Lords Sitting of 16 January 1979

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: SHACKLETON REPORT
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in implementing the proposals contained in the Shackleton Report, for the benefit of the Falkland Islands.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, considerable progress has been made in implementing those proposals which involve assistance from the aid programme. Construction has begun of both the Stanley Darwin Road and the Stanley school hostel, a new aircraft for the air services has been ordered, as have an ambulance and X-ray equipment for the medical service. A road construction unit has been set up as an important part of a considerable strengthening of the Public Works Department. The Grasslands Trials Unit has been given increasing support. Finally, the new Development Officer and a Fiscal Adviser are now in post and many advisory visits have been made to the Falklands, some in addition to those recommended in the noble Lord's report.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that helpful reply. Could he go a little further and say what consideration has been given by the Government to the proposal for a survey on the fishing potential in the seas around the Falkland Islands and particularly to the survey proposed by the South Atlantic Fisheries Committee?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no immediate information on that point which, I agree, is an extremely important one. Perhaps it would be helpful if I remind the House—I do not think that I need remind the noble Baroness—that we are in discussion with the Argentinian Government on the general possibility of economic co-operation in the area. It seems to me, at first look, that this point may well come within the ambit of those discussions.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while our discussion with the Argentinian Government proceeds and the ultimate status of the Falkland Islands remains unsettled, would it not be extremely unwise for us to sell military weapons of any kind to the Argentine? Will the noble Lord confirm that General Orlando Agosti, a member of the three-man military junta in Argentine, is coming to Great Britain in January with the particular purpose of examining the Hawk aircraft? Further, will the noble Lord state that no export licences for weapons of this character will be granted for Argentina while we are still in discussion on these important matters relating to the Falkland Islands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of questions which are not relevant to the Question which has been put to me. On the other hand, he has made his points and, as always, I and the Government I represent will bear them in mind.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord say anything about the Stanley Airport? Would he say whether or not it appears to be the case that a small enlargement of the airport by lengthening the runway, plus a minor improvement in passenger handling and fire-fighting facilities, will make a big difference to the value of that airport as a critical link in communications relative to the economic future of the islands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are well aware of that view and, like all suggestions relating to the airfield and airport, it is being taken into account in our consideration. It is, however, the fact that the cost of any extension would have to be considered in relation to the probable user of the extended facilities.

845
At the moment, I can give no indication that the Government are considering any extension for that reason.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD: My Lords, since, apparently, we are going to give £38 million to Tanzania to build a road across a wilderness, would the noble Lord not agree that we should "lean over backwards" to give financial help to the Falkland Islands which have strong ties of blood and loyalty with this country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I willingly support the central point put by the noble Viscount. There are in this country strong feelings of solidarity with the Falkland Islanders. Indeed, I see that our aid provision for the Islands per capita exceeds that which we make to any other country, including the one mentioned by the noble Viscount.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, as the population of the Falkland Islands is only 1,800, I imagine that it is not very difficult to reach that figure. In relation to the future of the Falkland Islands, would the Minister let the House know what is the Government opinion of the proposal that the territory might be handed over to the Argentine and the Islanders remain British; and whether the Government would give an absolute assurance that no decision will be taken either with regard to the territory or with regard to the future of the Islanders without not only full consultation but also public consultation with the Islanders?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on quite a number of occasions, I have given the assurance sought by the noble Baroness and I willingly and enthusiastically give it once more today. Proposals will not even be put to Parliament without the full acceptance of the Falkland Islanders. As to the first part of the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness, the answer to the second part governs it. Our policy is based firmly on the agreement of the Islanders to whatever may be proposed.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government be good enough to inform your Lordships' House of the nature and extent of the scientific co-operation agreement between Her
846
Majesty's Government and that of Argentina, particularly in light of the fact that they have already been good enough to inform a delegation of the Legislative Council of the Falkland Islands on 7th January of this year?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, when my honourable friend the Minister who deals with this part of the world, Mr. Rowlands, met the Argentinian representatives in Geneva in December, he was able to achieve agreement in principle that there should be scientific co-operation in this area, an objective which I think is shared by everybody in this House and, I hope, in both countries. However, this is agreement in principle and has been referred to the two Governments concerned, those of the United Kingdom and of the Argentine, and also to the Falkland Islands Council. I am not yet in a position to say what are the results of that consideration by those Governments; but as soon as it is clear what the conclusions are by those various Governments, a full statement will be made to the House in accordance with the noble Lord's very proper request.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, going back to Stanley Airport, would the noble Lord tell us whether we are to take it from his earlier reply on that subject that alginate industries have not shown an interest in the airport?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not necessarily, my Lords. I confined myself to a statement of fact: namely, it seems to us that any proposal for any extension in size or facilities of the airfield and airport at present do not seem likely to be justified by probable future user. I was not addressing myself to who is interested in such an extension. Indeed, my Department and the relevant Departments in Whitehall will be very glad to see whoever has an interest and is able to produce evidence of future user.

ELECTRICITY: CROSS-CHANNEL LINK
2.45 p.m.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken to investigate the feasibility of a cross-channel electricity supply link.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Central Electricity Generating Board and Ekctricité de France have carried out a joint study of a cross-channel link. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave approval in principle to a 2,000 MW link on 3rd August last year. Discussions of detail on technical and other matters are continuing between the two utilities.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind us of what became of the proposed or actual link with Dungeness across the Channel?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is a slightly different question, if I may say so to the noble and learned Lord. The favoured route for the present link is between Folkestone and Sangatte.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, the whole House will thank the noble Lord for his reply to my original Question. However, would he not agree that the creation of such a link is of some priority, as it would make the provision of electricity for a substantial part of this country independent of any potential interruption in the supply of coal?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are great advantages to both the United Kingdom and France in such a link. The shortage of generating capacity can be made up and each utility can obtain cheaper rates from the other. Furthermore, the link offers an opportunity to export up to 1 million tons of coal by wire every year.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord add to that information by saying when it is thought that this link may come into being, particularly as regards the reference to coal, which is so important? The noble Lord is so helpful about all these matters.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the link is planned to come into operation in
848
stages, the first 1,000 MW in 1982 and the second in 1983.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., repeat a Statement on the Guadeloupe Summit. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Stedman, who will repeat a Statement on the railways dispute.
ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Land Register of Scotland]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: There is an important point to be raised on Clause 1. However, I should first like to remind the Committee that between Second Reading and our Committee stage today the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who introduced this Bill, has been translated to another place and has left the Government. I am sure that from all parts of the House we wish him good fortune in his new appointment as chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I understand it will not prevent his attending your Lordships' House from time to time but he will no longer from that Bench be explaining Bills and answering points for us, for which we have been very grateful to him in the past, not only on Government Bills but on many other Bills in which he and I have been involved.
The Government have no resulting problem, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, can step in, and presumably he will have more time available than he has had in the last three years, much of which was spent on the devolution Bill. This Bill he will no doubt take in his stride because it is one with which the legal profession are much concerned. It would be wrong to consider it simply as a lawyers' Bill, although it does touch upon the technicalities of conveyancing. The Bill follows the Reid and Henry Committees and, although being of immediate concern to lawyers, its final state will affect everyone with transactions involving houses and land in Scotland.
I would remind your Lordships that the Bill appears to have received universal approval—that is, that there should be a new register system in Scotland of the kind proposed by the Henry Committee. This is necessary: the principle has therefore been accepted by these Benches and by everyone concerned in Scotland. Our purpose is to make the Bill as straightforward, comprehensible and unambiguous as possible. The key expression "interests in land" appears in the first sentence of the Bill, at line 7, page 1. As we made clear on Second Reading, we are not satisfied that that term, which
850
is so vital, is properly defined. The place for a definition is in the definition clause, Clause 26; and so I have not put down an Amendment to Clause 1. At present Clause 1 is not as clear as it should be. We believe that the definitions in the Bill are inadequate and we shall point to this in other places where a clear and correct definition is needed.
Besides the need to apply clarity for the legal profession who will have to interpret the Bill on behalf of their clients, we should try to ensure that the Bill is understandable to the public. I am not myself a lawyer and I approach this Bill as a layman who is concerned that we should make it as intelligible and clear in form as possible before it leaves us. I know that some well-qualified Members of your Lordships' House are unfortunately not able to attend our proceedings today: in particular my noble friend Lord Kinross, who is ill at the moment. He is a member of a solicitors' firm who are known in Scotland to be experts in conveyancing.
I find myself with the somewhat daunting task of making comments without the help of all the other interested and qualified Peers who have views on these matters, but I must register this point on Clause 1 regarding the matter of definition. It is widely regarded as one of the most important points in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in taking over from his noble friend Lord Kirkhill, will have been seized of this and it may be that he would like to say something now on it, or he may wish to do so when we come to Clause 26.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I acknowledge, first, the good wishes which have been so kindly uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in relation to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. I will certainly draw his attention to what has been said. It is certainly true that we would all like to make the Bill as straightforward, comprehensible and clear as may be and, indeed, understandable to the public if possible.
In that context I should like to say that in the course of the last few weeks, but also for some years now, those who comprise the Bill "team" have been working very closely with the Law Society of Scotland, who have been extremely

