subsection (1). Subsection (3) deals with those special cases, namely, heritable securities, life rents and incorporeal heritable right, which exist only in relation to another interest in land. So, if that other interest is registered, the creation of one of these related interests is registrable. Subsection (4) deals with the situation once interests have been registered. Any subsequent transaction is registrable. The subsequent transactions are specified and I shall deal with them shortly: they are transfer, absorption or other events affecting title. Subsection (5), as it would be, provides for the time when a great many interests in land have been registered as a result of some transaction or event covered by subsections (1), (3) and (4), and the Secretary of State, or one hopes the Executive Member of the Assembly, decides—obviously after receiving advice from the Keeper among others—that the time is ripe for having all interests in land on the Register.

At Report stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, asked about a particular matter, namely, how the operational areas would be brought into play. I think it would be convenient, as I am mentioning subsection (5), as it will be, of Clause 2, to deal with that now. There is planned a nine-year introduction to cover all the counties of Scotland. I talk of the counties; the old counties still exist for the purposes of the Register of Sasines and this Register, though not for certain local authority purposes. In year 1, the first county to be dealt with will be Renfrew, where the pilot scheme is presently operating; in year 2, it will be Glasgow; in year 3, Lanark and Dumbarton; in year 4, Midlothian; in year 5, the central belt between Strath-clyde and Midlothian; in year 6, Strathtay—that is to say, Perth, Kinross, and Angus—and Grampian, including Aberdeen; in year 7, Ayr, Dumfries, Galloway; in year 8, the southern rural areas; and in year 9, the last year, the northern rural areas. That is the scheme at the present time. Certain adjustments may fall to be made during the nine-year introductory period.

Of course, in each case, we are talking about the year in which registration starts; so, by the end of year 9, it is probable that a great many properties, for example, in Renfrew will have changed hands or otherwise been the subject of some transaction which has resulted in registration, whereas for Ayr, for example, or the northern rural areas, only a minority of interests in land will have entered the Register. So the lapse of nine years will be the end of the beginning, but also ushers in the beginning of the end.

Clause 2(5), as it is now to be, taken along with Clause 30(2), permits the Minister to prescribe the completion of registration area by area, to stagger it, so to speak. It is difficult to estimate the likely final date when the last order will fall to be made, but at present it looks as if it might be about the turn of the century.

My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for that rather lengthy explanation, but Clause 2 taken with Clause 3 is really the linchpin of the Bill. I hope that that explana- tion will help to satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining this redrafting of a very large part of Clause 2, which, as he has just said, is the important part of the Bill. We are also grateful to him for taking the opportunity of making a statement about how the Bill will be brought into effect and which parts of Scotland will, in order be brought into its scope. Renfrewshire seemed the obvious starter, as the pilot scheme is operating in that area.

This is a redrafting by the Government, and we have about four pages of Government Amendments before us. The Report stage was only last week. I know that the Government have tried to meet almost all the points raised in your Lordships' House or by the Law Society of Scotland. They circulated the Amendments in good time for today, and, as I say, there are over four pages of redrafting by the Government. On this Amendment and some others there may still be some scope for improvement in the wording in detail. There has hardly been time for full examination of some of these complicated Amendments in the last day or two, and there has certainly not been any time for any consequent changes. I have been able today to inform the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey of some drafting comments, and I will gladly provide any further comment on possible adjustments.

On this Amendment I shall say only that we accept it, but in the hope that the Government will look at the particular point in the Amendment where the wording might be changed, to which I have drawn attention. There will be plenty of time before Committee and Report stages in the Commons, so that adjustments can be thought out and tabled there if they are thought worthwhile. It would not be appropriate for me to pursue these matters at this final stage in this House, but it might be helpful if I were to say that this applies not only to Amendment No. 1, but also to Amendments Nos. 2, 14 and 20. The Law Society of Scotland are a body representative of solicitors engaged in conveyancing in Scotland, and the Government will no doubt remain in close touch with them on these matters. There could as a result be some further adjustments of the wording in some of these long Amendments which are before us. I hope that the Government will accept that. It means that I need not revert to this point on each Amendment, but can stick to points of more substance.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I entirely agree that that approach is one that we should recommend to the House. If there is scope for further improvement in detail, we shall be happy to consider any further comment that comes from the Law Society of Scotland, as indeed we have been happy in the past to have their help. The timetable has not permitted everything to be done, but we hope to resolve these matters with them, and if it becomes necessary or desirable to improve the wording we shall certainly do that at some other stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Effect of registration]:

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 3, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) It shall not be necessary for an uninfeft proprietor of an interest in land which has been registered to expede a notice of title in order to complete his title to that interest if evidence of sufficient midcouples or links between the uninfeft proprietor and the person last infeft are produced to the Keeper on any registration in respect of that interest and, accordingly, section 4 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 (completion of title by person uninfeft) shall be of no effect in relation to such an interest in land. This subsection does not apply to the completion of title under section 74 or 76 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (procedure on compulsory purchase of lands).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which reproduces the substance of Clause 15(3) (a) in so far as it deals with notices of title by uninfeft proprietors of registered interests in land. It is more appropriate that this subject matter should form part of Clause 3, as being an effect of registration, rather than forming part of Clause 15, which is concerned with the simpli- fication of deeds relating to registered interests in land. Clause 15(3) (a) will, therefore, be superfluous if this Amendment is approved, and its deletion from the Bill is proposed by Amendment No. 11.

The last sentence of Amendment No. 2 contains a disapplication. Where an owner from whom land is compulsorily acquired under the 1845 Act, cannot or will not grant a conveyance of his property to the acquiring authority, that authority will still require to expede a notice of title in order to complete its title. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Completion of registration]:

5.50 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 3: Page 5, line 2, leave out from beginning to second ("of") and insert ("section 2(4)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this consequential Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Rectification of the register].

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 4 to 9:

Page 8, line 11, leave out ("which has been omitted") and insert ("or enter a land obligation")

Page 8, line 13, at end insert ("or to a land obligation")

Page 8, line 16, at end insert ("or")

Page 8, line 19, leave out from ("possession") to end of line 22.

Page 8, line 24, leave out ("(iii) or (iv)") and insert ("or (iii)")

Page 8, line 28, at end insert— ("( ) "land obligation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(2) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970;").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is associated with Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and with the leave of the House I shall move them en bloc. This, I hope, takes us to or towards the end of a matter that has been discussed on a number of occasions. The use of the word "un- just" in Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) of the Bill and, indeed, perhaps the whole cast of this paragraph, has caused the Law Society and some noble Lords some unease. The terms of this paragraph, they fear, might open up the possibility of the exercise of an equitable jurisdiction which however appropriate in England would be an unwelcome addition to the law of Scotland.

Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) is to the same effect as Section 82(3)(c) of the Land Registration Act 1925. We believe, and the Chief Land Registrar in England confirms, that the subsection has never been used to oust a proprietor in possession. The only use that we, in fact, envisaged for rectification under Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) in Scotland would, as in England, be to add to the Register omitted land obligations in circumstances where it would be against public interest not to include them in the relative title sheet. For example, if an obligation to pay an equal share of maintaining the roof had been omitted from the title sheet of a tenement house, it would be reasonable to insert it, otherwise at common law that share would fall to be paid by the proprietors of the top flats in addition to their own shares. The Keeper, of course, might have to pay indemnity to the proprietor in possession in respect of the insertion in his title sheet, but that is a valuable consequence of registration of title.

However, in view of the unease felt, and the restricted use envisaged for the provision in Scotland, agreement has been reached with representatives of the Law Society of Scotland as regards the deletion of Clause 9(3)(a)(iv) and the amendment of Clause 9(3)(a)(i) to include the necessary references to entering a land obligation. Any reference to prescription in Clause 9 is, we believe, now unnecessary.

So, these Amendments taken together—and I need not explain the precise effect of each one in detail—represent, I believe, an agreed solution to the perceived difficulties and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I simply rise to confirm that this is a matter which has caused some disquiet, especially as regards the Law Society of Scotland. I understand that the Amendments which the Government are now proposing are satisfactory and generally welcome among those who were previously worried.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10 [Positive prescription in respect of registered interests in land]:

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 8, leave out from beginning of line 31 to ("at") in line 43 and insert—

("10. Section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 shall have effect as if—

(a) after "followed" in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there were inserted "(i)" and for the words from "then" to the end of that subsection there were inserted", or

(ii) registration of that interest in favour of that person in the Land Register of Scotland, subject to an exclusion of indemnity under section 12(2) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979,

then, as from the expiration of the said period, the validity of the title so far as relating to the said interest in the particular land shall be exempt from challenge. (1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply where—

  1. (a) possession was founded on the recording of a deed which is invalid ex facie or was forged; or
  2. (b) possession was founded on registration in respect of an interest in land in the Land Register of Scotland proceeding on a forged deed and the person appearing from the Register to be entitled to the interest was aware of the forgery at the time of registration in his favour.