851
helpful especially in relation to all the technical aspects of the Bill. Their interest has been acute, especially in the last two weeks since the Bill was published, and they were able to come to grips with it. Those consultations have gone on for a number of years. I am happy to say that we had a meeting with the Law Society last week. I believe they had one also with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The meeting that I attended was most helpful to us and it was in fact attended by the partner of the noble Lord, Lord Kinross, Mr. Denys Andrews, who is the President of the Law Society and of a distinguished body of Scottish conveyancers. We all have the same objects at heart: first, to get the Bill on to the Statute Book as soon as may be and, secondly, to put it there in the most comprehensible form. By virtue of these consultations we have been able to resolve a number of difficulties, but no doubt we shall be referring to them in the course of the discussion this afternoon.
The Law Society, when they published their first Memorandum in December, gave some currency to criticisms of the general form of the Bill. They have indicated to me that they no longer maintain those objections, partly because we have met certain objections by the Amendments, proposed and intended, and partly because, on a more careful examination of the Bill, some of the other objections have disappeared—obviously, because the Law Society of Scotland do not want to hinder progress by trying to have the Bill completely recast.
Perhaps I might finish by saying that as far as the public are concerned we are dealing here with a highly technical matter which has been the subject of much legislation since the beginning of the 17th century. The nature of land is such that lawyers have always been deeply interested in it, and one of the disadvantages of a deep interest by lawyers is that the language which surrounds transactions in land, their recording and so on, is highly technical. It is not very easy, in one step, to go from that difficulty to the kind of comprehensibility that might appeal to the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus. So while we shall try to make the Bill as comprehensible as possible, the person with whom we are most concerned is the
852
consumer—and he is the conveyancing solicitor and others who are associated with him in that regard. I hope the Bill at least will be clear to them and I hope that for all it will be workable, and that we can get through the Business this afternoon in the spirit which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration and its effect]:
2.48 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(v) on any transfer of the interest where it is held under a long lease, udal tenure or a kindly tenancy;")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that an interest in land held under a long lease, udal tenure or a kindly tenancy shall be registrable. Perhaps I could just say that we are already talking about something that the man on the top of the Clapham omnibus would not readily understand—udal tenure or a kindly tenancy. But those who are affected by these things understand this, and the lawyers who act for them and in relation to them understand it as well.
Clause 2(7) lays down that registration shall be the only means of creating or affecting real rights under these rather specialised forms of tenure, but the Bill does not at present state in terms the conveyancing right to obtain registration in every case. Under Clause 2(1)(a)(ii) and (iii), any transfer of an unregistered interest, for valuable consideration or in consideration of marriage, is registrable. But if these conditions were to apply, the registration of the interest held under a long lease, a udal tenure or a kindly tenancy would have to rely on the discretion of the Keeper, under Clause 2(1)(b). The Amendment would ensure that any transfer of a long lease or the like would be registrable, even if it did not fall within the circumstances of Clause 2(1)(a) (ii) or (iii). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 27 to 33 and insert—

("(a) the creation of any of the following related interests in land—

(i) a heritable security;

(ii) a liferent;

(iii) an incorporeal heritable right, over the registered interest in land;

(b) any transfer of the interest including any transfer whereby it is absorbed into another registered interest in land;

(c) any absorption by the interest of another registered interest in land;")

The noble and learned Lord said: I think it is right to say that this Amendment is the first one which touches upon the question that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned when speaking to Clause 1 stand part. To a certain extent, the proposed Amendment here is a straightforward redraft of the existing subsection (3) of this clause. The new paragraphs (b) and (c) are virtually identical in terms to the existing paragraphs (a) and (b), but new paragraph (a) replaces and makes a substantive change to existing paragraph (c).
The purpose of the Amendment is to clarify further that a heritable security is an interest in land, and that a transaction affecting a heritable security is a transaction affecting an interest in land. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, indicated, the question of the proper definition of "interest in land" is one which has exercised the Law Society, and for that reason, at least, it is one that exercises us. We recognise that there is some force in the criticism that they have made, and that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has brought to our attention in this House, and we also recognise that, indeed, the clause might be further improved. If so, then further Amendments will be put down at Report stage.
We have discussed this matter with the Law Society. We have not yet reached a final position in relation to the definition of "interest in land", but when we do it may affect this Amendment. For the moment, I think it is better to move this Amendment, so that when we come to look at the reprint of the Bill for the purposes of Report, we shall see to what extent the changes can be kept down. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord
854
has been considering changes on these lines, and particularly on this question of a heritable security which will arise on later Amendments. At this stage, I certainly advise your Lordships' Committee to accept what the Government are proposing, but I should just like to raise a point concerning clarity, which involves the word "related" in the first line of the Amendment.
It is possible for that to be read in more than one way. For example, do (i), (ii) and (iii) have to be related to each other? That is one of the possible causes of doubt. It may be that there is another way of putting this. I myself cannot try to amend the noble and learned Lord's Amendment by manuscript today, but it could be that in the first line the words,
"‥the creation of any of the following interests relating to or over land"
might be a way of doing it. At the moment, the word "related", by itself, does not seem to get over the difficulty of being precise and clear. So I register that point at this stage, so that the Government have it in mind when they are looking again at this wording.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As he obviously appreciates, the word "related" is intended to introduce, in relation to a heritable security, a liferent or an incorporeal heritable light, the concept that these rights exist only in relation to another interest in land. That is why the word "related" was used. It may be that there is too much condensation there, which I think is what the noble Lord was saying. If so, we can certainly put that right when we are considering the effect of any alteration of the definition of "interest in land". I do not think in fact that to a lawyer any such confusion would arise, because no lawyer would suppose that there was any necessary relationship between the three items specified.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I just return to that? This is one of the points which the noble and learned Lord will probably realise has, in fact, been raised by the Law Society. So that it is representatives of the solicitors of Scotland who have raised this doubt. If I may adjust what I said earlier, a possible

855
rephrasing, not necessarily in the best Parliamentary wording, would be,
"the creation of any of the following which is related to and over interests in land".
That is a rather clumsy way of putting it, but it would probably get around the ambiguity.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. This clause refers to the registration of land, and it deals with the subject of how unregistered land will be registered. If any land is not registered, I take it that a heritable security will go into the Register of Sasines as at present, and that this will apply only to land which is already registered. There will be a considerable interim period when land will very slowly become registered. But I take it that if land is not already registered the present procedure will continue; that is to say, in the ordinary way it will be placed on the Register of Sasines, on which it will be ranked according to date.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Earl's understanding is correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.7 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 38, after ("interest") insert ("or any heritable security over the interest").
The noble Lord said: Here, again, we come to the question of definition. We are advised that the definition should include these words "or any heritable security over the interest". When one turns to the definition on page 19, line 2, one sees that we are proposing an Amendment which would add both a heritable security and also a long lease. That is in our Amendment No. 49. For the present, I am dealing simply with the question of a heritable security, and I shall deal with the question of a long lease when we reach Amendment No. 49.
The noble and learned Lord will know that many solicitors in Scotland, who are concerned in their daily business with conveyancing, consider that a heritable security should be included in the definition of "interest in land". If the
856
Government are prepared to accept including a heritable security in the definition in Clause 26, on page 19, then it will be unnecessary to have this Amendment in this place in Clause 2. So that we are hoping that, in due course, the Government will accept a change—be it the words of our Amendment or something similar—which will make an Amendment here unnecessary. But at this stage, I move this Amendment to point out that, unless a change is made in the definition clause, then these words ought to appear here. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This point will, no doubt, arise again in relation to quite a number of other Amendments, apart from Nos. 48 and 49. But let me make it quite clear that we accept, on the representation of the Law Society of Scotland, that uncertainty does exist in the Bill as presently drafted. I shall not—though I could—attempt to suggest that the uncertainty should not exist. It is enough for us to say that if the conveyancers of Scotland say that they are in doubt, then we must move to meet them. So in consultation with the Law Society of Scotland, it has been agreed that the existing definition of "interest in land" in Clause 26(1) ought to be amended to resolve such doubt as exists; namely, the doubt that a heritable security is to be treated as an interest in land. Any further references to heritable securities throughout the Bill will therefore be unnecessary. It may not be necessary, therefore, to deal at this stage with some of the subsequent Amendments. We accept in principle what is suggested to us, but in order to make sure that the Bill is absolutely watertight and workable we should like to consider this question a little further—in consultation with the Law Society, I hope. By Report stage I hope that we shall be able to put this matter in such a way that all concerned are content with it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I thank the noble and learned Lord for having said that at this stage. I know that this is a matter about which the Law Society of Scotland feels strongly and that it has made representations to him about it. None the less, a considerable amount of thought is needed to get the drafting right. As I understand him, the noble and learned Lord has in principle