(b)."").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. Again, I hope that we reach the solution of a problem which has exercised the House on previous occasions. The significant elements in the Amendment concern the limitation of the running of prescription, first, to possession on a registered title from which there has been an exclusion of indemnity and, secondly, where the registration is induced by a forged deed. I should like to quote from one of the best, and certainly standard, text-books in Scotland—namely, Gloag and Henderson on the Introduction to the Law of Scotland, in the Seventh Edition. At page 160 it says: Good titles have no need of prescription". It therefore follows that if the State guarantees a title there is no need for prescription to operate on the registration thereof. The amendment to Section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 therefore makes it clear that the running of prescription is limited to a registrtaion which is subject to an exclusion of indemnity under Clause 12(2) of the Bill.

To turn to forged deeds, a forged deed which has been recorded in the Register of Sasines will never be a foundation for prescription. In registration of title, however, where one of the cardinal features is the protection of the bona fide proprietor in possession, a registration induced by a forged deed may be a foundation for prescription if the registered proprietor is, himself, in good faith. If the registered proprietor is the forger, or otherwise had knowledge of the forgery at the time of registration, prescription will not operate in his favour.

While it appeared to us that the existing provisions of the Bill were adequate to prevent prescription fortifying the title of a party to a forgery, the Law Society did seek clearer expression, and the added Section 1(A) to the 1973 Act thus states the situation both as regards a forged deed recorded in the Register of Sasines and a registration proceeding on a forged deed. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord will recall I raised the question of forgery during a previous stage of the Bill. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Government decided to make sure that the situation was perfectly clear and the Amendment acceptable.

I should like to raise an associated point. It seems that some provision is probably now needed in Clause 9—the previous Clause—for the Register to be rectified in favour of an owner. I ask the Government to consider whether any Amendment needs to be made to Clause 9, because if so that could be done when the Bill is in another place.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, we shall certainly be happy to consider that along with any of the other matters to which reference has already been made.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Simplification of deeds relating to registered interests]:

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 11: Page 13, leave out from beginning of line 28 to first ("in") in line 31.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 12: Page 13, leave out lines 36 and 37.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are associated. In fact, Amendment No. 13 disapplies provisions of the Acts referred to relating to deduction of title in cases where Clause 15(3) (6), as it now is in the Bill, makes deduction of title unnecessary. Amendment No. 12 is a drafting Amendment to remove unnecessary references to Section 3 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924 and Section 12 of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. Those references are out of place here as a result of Amendment No. 13. I beg to move Amendment No. 12.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 13: Page 13, line 40, at end insert ("and, accordingly, section 5 of and Form 1 of Schedule A and Note 2 of Schedule K to the said Act of 1924, as well as the said section 3 and the said section 12, shall not apply to such a deed.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 13, line 40, at end insert— ("(4) It shall not be necessary, in connection with any deed relating to a registered interest in land, to include an assignation of any obligation or right of relief or to narrate the the series of writs by which the grantor of the deed became entitled to enforce that obligation or exercise that right if the obligation or right has been entered in the title sheet of that interest and, accordingly, section 50 of and Schedule M to the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874 (form and effect of assigning right of relief or other right affecting land) shall not apply to such a deed.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. We believe that this Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking made by the Government to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to table an Amendment making special provision for assignations of obligations and rights of relief. The Amendment which was proposed at the Report stage by the noble Lord—No. 35—was withdrawn and was aimed at this particular point.

If carried, Amendment No. 14 would have the effect of further reducing the content of a deed relating to an interest in land which has been registered. Provided the title sheet of that interest already contains a reference to any assignations of any obligations or rights of relief and the like, any deed relating to that interest need not repeat such reference by means of a clause of assignation. Nor will it be necessary to narrate the links in title between the original parties to the right of relief or obligation and the grantor of the deed which, apart from the provision, would need to contain this lengthy linking back.