857
accepted that the Government intend to make a change to the definition in Clause 26. On that understanding, and realising that we hope to have plenty of time between the Committee and Report stages for further discussion and consideration by the Government of this matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.12 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 42, after ("order") insert (", other than overriding interest,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment stands in the names of both the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and myself. In fact, it contains a printing error. The word "interest" should be "interests". I understand that this is acknowledged by the House authorities and that the error will be put right in the print of the Bill after this stage has been passed.
The proposed Amendment excludes overriding interests from those interests in land which will require to be registered when the Register of Sasines is to be closed. At that stage, any titles remaining on it fall to be transferred to the Land Register. The nature of overriding interests—they are denned in Clause 26(1)—is that they are not to be found in the Land Register. This makes it impossible for them to be fully identified and registered, in consequence of Clause 2(4). They will override the interests disclosed in the title sheet. Once registered, an overriding interest loses its overriding characteristic and partakes of the character of a burden. Even after all registrable interests in land have been registered, overriding interests will continue to exist, but outside the Land Register. The proposed Amendment aims to remove any doubt there might be about that.
I am sorry if that sounds a little complicated. Even to conveyancers I am afraid that the concept of "overriding interest" is slightly novel, although it is by no means novel to those who are familiar with the history of these matters in England. Both the Henry Committee and the Reid Committee considered this concept, and the wording chosen to describe "overriding interests" is that
858
which the Henry Committee favoured. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and I independently put down the Amendment. That is why our two names are shown on the Marshalled List. Probably that is a clue to the fact that it must have been a slip in the printing which resulted in the disappearance of the "s". The noble and learned Lord accepts the point which was made in my Amendment. Therefore, I need to say no more about it except to express gratitude for the fact that he has taken the point. However, may I ask him whether I am right in assuming that it is contemplated that it will be several years before the Secretary of State is in a position to make the order? My understanding is that this will take quite a long time. It is probably convenient for me to ask the noble and learned Lord about that point at this stage rather than on clause stand part.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The period is of the order of 20 years. It is envisaged that during that time particular parts of Scotland will be taken on to the Register so that in relation to transactions affecting interests in land within those areas they will fall to be registered. Gradually the areas will extend until all or most of Scotland is contained within the Register. When that point approaches, the Secretary of State may, if the Keeper advises him that it is possible to do so, make an order. The effect will be to close the Register of Sasines for this purpose and to put all the titles on to the new Land Register.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Registration shall have the effect of—

(a) making any right or obligation relating to a registered interest in land a real right or obligation;

(b) affecting any existing real right or obligation,

insofar as the right or obligation is capable under any enactment or rule of law, of being made real or, as the case may be, of being affected.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 provides that if the

859
grantee of a deed does not register the interest which it gives him, the rights and obligations conferred or imposed by the deed—in particular the grantee's right of property—cannot be maintained against third parties. This puts registration of an interest in the Land Register in the same position as recording a deed in the Register of Sasines.
The proposed Amendment rephrases more concisely subsection (5). Paragraph (a) incorporates the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and states that an interest in land must be registered before any right or obligation relating to it becomes real—that is to say, can be maintained against any outside third party challenge.
The provision puts the Land Register on to the same footing as the Register of Sasines as a means of creating real rights. That is as recommended by the Henry Report. Paragraph (b) provides that a right or obligation which has already been made real can be affected by another registration that creates real rights or obligations which impinge upon the existing ones. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.18 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
("(8A) Where an interest in land is registered, any obligation arising on any of the events referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (3) above under any enactment or rule of law to assign title deeds and searches relating to that interest in land or to deliver them or make them forthcoming or any related obligation shall cease to have effect in relation to that interest or to any other registered interest in land.
This subsection does not apply—

(a) to a land or charge certificate issued under section 4 of this Act;

(b) where the Keeper has, under section 11(2) of this Act, excluded indemnity under Part II of this Act.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. The purpose of this proposed Amendment is to render unnecessary the delivery or production of prior writs and searches to the purchaser of a registered interest in land. Under the Land Register, a registered title can be relied upon as having been examined and guaranteed by the Keeper, this guarantee
860
being backed by a State indemnity. The purchaser of a registered interest in land has therefore no concern with any pre-registration titles. Any right that he may have to have delivery or exhibition of them is removed by the Amendment.
There are two circumstances in which the Amendment does not apply. First, a seller will be required to deliver a land certificate to the purchaser, as he now delivers his title deeds. A creditor will hand over the charge certificate to the person to whom he transfers the security. Secondly, where the Keeper has, under Clause 11(2), excluded indemnity under Part II, on the ground that he is not satisfied that the title is above challenge, the holder of such a title may be required to produce prior titles and searches as evidence of this title, and these should continue to be made available to him. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to comment on the wording of the Amendment that has been moved, without suggesting that your Lordships' Committee should not accept it in its present form. However, the Government might care to consider whether or not further changes are necessary. In the first place—there are three points—there is a reference in line 2 to subsection (1)(a). However, it seems that paragraph (a) is not necessary and that the application should be to the whole of subsection (1).
Secondly, after the word "indemnity" in paragraph (b) may I suggest that the words "in whole or in part" are needed, so that the line reads:
"excluded indemnity in whole or in part under Part II of this Act"?
The third point is that we believe that an extra paragraph is needed: it would be (c); that is, to make it clear that the subsection does not apply where it is agreed that it should not apply. The new paragraph (c) would read:
"Where there is express agreement to the contrary".
The Government may choose other words to carry out that purpose, but those are three comments on this Amendment which we hope would bring about improvements. If the Government agree, they may come forward at the Report stage with the appropriate wording.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Of course, I will not endeavour to deal with these points at this stage because they are drafting points which are quite new to me. That is not a criticism of either the noble Lord or the Law Society of Scotland, because I appreciate that they themselves did not receive the list of Government Amendments until Wednesday of last week and when I met them they had not had time to consider them in detail. But I shall undertake to draw the attention of the draftsmen to these points and we will consider whether or not they, or something like them, are necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I meant to say at the beginning of my remarks that I hope he will understand that, when there is a Committee stage on the first day after a four-week Recess and the Government Amendments only become available on the Thursday beforehand, it is a little difficult to be able to give notice to the noble and learned Lord about these suggestions, which ordinarily I would have done. Indeed, it was little enough time in which to be able to digest the Government Amendments at all, and I also had a somewhat difficult and circuitous journey from my home near Inverness in order to get here today. So for all those reasons I hope that the noble and learned Lord will recognise that, although I was not able to give him notice of these points, it was well worth putting them on the record because it helps those who will have to work on the Bill between now and the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.24 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 26, after ("sections") insert ("15,").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this proposed Amendment is to include Clause 15 of the present Bill within the scope of the word "enactment" for the purpose of Clause 2. The new Clause 2(8A) states that any obligation under any enactment to assign, deliver or make forthcoming title deeds and searches shall cease to apply once an interest in land is registered and it has a land certificate.
Clause 15, however, declares,
"any deed executed after the commencement of this Act … shall import … an assignation … of the title deeds and searches".
This, of course, is not wanted so far as registered titles are concerned. One sees that from the new Clause 2(8A) and the Amendment ensures that it is disapplied from such titles. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to draw attention to a point on this clause with regard to subsection (9). It seems to be a very roundabout and tortuous way of drafting this Bill. Clauses 15 (with the Amendment that has just been made), 16, 17 and 18 are to have the same application, but let us; take as an example Clause 16. If someone wants to find out whether a deed of declaration, which is the subject of Clause 16, is affected by registration they first have to look up Clause 27. On looking at Clause 27 they find out that Clause 16 does cover the Land Register. But then one has to turn to subsection (9) of Clause 2, and after looking at that one can then determine that there can be a deed of declaration in land in the new Land Register, but it is, if I may repeat it, a roundabout and tortuous way of discovering that. So I would ask the Government whether it is too late to introduce some drafting improvements to this Bill which would make it easier for lawyers, let alone the general public, to ascertain the meaning when they were trying to discover particular effects of the Bill, like the one that I have just illustrated.
If the Bill could avoid this kind of cross-reference and looking up different clauses, it would be following the recommendations of the committee chaired by my right honourable friend Sir David Renton which recommended that Bills should be drafted in a much more simple way so that one did not have to go to about four different parts of the Bill and, in a way, have to cast around to see where in the Bill provisions were to be found to solve the small problem which I have just illustrated. I would ask the Government whether they recognise that it will make it difficult for people to interpret and whether it is too late to do anything about it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think I should say, first, that it is not too late to look at this matter again, because we see that Amendment No. 8 involves splitting Clause 2 into two clauses, which indeed is an implementation of one of the Renton recommendations that so far as possible clauses should be kept short. So here is a rather long clause which we are endeavouring to make short, and when it comes to dividing that clause into two separate clauses one has to consider the effect of subsection (9) which ought to apply to both of the new clauses.
In general, I understood that the Law Society were not themselves now pressing the suggestion that we have departed from the Renton recommendations. Of course, in principle it is highly desirable that all Bills should be instantly comprehensible, even to the layman. In practice, it becomes very difficult to achieve that, and to some extent it may be that simplicity can only be purchased at the cost of great length. It may be that when it comes to considering a particular mechanism such as has been adopted here, one has brevity but that throws up a certain amount of obscurity. However, it is not too late to look at this matter. We will look at it again, and if on reflection we agree with the criticism uttered by the noble Lord then we shall sympathetically try to find some other way of doing this.
In general, I might make one last remark. I do not think that once this Bill has come into force a conveyancing practitioner will be looking at the Act (as it will then be) in a "bitty" fashion. A practitioner of conveyancing in Scotland will have to know this Act just as well as he knows the 1924 Act and the 1868 Act. This is part of the tools of his trade. Therefore, he will not be saying, "There is something on page 3, but I cannot think what it means", when in fact the explanation lies on page 5. He really must carry the whole Act in his head. Therefore, I think that the difficulties which at this stage appear to be large will disappear altogether once the Act has become part of the tools of the trade of the day-to-day conveyancer.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question about the word "overriding".
864
He says that this is a new concept in regard to Scots law and there is a definition in the interpretation clause. Many of these matters which will come under "overriding" are real rights which will be real rights without any doubt—servitudes and a number of other things. If they are excluded from the registration and are no longer shown on the registration, how will anyone find out what are the overriding rights? As far as I know, a lot of them are already registrable in the Register of Sasines, but if they are excluded from registration how is anyone to find out that they exist? These rights are very important. I am afraid it is probably entirely my ignorance, but I cannot quite see how they will come to be shown on the Register. There are some words about the title page, but I am not quite certain where we are to look for the express extension of those rights as shown in the interpretation clause.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the provision the noble Earl has in mind is the provision in Clause 5(4) which appears at the top of page 6, where
"Any overriding interest which appears to the Keeper to affect an interest in land …shall be noted by him in the title sheet".
So there may be a note in the title sheet regarding any overriding interest if it appears to the Keeper that that overriding interest affects an interest in land. It may find its way on to the title sheet in that particular way. But of course certain overriding interests will not. They do not at the present time find their way onto the Register of Sasines. There are overriding interests of a kind specified on page 19 of the Bill in the definition clause. It really comes to this: the practitioner who is called upon to advise his client in relation to restrictions upon the client's interest in land has to bear in mind not only that such restrictions may be seen on the Register of Sasines, or in the search, or, as it will be, on the Land Register, but may also derive, for example, from statutes or from some other such source. Indeed, he will put the client on his inquiry and will inquire himself as to what other burdens there may be, as it were—I do not use the word "burden" in a technical sense—upon that interest. For example, one might have, as specified on page 19 in line 26, a floating charge, or some other statutory right. It really becomes a question of the

865
solicitor advising the client in relation to interests which may affect the client's interest in land, being interests of a kind that do not appear upon the register of title.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I had in mind things like servitudes, which I thought were normally registrable; I think they are in many cases. Apparently there is no obligation on the Registrar to put them in at all. I was wondering whether it was purely a matter for his discretion or whether there was any obligation to put these on the Register when he considers it of importance to the new proprietor.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the noble Earl is right in respect of some servitudes but not necessarily all. There may be servitudes which exist which are not on the Register, but they none the less exist.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume in order to hear a Statement being made in another place on Guadeloupe.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE GUADELOUPE SUMMIT
3.34 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I would like to make a Statement about the meeting with President Carter, President Giscard d'Estaing and Chancellor Schmidt which I attended at Guadeloupe on 4th, 5th and 6th January.
"Our purpose was to discuss political and security developments of common concern but not questions of a primarily economic nature. In particular we wished to consult about the present position on defence, detente, and disarmament. The vital issues before us
866
were how our people could live more securely in peace: how their security could be better assured.
"We began by examining the interrelationships between ourselves, the Soviet Union and China. We agreed that significant progress had been made in relaxing tension between the Soviet Union and the West and that we would do all within our power to maintain this. We marked the significant emergence of China on to the world scene, and the recognition of the Peoples' Republic of China by the United States, and examined the possible consequences. It is our conclusion that it is in the interests of peace and global security that China should make its proper contribution to strengthening international stability and we took a positive position on the need to develop closer relations between China and the West. But these new relations will not be at the expense of any other country. Our relations with the Soviet Union are as important to us as our relations with China: and we emphasised that our relations with the Soviet Union must remain central to the development of detente and that she must not be left in doubt that this is so.
"We discussed the requests that China has made for supplies of arms and I explained that the British Government is ready to negotiate the sale of Harrier aircraft, which we regard as essentially a defensive aircraft, provided this is balanced by substantially increased trade in other fields which would bring significant benefit to our civilian export industries.
"Much time was taken up in discussion about Strategic Arms Limitation. The negotiations for a SALT II agreement are now near a conclusion and the new agreement will be an important contribution to stability and detente. Her Majesty's Government earnestly hope that, following its conclusion, it will be speedily ratified. President Giscard and Chancellor Schmidt both expressed their support for early ratification.
"We also had a long discussion about our positions on the next discussions that will follow the new SALT II

867
agreement and in particular whether the so-called grey areas should be included in any further negotiations, whether in SALT III or separately. This question is one which directly affects the interests and security of Britain, France and Germany. The time is not ripe for any decisions yet and none were taken: but it was extremely valuable to have this opportunity of discussing these serious issues in depth with my colleagues. We have agreed to remain in close touch about the next steps.
"We also had a useful discussion about the Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions negotiations and the new French proposal for a European Disarmament Conference.
"Finally, we took the opportunity of our meeting to exchange views on shorter-term foreign policy issues such as the situation in Iran, Turkey, the Middle East and Southern Africa. As regards the last, I was glad to find that President Carter and I were in full agreement that the Anglo-American proposals remain the basis for a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and on the need to continue our joint efforts.
"This meeting between the leaders of the three Western nuclear Powers and of the Federal Republic of Germany, at which we were able to discuss, informally and in privacy, the central issues of peace and security was by general consent of great value and importance, not only to our respective countries but to the Western alliance as a whole. It would not have been right or possible for us to take decisions without consultation with our other allies and partners—and we took no final positions. But we did reach closer understanding of each other's points of view and improved our perception of the central political and security issues which lie ahead. The deliberate informality of the meeting helped us in this objective, and that is a matter of considerable importance for the people of our countries and for the successful pursuit of further negotiations in the field of arms limitation without injuring the security of the Western alliance.
"Following the meeting in Guadeloupe, I paid a short official visit to
868
Barbados, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, Mr. Tom Adams. This visit was taken for granted by the Government and people of Barbados who would not have understood if I had visited a French Island and then left without visiting a neighbouring Commonwealth country to discuss the problems and prospects of the Eastern Caribbean. My discussions with Mr. Adams and his Ministers covered a number of bilateral matters including trade and aid. Our talks, and my reception as the first British Prime Minister to visit the Island since independence, confirmed that Britain has a good and true friend in that important region."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.42 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement concerning a meeting which was certainly apposite in terms of time, and it would seem from what he has said that all is well in a perfect world. However, of course that is far from so. I should like to ask one or two detailed questions. On the question of SALT II, does the fact that Her Majesty's Government express the hope of a speedy ratification by the United States Congress mean that in Her Majesty's Government's view SALT II will reflect our proper concern about European security, in that it will take account of the possible Russian deployment of SS-20s on the European front and also of the possibility of European countries deploying, if they were so to wish in times to come, the Cruise missile?
As regards Iran, whatever may be the outcome of the terrible difficulties which beset that country today, was it made abundantly clear that we attach the greatest importance to the sustaining of close ties with that country, which is a friend of ours of long standing? To what extent was concern expressed, when discussing Iran and the Middle East, about the possible effects of what may happen in Iran on security in the Gulf in particular, and in the Middle East as a whole?
As regards Harriers, do we now take it that Her Majesty's Government have