This springs from a suggestion from the noble Lord—and the Law Society made the same point. We believe that it takes the simplification a little further and should help to shorten and simplify deeds, and, we hope, will save expense. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Tenants-at-will]:

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15: Page 17, line 4, leave out ("other than") and insert ("additional to").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15. The Amendment simply deletes words which were thought to be too disjunctive in the context and which might convey the wrong sense. The words which replace them reflect the intention of the subsection, which is to enable terms and conditions to be adjusted between landlord and tenant, in addition to those specifically provided for in subsections (3), (4), and (5) of Clause 20. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 17, line 15, at end insert—

("( ) In this section and in sections 21 and 22 of this Act, "tenant-at-will" means a person—

(a).who, not being—

  1. (i) a tenant under a lease;
  2. (ii) a kindly tenant; or
  3. (iii) a tenant or occupier by virtue of any enactment,
is by custom and usage the occupier (actual or constructive) of land on which there is a building or buildings erected or acquired for value by him or any predecessor of his;

(b) who is under an obligation to pay a ground rent to the owner of the land in respect of the said land but not in respect of the building or buildings on it, or would have been under such an obligation if the ground rent had not been redeemed; and

(c) whose right of occupancy of the land is without ish.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This Amendment fulfils an undertaking by the Government at Report stage to try to provide a definition of "tenant-at-will" for tabling at Third Reading. As noble Lords will see, it is largely based on Amendment No. 47, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at Report stage.

The main difference between this Amendment and that earlier Amendment is that the definition is not restricted to land not exceeding one decare in area used principally for residential purposes or purposes ancillary thereto. It is not considered that a tenant-at-will of commercial property exceeding one decare in area should be denied the same opportunity of obtaining a title from his landlord.

The new Clause 20(8), which was contained in Amendment No. 47 of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to which I referred, proposed special compensation provisions for non-residential tenancy land. As the present Amendment seeks to deal with residential and non-residentail property on the same basis, no equivalent provision has been made in this Amendment.

The new Clause 20(9) in the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, proposed on Report, made provision for disputes to be taken to the Lands Tribunal. The substance of this is now to be contained in Amendment No. 17, which proposes an amendment to Clause 21. I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, we must rejoice in the achievement of a definition which is acceptable to the Government and which is now moved for inclusion in the Bill. It had seemed a difficult and daunting task after the Bill was first published; indeed, the Government more or less issued a challenge to the world to try to produce such a definition. However, in the meantime it has become clear that solicitors who have to deal with this kind of tenancy, which is largely to be found in the North-East of Scotland, considered that this part of the Bill would be improved by a satisfactory definition being included.

As the noble and learned Lord has reminded us, at Report stage I moved what I described as a first draft, arrived at as a result of consultations with some of those who are most familiar with these tenancies. I said that it was a draft for consideration. Therefore, I am extremely happy to welcome the Government's version, because to have achieved a satisfactory definition at all is, I think, something of a triumph.

I should just like to add one point. On Report, I had to draw attention to an unusual word in my Amendment. I am interested to see that it has survived in the Government's Amendment. It is the last word of all: it is the word "ish", which is not frequently encountered in English prose or poetry. As I explained, it is a Scottish legal term used in leases.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I think that I have heard it used in this House. In fact, I have a distinct recollection that at the conclusion of our debate on that occasion the noble Lord the Lord Chairman said "Ish it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?", but I may have misheard him! I rejoice with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. If I thought that every challenge I issued in this House would meet such a positive response, I should certainly issue many more.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Provisions supplementary to section 20]:

6.6 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 17, line 20, at end insert— ("( ) whether a person is a tenant-at-will;")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This Amendment, we believe, follows a suggestion which emanated from the noble Lord and the Law Society of Scotland to give the Lands Tribunal for Scotland jurisdiction in questions arising as to the existence of a tenancy-at-will. This will form a logical addition to the matters already within the Lands Tribunal's jurisdiction in Clause 21(1). I beg to move.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has said, this Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment. Although accepting that it is intended to be so, I must point out that it does not seem to fit neatly into the place proposed in Clause 21. The purpose of Clause 21 is to provide for the settlement of disputes by the Lands Tribunal of Scotland. The wording is not "dispute"; the wording is, "Any question arising under Section 20", the previous clause, "dealing with tenancies-at-will".

There could be more than two parties to such a dispute—a dispute perhaps as to who is the tenant-at-will. This does not seem to be allowed for by the words "either party" which appear in Clause 29. Those words provide for only two parties to a dispute. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government have considered the kind of cases that could come under this proposed new paragraph (a). On questions arising from Clause 20, the Lands Tribunal might find itself dealing with a wider range of cases than the Government now contemplate. So in accepting this Amendment, I ask the Government whether they will take another look at the wording in the light of my comments.