869
finally reached the decision which should have been reached many moons ago and are prepared to sell Harriers to the Chinese People's Republic? However, most important of all, was consideration given at this conference to the setting up of some permanent inter-Governmental forum whose duty it would be to keep a continuing watch over the threats of various kinds (both overt and covert) outside the NATO area—threats to the interests of the Western world and to our friends elsewhere? At present, there are certainly plenty of examples in all our minds in what is a very troubled world indeed. The setting up of some such machinery outside the NATO machinery and outside the geographical area of NATO seems to me to be of prime importance. If nothing of that character came out of such a meeting, then I must say that I wonder what its purpose was.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, no doubt these high level discussions were useful—perhaps even very useful. I do not therefore associate myself with the criticism apparently made of the Prime Minister that they were held in the sunshine and that he enjoyed himself while bathing. I do not think that that is a criticism at all.
As regards the constructive point made by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, I also feel that it would be a good thing to investigate such a possibility and I hope that the Government will give consideration to it. The discussions themselves related mostly to what might be called the three 'Ds'—namely, defence, detente and disarmament—as well as other important aspects of foreign policy. Would it consequently be possible to tell us whether the Prime Minister was accompanied by any experts from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or did he rely entirely on his own expertise during the talks with his colleagues on these grave matters?
As regards the inter-relation of the three 'Ds', would the Government agree that no real ddtente with the Soviet Union is possible unless the defence of the West, and more especially the conventional defence of the West, is what is known as "credible"—that is to say, if, over the years, the Soviet Union is persuaded and convinced that any forward initiative of whatever kind on its part will not be worth the candle?
870
Will the Government not also agree that, unless the problem of the so-called "grey areas", to which the noble Lord, Lord Soames, very rightly made reference, and which I imagine was the most important of all the matters discussed in these high level talks, is tackled fairly soon, the defence of Western Europe is in some danger of becoming "incredible"?
3.47 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, used phrases such as "many moons ago" in relation to the sale of Harriers. This was a very important decision and it had to be carefully surveyed. As noble Lords know, I replied to a debate in your Lordships' House on this selfsame question. It must also be borne in mind that any agreement must inevitably be linked with other trade negotiations. So, as I have said, we are anxious to see an early conclusion, but we cannot just jump at it. It is not a question that we have been dilatory as regards this matter. On the other hand, some people have criticised us for daring to suggest that we should play off China and the Soviet Union. What has come out of the talks is that we want good relations with both countries and I think that that point comes through.
I agree with the noble Lord on the question of nuclear weapons and the "grey areas", if I may use that term which has been used by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I think the noble Lord is quite right to raise these matters. Of course, we must bear them in mind and I have noted carefully what the noble Lord has said. I certainly agree with him that it is important that we should have adequate defence resources. Naturally, our strategy is founded basically on NATO. I know that the noble Lord has suggested that there should be a wider organisation. That certainly is a matter for consideration. I could not say whether it was actually discussed at Guadeloupe, but I shall certainly follow it up and inform the noble Lord.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his remarks. Defence, détente and disarmament are very important. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister had, of course, expert advice. The discussions were very informal, but he certainly had expert advice available.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, may we know who advised him?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot spell out the names of the different people and I am sure your Lordships would not expect me to do so. I understand that he had expert advice. After all, when he went to Barbados he discussed with the Barbados Government the sugar production of that island and the need for aid—a very important matter for the Caribbean. However, he is well aware of the problems. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was a successful Foreign Secretary and I hope your Lordships will give him some credit for having brain matter.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that those of us who do not sit on the Front Bench would like the same indulgence extended to us as has been extended to the two Front Bench speakers? In framing my questions in an interrogative form, I ask for no more indulgence than has, in fact, been given to those speakers, but I ask for the same.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it is merely the convention of the House that the two Front Benches speak first when replying to a Statement of this kind and then the matter is thrown open to the Back Benches.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, that is not the point that I am making. I want to be allowed to put my questions in precisely the same form as the questions put by the Front Bench speakers and so long as I am given that indulgence, well and good. Before the Leader of the House falls for the bait of wanting to have a wider organisation as a kind of watchdog, will he be good enough to have a look at the histories of the watchdogs in the Middle East which, after all, for a while barked with the full support of the Tory Government? Perhaps he would read the debate which took place on 4th June, 1951, which was opened by the late Sir Anthony Eden, on the subject of Persia in which, of course, scorn was poured on the operations of the Tudeh Party. Perhaps he could say whether the successor of the late Mr. Mossadeq, Mr. Bakhtiar, will save the remnants of what is regarded as
872
a major British interest. Would he be good enough to look at what has happened to CENTO, to that great belt which was going to cordon off Russia and Communism from the West, at what has happened in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey?
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am anxious to be courteous to the noble Lord, but I think that he is going a long way round to reach his main point.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, in actual fact a Statement by the Prime Minister, repeated in this House, on the subject of Iran could then be used by the Tory Party, and would apparently put them in the position as if they had always been the wise guys on Middle East and Persian questions, when in fact the reverse is true. It is they, the Tory Party, who landed us in the mess in the Middle East and now they want another watchdog, presumably a successor to CENTO. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House not aware that they are doing precisely the same in Europe? It is the job of the Prime Minister, in Guadeloupe or elsewhere, to serve primarily the interests of the British people; he is not here to underline, dot the i's or cross the t's of what basically is a Common Market policy of a uniform system of defence, which is really what the Common Market is about.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have taken careful note of what the noble Lord has said and I shall certainly follow up the references that he has made. However, I should be here another half hour if I were to answer every point.
I should like to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on Iran. Following the departure of the Shah, the situation in Iran remains highly confused and volatile. In those circumstances, outside comment is unlikely to be helpful. I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will join me in hoping that peace and order will soon return to Iran. After all, it was a friendly country and we conduct considerable trade with this part of the world.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether consideration was given to the Russian takeover in Afghanistan and to the implications of that takeover on the security, on the one side, of Pakistan and India and, on the other, of Iran and the Persian Gulf?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I have nothing to say on that matter. I mentioned the Soviet Union generally in relation to China and in the wider issue, but nothing specifically.
Lord SHIN WELL: My Lords, does my noble friend not realise that he appears to have failed to clarify the mystery about the grey areas? Why was a decision about the grey areas—which, of course, involves the defence of the West—deferred? Does he also realise that détente between the United States of America and the Soviet Union—which so far is confined only to some vague understanding about the use of ballistic missiles—is hardly likely to prove beneficial to the Western States? Can he explain the reason for this decision to defer consideration?
Lord PEART: My Lords, in the earlier part of the Statement I mentioned that there was a long discussion about the discussions that will follow the new SALT II agreement, and in particular
whether:
"the so-called grey areas should be included in any further negotiations, whether in SALT III or separately".
Of course, I agree with my noble friend that this affects us; it affects nuclear weapons and their systems, strategically already covered by SALT II. Of course, the grey areas are the nuclear weapons intermediate between strategic nuclear weapons and conventional forces. Those are the problems that were discussed. I am simply saying that it was thought that the time is not yet ripe for any decisions, and none was taken. However, they had a discussion which was extremely valuable. We have agreed to remain in close touch about the next steps to be taken. I have emphasised that.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, first I should like to echo other noble Lords who have expressed strong approval of the Prime Minister's initiative in going to Guadeloupe and in having these discussions at this time. It seems to me to
874
be most appropriate. However, I should like to follow up the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on the subject of the relationship with the Soviet Union, which during these proceedings has annexed another independent country to its empire, as I ventured to profess to your Lordships last year. Is it right for me to interpret the upshot of this meeting as meaning something to the effect that we are compelled by the state of the world to conduct what might be called two policies vis-à-vis the Soviet Union? Clearly there must be a desperate attempt to prevent the universal destruction which increased armaments would bring about. We must keep that in a very serious, positive compartment. But in our other relationships—for instance, those concerning politics, human rights and everything else—with the Soviet Union we must not give way in order to try to purchase other points which, if we do give way we shall not obtain from the Russians.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which the noble Lord has made about the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was right to attend this important summit. He would have been criticised if he had not attended it. In view of some of the silly criticisms that have been made, people should put this point in its proper perspective. Yes, I agree with the noble Lord that our relations with Russia must be guided by two seemingly different policies. We need to be firm and strong; we need to be certain about our role in any defence organisation and there must be no waveringin that respect. The Russians must know that we are strong in the sense that we are with other Powers in Europe and outside Europe. I have in mind the American Alliance. However, at the same time we want trade with the Soviet Union. We do not want to play China off against the Soviet Union, which I stressed previously. I think that that is the right approach.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the three European Heads of Governments in Guadeloupe took the opportunity to discuss the question of the European Monetary System, and, if so, can he say anything on that subject?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think it was discussed in the sense that the issues I have mentioned were discussed. I cannot say whether one of the Prime Ministers or Leaders spoke informally about it, but it was not part of the main theme of the Conference. However, I recognise that it is a very important point and from the point of view of Europe it is important to have a final decision on this.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a very short question, simply perhaps for the purpose of it being taken into account by him. I believe that in this House there has been no criticism of the Prime Minister for going either to Guadeloupe, where his presence was essential, or to Barbados, where his presence was useful; and I see no reason why he should not enjoy himself bathing if he goes there. But will the noble Lord bear in mind that whenever the Prime Minister is away from this country, even for a short time, it is absolutely vital that he should put an acting Prime Minister in charge of the Government here, which was always the tradition before, so that someone is effectively in control here on the spot, and not merely a titular deputy Prime Minister?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I noted that, but I do not think that there was any breakdown here. Ministers who were responsible for policy in the domestic field were well aware of their responsibilities. Apart from that, the Prime Minister kept in touch with his office; communications were very good. I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said about bathing. I remember when he had a swim once at a conference at Scarborough. I thought he was right to enjoy himself, and I hope that the Prime Minister enjoyed his swim. He is well aware of our problems, and I think it is right that he should exert world leadership, and this is what our Prime Minister has been doing.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that he mentioned Turkey as one of the subjects discussed by the conference? May we take it that the conference took into account the serious troubles afflicting Turkey
876
at the present moment, which are leaving a very bad gap in the NATO arrangements for the defence of Western Europe? Did they also discuss any alternative for rilling that gap?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the situation in Turkey, the Middle East and Southern Africa was discussed. I cannot say that the specific points raised by my noble friend were considered, but generally there was a discussion.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Leader of the House realise that I am sure that on all sides of the House we welcome his firm and clear statement about our relations with the Soviet Union? However, 20 or 30 years in the lives of nations are not very much. It does not help our relations with the Soviet Union, or with anyone else, to have created the mess in Persia which was created by the Americans by their interference in their affairs, backed up by Conservative administrations. They were only too glad to get rid of Mr. Mossadeq, never mind how they did it, but having done it, and having left the mess, they have to accept the responsibility and not blame the Russians for it.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I noted what my noble friend said previously, and he has re-emphasised another point. I will bear in mind what he has said, and will be in touch with him. I do not mind continuing these questions, but there is another Statement and we have had half-an-hour on this one. I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have tried to answer at least most of the points.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords, I am sorry, much as I like the noble Baroness.

THE RAILWAYS DISPUTE
4.2 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a

877
Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the industrial action on the railways. The Statement is as follows:
"I reported to the House on 22nd November about unofficial industrial action in the Southern Region. I explained that this resulted from a recent recommendation of the Railway Staff National Tribunal rejecting a claim by ASLEF for new bonus payments for all footplatemen.
"Yesterday evening, the Board and the leaders of the three rail unions explained to me how matters now stand. The Board have put forward proposals for specific productivity improvements, and significant progress has been made in discussion. There are substantial benefits to be gained for railwaymen as a whole, for British Railways, and for the travelling public if satisfactory agreements can be reached. There is every reason why constructive negotiations should continue.
"In these circumstances, I regret that ASLEF have called their members out in a national rail stoppage today and on Thursday.
"In my previous Statement I made clear that industrial action was wholly unjustified, unfair to other railwaymen, damaging to the long-term prospects of the railways and inexcusable in the inconvenience it caused to the travelling public.
"I have no reason to change that view. On the contrary, I have said to the General Secretary of ASLEF that it is quite senseless to embark on a course which can only damage the interests of those it is intended to serve, and I have asked all the parties to meet me again this evening to see how best negotiations can be carried forward. I know that the whole House will feel that industrial action should be brought to an end without further delay".
4.4 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement, although I am sure that we are not particularly glad for the reason
878
for it. I am glad, and I am sure all my noble friends are glad, that the noble Baroness is now the Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment, and I hope that the whole House will congratulate her on this appointment.
I am sure that we all deplore the effect of this action on passengers, on the travelling public, and on the railway industry and its long-term prospects. The only question I feel it would be useful for me to put to the noble Baroness at this stage, when matters are obviously at a very delicate point, is this: can she, on behalf of the Government, give us an absolute assurance that whatever the outcome of these difficulties it will not be the passengers who will have to pay; that they will not be called upon to pay for the increased costs that may flow from this, and that it will be something that will really rest with those who are responsible?
This is a difficult stage in the history of the railways. All of us wish the railways to go on playing a major part in our transport. I hope that anything that I say today will not prejudice that decision. I hope that the Government will continue to display the sort of attitude that we have heard in this Statement, and at the same time make sure that in the end the travelling public, who have suffered, will not have to foot the bill.
4.6 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to join in congratulating the noble Baroness on her new appointment, and to thank her for having repeated this Statement. Deplorable though we think the action of ASLEF has been in calling these strikes at the present time, particularly having in mind the progress that we are told had been made in discussion, our main concern, as always on such occasions, is to say nothing that would exacerbate the situation while talks are proceeding, or are about to be resumed.
I have just two questions to ask the noble Baroness. One of them is in a somewhat different form but covers perhaps the same ground as the question just asked by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Are we to understand from this Statement that any further payments contemplated for British Rail employees

879
in the immediate future are to be made only in return for guaranteed improvements in productivity? Secondly, for the longer term do the Government accept that this unhappy dispute is a reminder to us all of the need to do everything we can to facilitate the formation, however formidable the obstacles now in the way, of a single union covering all employees of British Rail?
4.7 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments on my promotion, I suppose it is, and I certainly hope to continue to serve the House. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked what would be the outcome, and for an assurance that the passengers would not pay. Of course it is a matter for the British Railways Board as to how they meet their costs. What we are concerned with, and what my right honourable friend is concerned with, is that it is vital that we should not slacken our efforts to keep inflation in single figures. This means that any extra pay for the railwaymen can only be generated by increased productivity.
The Government are certainly not going to find any money to bail out British Rail, and we have made that very clear to all parties. It will be a matter, if this action continues, for the British Railways Board to decide how they tackle the situation. Again, as I say, it is a commercial decision for them, but I would hope that it would not be the passengers who would suffer. I think that this probably answers the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on the longer term, of the formation of a single union. If we lived in an ideal society, or we were starting again as did Germany after the war, then perhaps we might be able to do something about this and have one union for one industry. It would make life simpler right across the industrial field if Ministers, and the trade, and the employers had to deal with only one union. But we live in the world as we find it and at the moment we have more than one union, and what we want to see is those unions working together for the good of the railways, the good of their members, and above all to serve the public whom they are there to serve.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, if the Government are not going to bail out British Rail—and I am delighted to hear they are determined not to do so—and if the passengers are not going to bail out British Rail if increased pay is given to the drivers, is there not only one possible way by which the equation can be arrived at, namely, that any pay given in respect of increased productivity should be given only after the increased productivity has been achieved and not, as normally happens, beforehand?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure the British Railways Board and the Government will be looking for increased productivity for any increased pay that is awarded, and I am certain that if the increases that are given are so large that they look like breaking the inflation figures, for which we have set ourselves the target of keeping in single figures, the Chancellor will have to take account of that and take the action that is necessary.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, is there any reason to hope that when new productivity agreements are made they will in fact be adhered to? Is the present strike not taking place in breach of the agreements both with ASLEF and the NUR?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the present strike is arising out of the negotiations with the tribunal who recommended that there should be certain additional payments for railway drivers who were driving the high speed trains, and at this time it is a difference of opinion as between the tribunal, the British Railways Board and ASLEF. The main pay negotiations do not come to a head until the end of March; these are not the pay negotiations as such. This issue arises from the one particular finding of the Railway Staff National Tribunal which ASLEF is not at this stage prepared to accept, and we are negotiating on that now.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that statement, but does it not illustrate precisely the point that these negotiations are not really due to be finished until March, and that the strikes are taking place to the great inconvenience of the travelling public at a time when

881
the railwaymen should be guided by their agreements?
Baroness STEDMAN: As I said, my Lords, this is a sort of one off result of the decision of the working party and the tribunal appointed to look at this one particular aspect. The pay negotiations as such will not start until the end of March. We hope the negotiations that are now going on will mean that they will be a much more peaceful exercise than the one we are engaging in at the moment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I welcome the robust line which the noble Baroness and her colleagues are taking with regard to British Rail and their support of British Rail in insisting that extra pay must be related to extra productivity. However, may I ask her to take note that the travelling public are concerned with regularity of services? It is the continuous irregularity and the continuous breaching of service agreements, involving services being taken off, which destroy the value of the services altogether. Will she ask British Rail, in talking about increased productivity, to insist that that is related to regular attendance by the men in discharging their daily services to the public, and that the payments will not be forthcoming unless they give that service?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am certain those are all points of which the British Railways Board and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport are aware. However, I take note of them and will make sure that they are brought to their attention again.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, does the noble Baroness suppose that driving a high speed train is more exhausting than driving an ordinary train or requires greater skill?
Baroness STEDMAN: I was not a member of the tribunal which considered that point and came to this conclusion, my Lords; but there is certainly a tremendous responsibility in driving the high speed trains and perhaps, as some of the railwaymen are arguing, there is also responsibility in driving the very heavily committed commuter trains as
882
well, and I think that is the nub of the argument at the moment.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to enlighten the House a little further about the nature of the agreement between ASLEF and the Railways Board? What is the proper procedure to follow after the Railway Staff Tribunal has given a ruling? Is it within the terms of the agreement to strike, or is it not, and on what: basis?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I should have thought it was for all sides, all parties, to the agreement then to consider and to negotiate if they found there were any problems about the matter; to try to get round the table and settle them in that way. In this instance we appear to have gone beyond that and we have the unfortunate strike today and the other one in prospect for Thursday. My view as a trade unionist of many years standing is that you negotiate as long as you can and strike as the last action you take. That does not necessarily seem to be the popular view today, but I hope we shall come back to that.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, while I do not want to embarrass the Minister, may I ask her to say whether what ASLEF is doing is or is not in breach of their procedure agreement?
Baroness STEDMAN: I think not, my Lords, but I should like to take advice on that before replying further. I think that here it is a question that they negotiate and then take such action as is necessary. On this point they think the only way they can achieve what they want is by striking. That is the action they have deemed it necessary to take. But I will check on the point and write to the noble Lord.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, as it is the Southern Region of British Rail which has taken the brunt of these inconveniences over the years, may I ask the noble Baroness to consider the possibility of some kind of agreement between British Rail and the London Passenger Transport Board being entered into regarding the interchange of tickets, particularly in view of the chaotic scenes at Morden station which, to my cost, I witnessed this morning? While realising that this is a matter for the two boards,

883
may I ask her to agree that if that were done, many man hours of productivity would be saved? Would she further agree that, in these circumstances, London Passenger Transport Board is doing an excellent job?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, to answer the latter point, yes; London Passenger Transport Board is doing and has done an excellent job in moving commuters and getting people into London. As for the transferability of tickets, I should like to look at that. I was not aware of the problems experienced by the noble Lord. I will look into the matter and write to him.

LAND REGISTRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
4.17 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 8:
Divide Clause 2 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (5), and the second consisting of subsections (5) to (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: As your Lordships will see, this is the Amendment to which I referred at an earlier stage. It is intended to make the large Clause 2 into two smaller clauses. I understand it is accepted by the House authorities that there is a misprint in the Amendment as printed in that (5), where it appears in the second line, should be (4) because the first new clause will consist of (1) to (4) inclusive and the second of (5) to (9) inclusive. The remarks I made earlier about ensuring that subsection (9) applies to both apply here.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): The Question is that Clause 2 be divided into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4) and the second consisting of subsections (5) to (9).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for registration]:
4.18 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 9:
884
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("immediately") and insert ("in the first instance").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendment No. 10. As your Lordships will see, Amendments Nos. 9, 9A, 10 and 10A signify a shared dissatisfaction with the word "immediately", but a lack of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about what should take its place. I go a stage further and say I am not satisfied that the words I propose to put in place of the word "immediately"—namely, "in the first instance"—do the job either.
The present position is that, while not satisfied with the word "immediately," I am not satisfied that the words "in the first instance" are right, and I would ask Lord Campbell to consider not pressing his Amendment either at this stage. We are thinking about all the alternatives. We hope to arrive at one that is better than any of those at present on view, and accordingly I do not propose to go through the unnecessary exercise of inserting words I think I shall have to take out. In those circumstances, with the leave of the Committee, I do not move Amendment No. 9.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("immediately") and insert ("unreservedly").
The noble Lord said: While the Government are considering this matter it may be helpful if I make a suggestion or two. As the noble and learned Lord has said, we have both independently proposed that the word "immediately" should be deleted from the Bill, and my Amendment No. 9A, which I now move for the purpose of probing and discussion, would insert in its place the word "unreservedly". One of the shortcomings of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment No. 9 involves the meaning of the words "in the first instance", because the moment when a document is first handed over the counter at the building where the Keeper and his staff will work could be regarded as "in the first instance". Indeed, the person who hands in a document may well be given a receipt. I should expect him, even if he is only a messenger, not to depart without a receipt. It could be said,