Lord KINROSS

My Lords, while joining in the rejoicing expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, at the introduction of a definition of a "tenant-at-will", I should like to support what he has said about an extension of Amendment No. 17. I understand that a number of people might claim to be the tenant-at-will, one of whom might not be the true claimant. Therefore, I would suggest that in the interregnum between now and when this Bill goes to the House of Commons, consideration might be given by the Government to extending this definition, to give power to the Lands Tribunal to determine the validity of a claim to a tenancy-at-will. That might very well be done in an extension to Clause 21. This would solve the contingency to which I have referred.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, we shall certainly consider the point. Perhaps I should add that we must leave something for another place to do. If we did all the work, someone might think of abolishing them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Appeals]:

6.10 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21:

Page 20, line 26, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (2A) and (3)")

Page 20, line 30, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsections (2A) and (3)")

Page 20, line 32, at end insert— ("(2A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall enable the taking of an appeal if it is, under the law relating to res judicata, excluded as a result of the exercise of any right of recourse by virtue of subsection (2) above; and nothing in subsection (2) above shall enable the exercise of any right of recourse if it is so excluded as a result of the taking of an appeal under subsection (1) above.")

Page 20, line 33, after ("lie") insert ("under this section, nor shall there be any right of recourse by virtue of this section").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 is in fact associated with Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21, and with leave I beg to move these Amendments en bloc. Clause 25 is intended to give a would-be appellant the option of taking an appeal from most decisions of the Keeper either to the Lands Tribunal or to the courts, if an appeal lies there under any other existing right. Amendment No. 20 is designed to make it clear that when a case has been dealt with by the Lands Tribunal it is res judicata so far as the subject-matter of that case is concerned, and that an appellant cannot thereafter take the same matter to a court of first instance. The appellant is similarly restricted from taking a matter on which the court has reached a decision to the Lands Tribunal. The remaining Amendments, Nos. 19, 20 an 21 are really consequential upon that main Amendment, and I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

An Amendment (privilege) made.

6.12 p.m.

Lord McCLUSKEY

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is right that at this final stage I should take a moment or two to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and indeed to other noble Lords for their valuable assistance in getting this Bill into its present condition. I am equally happy to acknowledge the great help that the Government and the Bill team, and I myself, have received from the Law Society of Scotland. Many changes have been made, and I believe that many improvements have been made both in the content and in the form. But in saying that I do not want the officials, the Bill team, and the draftsmen to think that I am in any way criticising their work in producing the original Bill.

The spirit in which we on the Government side have approached any suggestion from the Law Society, or from noble Lords in this House, has been that the Bill should be not just effective in achieving its policy aims but as acceptable as possible in form and substance to the conveyancers of Scotland who are going to have to live with it, possibly for centuries. Where the Law Society, or any noble Lord, was able to suggest any change that would help in this direction we were happy to accept it provided the Bill lost nothing in its effectiveness.

May I on a personal note say that one commentator suggested that I was anxious to please the lawyers. Indeed I am, but that is not quite the point. What I was anxious to do was to end up with a Bill which would enable land registration to be introduced as smoothly and efficiently as possible: as I am sure it will be. But the principal beneficiaries will be the public. Lawyers thrive when the law is obscure and systems are complex, but the public pays the price. But if the system is freed of unnecessary complexities and lawyers can operate it with familiar ease, then the public gain both in terms of cost and certainty. This Bill will not change the world but it will, I believe, confer a real, tangible and lasting benefit on people in Scotland, and I am privileged to have had a part in it.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McCluskey.)

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who introduced the Bill and took it through its Second Reading, and later the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the consideration which they gave to proposals for amending the Bill. As a result, the Bill has undergone considerable redrafting by agreement. The people who will have to work most closely with the Bill after it has been enacted are solicitors in Scotland; in particular they had hoped for definitions, where this was possible, and clarity. I believe that the Amendments that have been made have all been in this direction.

The Government have listened to the advice which was given to them and they responded with changes. As I indicated at the beginning of today's proceedings, I am particularly grateful for what has been done within the comparatively short space of time between the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Kinross, qualified in law in Scotland as they are, I am not, for the help which they have given both here and outside. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, who has participated in and given his knowledge and experience to our deliberations. Above all, I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who has borne the brunt of this process since the beginning of this year.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.