885
therefore, that it had been accepted "in the first instance", whereas what we really mean is "after examination".
Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord when he is considering an alternative, to consider not only the word "unreservedly" which I have suggested for insertion in two places, but also the possibility of inserting the words "after examination". The difficulty is that it could be a few days later before the Keeper or his staff can say whether or not they are prepared to accept the document which has been handed in. I recognise that there is a difficulty in drafting here. I believe that both sides of your Lordships' Committee are aiming at solving the same problem, but I agree with the noble and learned Lord that his first suggestion of "in the first instance" could raise difficulties, for the reason that I have given. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider that point, and I beg to move the Amendment in case he wishes to say anything on it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Certainly that suggestion will be considered along with others which are currently being considered. Perhaps I should have made plain that the concept involved here is that, when the application is first received by the Keeper, it may be that there has simply been an omission to do something or to produce something to him and that therefore it does not fall to be accepted by him, though he does not intend to reject it provided that what is missing is produced, nor indeed does the applicant intend to withdraw it. Therefore, there may be a kind of limbo period when he hangs on to the application and the documents which accompany it but is waiting for something else to make the matter complete. It is that concept which lies behind this, and it is in order to give proper expression to it that we are looking at a better alternative. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion, which we shall certainly consider.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In view of our agreement to try to seek the best words we can, and hoping that this will lead to an Amendment at Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 10A not moved.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("withdrawn") and insert ("rejected by the Keeper or withdrawn by the applicant").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment would remove the word "withdrawn" and insert the words "rejected by the Keeper or withdrawn by the applicant". We think that there is a distinction between withdrawing something, that being a active step on the part of the applicant, and rejection, which appears to be an act by the Keeper. If the Amendment does not immediately commend itself to the Government, I would ask the noble and learned Lord if he would consult the Keeper about the Amendment, if he has not already done so, because we think that it is necessary to make clear that there can be a rejection or there can be a withdrawal. One would be by the Keeper, and the other would be by the applicant. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can say that the Keeper has already been consulted on this point, and indeed had he not been consulted I do not think that we could have prevented him advising us on it. With his advice, we accept that there is a distinction of the kind that has been mentioned by the noble Lord. As I understand the situation, if the noble Lord does not pursue the Amendment, the Government will certainly consider an appropriate Amendment to clarify the matter, and that will be put down at Report stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am very grateful for those words and for the noble and learned Lord's intention to find a suitable Amendment. I shall be happy to leave this to the Government's draftsmen, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.26 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 18, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Several noble Lords referred to this matter in our

887
Second Reading debate. The main point here is that there could in some cases be a quite unnecessary burden if an area has to be measured precisely and the information provided. Some cases could involve a number of areas spread over different parts of Scotland and separated one from another. At present there are pieces of land in Scotland which are transferred from one person to another and which have very strange descriptions. We hope that in about 30 years' time this Register will help make the picture much clearer. Certainly, there are areas which have never been measured precisely and where it would be an expensive, and we think unecessary, job to have to carry that out for registration.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton—and I am very glad to see that he has been able to join us after judicial proceedings this afternoon—pointed out in the Second Reading debate that there appeared to be no sanction or remedy if the measurement submitted was wrong or inaccurate. There do not appear to be provisions in the Bill as now drafted to ensure that the purpose of this subsection would be carried out. Here again, I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he has consulted the Keeper on this question, because I believe that the Keeper himself could provide the required information, either within a prescribed programme or as land is registered. The cost to the Keeper of providing this information is likely to be very small in relation to the overall costs of registration, and as the noble and learned Lord confirmed earlier this afternoon, it will take almost 30 years for a picture of the registration of the whole of Scotland to emerge, as well as to discover anything approaching the precise areas involved. I believe that the Keeper could carry out this task without great difficulty by use of instruments and maps in order to produce the information to the degree of accuracy required and without in all cases physical examination of the ground.
I should like to raise some other points, too. First, it has been pointed out to me that if, despite what I have said, the Government decide to keep something similar to this subsection in the Bill, servitudes, wayleaves, superiorities, and long leases should be excluded. In the
888
case of superiorities, if they were not excluded, the result could give the impression at the end of about 30 years that Scotland was about twice the geographical size that it is.
The other point I should like to raise concerns the question of common grazings. Have the Government looked into the impact on them of this subsection? It would appear that, by chance, someone might be landed with the expense of measuring, or of having measured, some common grazings because they were over 2 hectares and he happened at the time to be the person who was involved with the registration. Those are two further points which arise on this subsection. I think the noble and learned Lord will realise that we do not expect him necessarily to agree to this Amendment today, because it is a complicated matter, but we do have doubts about it and we hope that the Government will look very seriously at this subsection. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As the noble Lord has indicated, this is a matter which was raised during the Second Reading debate; and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, specifically referred to it in the terms just mentioned. But, of course, on that occasion he acknowledged, and I would repeat briefly now, that there is the sanction that if the application did not disclose the area in a case where such disclosure was required, the Keeper could refuse to accept for registration. Indeed, that is a sanction of the general character which the Bill applies in relation to other matters.
I was asked whether the Government had consulted the Keeper. Of course, the answer to that is certainly, "Yes". Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, could no doubt confirm, the technical aspects of this matter were discussed by the representatives of the Law Society and myself at a meeting last week which the Keeper also attended. On that occasion, it was understood and accepted by the Government that the expense of this particular exercise would probably be less if it were done by the Keeper than if it were done by the individual applicant. On the other hand, the expense would not necessarily be large in relation either to the cost of maintaining the register generally or, indeed, to the cost of any particular

889
application in relation to a large estate; and certainly it appears that the measurement could be done by means of instruments and maps, at least in a number of cases. It may be that physical inspection would be more likely to be necessary where the area was more nearly 2 hectares than in cases where it was very much larger.
Again, I am in principle sympathetic towards the suggestion—which we had also considered—that such matters as servitudes and the other matters mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, do not necessarily need to be included here, although, of course, as the Bill stands, that would be the effect of the provision. Indeed, I think this is a matter which we must reconsider in the light of the criticisms which have been made and in the light of the absurdity to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed—that is, that if in fact one starts to give areas in relation to servitudes, wayleaves and superiorities, one ends up with a Scotland substantially larger in these terms than in fact it is. We are basically concerned with disclosing title to the dominium utile in relation to the larger estates, "larger" meaning larger than 2 hectares.
However, in defence of the subsection as it stands I should say that its purpose is to make public the knowledge as to who has the title to larger areas of land, and I would submit that that is not an improper purpose in relation to what purports to be a land register. Indeed, if you have the time and patience, you can even at the present time go to the Register of Sasines and discover, perhaps not with precision but with reasonable precision, which are the large estates, and you can make a reasonable estimate of their extent. The effect of this provision would be that, as land came on to the Land Register and the estates over 2 hectares were designated as such as a result of this subsection, it would be possible, fairly instantly and no doubt through the use of the computer, to get a very clear picture as to what parts of Scotland contain titles in persons who have more than 2 hectares.
Now, it was said by the noble Lord that this subsection might create an unnecessary burden. I wonder if that is wholly true when you consider that many large estates that would be affected by
890
this provision are in fact farms, and, of course, it would be an odd farmer who did not know fairly accurately what his own acreage was. I would think that most farmers, if not all, would know their own acreage. Indeed, when you come to consider the mechanics of this, the application is in relation to some change in the interest in land, and one would have thought that even in the case of estates in respect of which at the present time the acreage or the hectarage is not known, the likelihood is that when the estate is put upon the market and there are particulars of sale produced, then the particulars of sale themselves will disclose how many acres or how many hectares are comprised in the estate which is up for sale. Indeed, if the seller does not disclose it, the likelihood is that the purchaser will want to know it. So the likelihood is that, even in the case of those estates where the acreage is not already known, it will become known for the purposes of the transaction; and, accordingly, the burden is not likely to be very large.
To come back to a point which I touched on earlier, I suggest that there is a legitimate public interest here. Noble Lords who are familiar with this matter will recall that in Scotland in the last year or so, if not more, there has been considerable public interest in the fact that persons from abroad—different countries, both in Europe and elsewhere—have acquired land in Scotland. While there is nothing improper in that and nothing illegal about it, none the less it is a matter with which the public have been concerned, and it may be that in the future this provision would make it easier to know exactly what is the position.
Having said all that, I have some sympathy for the observations which have been made in relation, for example, to the expense, and I am certainly prepared to consider and discuss with my colleagues the matter of the expense and on whom it should fall. In effect, as a result of the present provision, the expense would appear to fall upon the applicant, and it may be that if it were much cheaper to make it fall upon the Keeper, then one should consider that alternative. Equally—and I think this is a point which arose on Second Reading—the subsection as it stands does not allow any tolerance, as it were. If the estate is exactly 2 hectares,

891
there is an obligation to disclose that in the application, and it may be that the question of accuracy is one that we ought to look at again so that the marginal case is not too harshly dealt with; and, of course, I have already mentioned the question of servitudes, wayleaves, superiorities and common grazings, which are not really in the same degree and category as the ownership of the dominium utile. But subject to what I have said, to my anxiety to meet the legitimate criticisms and to my intention to bring these criticisms, with my own views, to the attention of my colleagues, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, not to press this Amendment at this particular stage.
4.40 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may bring him back to the question of sanctions. As I understand his answer, there is a complete sanction against the applicant who puts in no acreage at all, but there seemed to be no sanction against an inaccurate statement of acreage and no mention of how accurate it is supposed to be. Is there not a substantial risk that if people begin to put in inaccurate acreages just in order to get past the Keeper, the Register would be in a far worse condition with wrong statements in it than with none at all? That is one of the troubles in not having some sort of ruling about accuracy and some means to enforce it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am aware that what I am going to reply is not a complete answer to the noble and learned Lord, but in Clause 11(3)(e) on page 9 line 35 there is no entitlement to indemnity under this section in respect of loss where the loss arises as the result of such a failure. That is the only other provision to which I can direct attention, but it is not in the nature of a sanction. One does not want to take a Bill of this kind and put into it criminal sanctions or other severe penalties that would be suffered if some kind of mistake is made. One would have thought that in the cases which are marginal, one has on the one hand the applicant, who will usually know the acreage or hectarage, one has the
892
Keeper who can make a reasonable guess at it and who from the Ordnance Survey might be able to make an accurate measurement of it; and one would have thought disputes, as it were, are not likely to arise. If the expense can be kept down and if the expenses are modest in relation to the transaction itself, there will not be a great incentive for people to try to deceive the Keeper and the Keeper will not be too readily deceived. One would hope that one would not have to get into the field of sanctions; but it is a matter, with all the others, that I will take into account.
The Earl of SELKIRK: We have had rather a peculiar answer from the Government in regard to this. This Bill deals with the registration of title. The noble and learned Lord has not given a single reason why this particular clause would be of value with that purpose in mind. He was frank, and we are always grateful for that, and he said it is a matter of legitimate public interest. That may well be so, but it has nothing to do with the registration of property. He said that the Keeper knows fairly well the size of the property. Why should not the Keeper make that available if anyone wants to know? If he were asked, "What is the property of Mr. So-and-so?", the Keeper would know that from his Register and the Government could legitimately reply in Parliament or elsewhere if this question were put. But it is only adding an additional burden.
My noble and learned friend said that it might be inaccurate. I do not think that at the present time size of property is normally registered in the Register of Sasines. I do not think so; I am not familiar with it, for it is many years since I did it. There could be a conflict between the march line of a property and the size. It is quite possible for this to happen. That would be of no advantage. What matters is where the lines of demarcation are clearly marked. That is important, but the size of the property has nothing to do with registration. It would be much simpler to omit this. In due course, if the Registrar refused to register because he did not accept the size of the property, this is going to be the only real title; and the owner of the property would be put into a ridiculously impossible position. I am glad that the

893
noble and learned Lord is to go into this. The clause is quite unnecessary for the general purposes for which this Bill is designed and I think that it could be properly omitted.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in answer to that, of course, there may be many older titles—indeed, there are—which do not contain any indication of the acreage or the area; but modern titles already often do so in practice. The acreage of almost all farms, for example, is known and that is disclosed. If one thinks of the builders' plots, then they almost invariably indicate the area. I have been given one example, of Messrs. Wimpey, who give the area to the third decimal place. It is not very unusual.
The noble Earl also said that we are talking about a Land Register and that this has nothing to do with a Land Register. I do not agree with that. In fact, the noble Earl will doubtless recall that the Land Register at this moment contains matter which is not strictly necessary. For example, it records the normal conveyance that is seen in the search and is on the Register; and that includes the price. It is there because it happens to be in the conveyancing document; but the price that was paid yesterday or 20 years ago is not particularly relevant to the question of title. One sees at the present time that the Land Register, or Register of Sasines, contains material which is not essential to a Land Register; but I am looking at it in another way. One may say that here we have the Land Register of Scotland; can we find how many large estates there are over a certain size and who has the title? It is not an illegitimate purpose of such a Register to contain that. If it can be done conveniently and cheaply this way, I should have thought it was reasonably sensible to try to do it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he and his colleagues will look hard at this subsection again. Like my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I have been surprised that there should be this requirement in a Bill which the noble and learned Lord himself said earlier was going to be something for the lawyer, the solicitor, who specialises in conveyancing. When I was making a plea for the layman
894
such as myself trying to find his way around this Bill, the noble and learned Lord said that on the whole the general public are not going to be looking at this; that it is something that the solicitors who are concentrating on conveyancing will soon familiarise themselves with.
May I say I do not myself object to the principle which the noble and learned Lord has given: that is to say, that while we are compiling a new Register, which is going to take about 30 years before it gets near to completion, we might also at the same time take the opportunity of trying to put together dimensions and, at the end of the day, get a picture of the size of various estates, plots of land or parcels of land, whatever they may be. But that will take at least 20 years, as I have indicated, to get even a first general impression, so that it does not really answer the present topical point which has been in the Scottish Press during the last year or so about certain Dutchmen coming over and buying some parts of Scotland which, in the end, turn out to be very small percentages of the Highlands or of other parts. This will not answer that point, for in 20 years' time we can be sure something different will be the topical point of the moment.
None the less, I see that this is a byproduct which could be achieved in due course. My point is that it ought not to require people to be put to the amount of trouble and expense that they could be as the subsection is now drawn. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that the Keeper would have to do a rough check, or even an accurate check, to see whether the information he was given was not something that had just been dreamed up and was completely inaccurate. If through his staff he is going to have to do some kind of instrument and map check, anyway, on anything sizable that is being registered, then my contention is that he could probably, with little extra cost, perform the whole function, if it is to be done. As I say, over a period of years a picture will emerge which is what the Government are aiming at and what after 20 years or more I think will be useful.
When I first saw this subsection, no doubt like others who are not familiar with conveyancing, I thought that this

895
was mainly a difficulty arising in moors and mountains, in the Highlands and near my home, for example, where I know that large tracts of land have simply been described by an area on one side of a watershed and down to a burn, or something like that; nobody has tried to find out what its measurements are. However, I have been told by Scottish solicitors in the past few weeks, while I have been considering this Bill, that they have been carrying out transactions of farms involving arable land where everybody knows that the acreage—no doubt to be called the hectarage in future—is a notional figure, and the farm has never been measured.
It might be called 250 acres, for example, but the landowner originally never knew what it was and the farmer who is coming in and buying it now is not interested either. He goes round and looks at the farm and sees what the marches are, looks at the land and is happy to take it at the price without necessarily checking whether it is exactly 250 acres, or whatever the notional figure is. I have in recent weeks been told that by conveyancing solicitors. This is not in the remote areas of Scotland, but still happens in areas where there is good farming land. I was surprised but was told that this still happens. So it could be a burden on somebody to have to go round and measure a farm accurately in those circumstances. It might cost £500 or £600 to do it accurately on the ground. That is an illustration of something which apparently still exists in Scotland of which I was certainly unaware. I realised that there were problems in the remoter areas or in the moors and mountains. It is, of course, quite possible at the moment to know what the really large estates are. In case any Members of the Committee do not know it, I can tell them who is the largest landowner in the whole of Great Britain—I have occupied that post. He is the Secretary of State for Scotland. It does not need a register for that to be known because that is in relation to the area of Scotland. A lot of that land is moor, mountain or croft. None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland is not only the largest landowner in Great Britain but also the largest landowner in Scotland.
Over a period of years some of that land, which may not have been measured too
896
accurately in the past, may have to come under this process if eventually all that land has to be registered, and presumably it will within 30 years. But I hope that the Government themselves will do something to spare any additional work by civil servants that might be necessary towards the end of that period if some of the moorland and mountain which is owned by the Secretary of State, which has not hitherto been properly measured, has to be subjected to this. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take these matters away and, unless any other noble Lord wishes to intervene, I shall now beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Completion of registration]:
4.54 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("of") and insert ("in respect of").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 15 is in the same sense as Amendment No. 13 and I shall not speak to that separately. Both Amendments are for the avoidance of doubt. The present words "registration of an interest" might be held as excluding a registration which affects an interest but which is not a registration of the interest itself. The words in the Amendment ensure that the latter situation is covered. That is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("heritable security").
The noble Lord said: I suggest that we consider Amendments Nos. 14 and 16 together. These Amendments, like the others we have considered earlier today on the question of definitions, are dependent upon Clause 26 and the definition at the top of page 19 of the Bill. In view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said earlier about the Government's intention to make changes in that definition, I do not think I need press that Amendment. I move it in

897
case the noble and learned Lord has anything that he wishes to say on this point. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: All I need say is that Amendment No. 14, like Amendment No. 16, is associated with Amendment No. 3 and other Amendments which we have discussed. Amendments Nos. 23, 25, 26, 27 and 31 are connected at least in part. Rather than speak on each occasion and repeat what I have already said, I shall merely indicate to the Committee that these are all Amendments which I envisage as being affected by what I have already said, to the effect that the Government are reconsidering the definition of interest in land, and that should have a bearing upon all these. The bearing is simply this: if one gets the definition right first time, it becomes unnecessary to add in these words on each occasion in order to clarify the particular section or subsection.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("of") and insert ("in respect of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
4.57 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 44, leave out ("authentic") and insert ("a true copy").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. It appears that the land certificate which the Bill provides for, and if the Henry Committee's proposals are to be followed, will certify that there is a facsimile or true copy of the title sheet. I have with me a specimen of a land certificate which is an example of what is being used in the pilot scheme which the Keeper has already been carrying out for
898
some time. This specimen has on the front of it:
"This is to certify that this is a facsimile of the title sheet relative to the subjects within described".
The "facsimile" might be better than "a true copy", but there is not much difference between the two. It seemed from the point of view of consistency that if "facsimile" is to be used or "a true copy", then this might be put into the Bill rather than the word "authentic". If there is any objection to this perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This was a matter which the Law Society of Scotland conveyancing committee raised with me at the meeting last week. We agreed to consider it and I am happy to say we have done so. However, we think that the wording of the Bill as it stands is satisfactory. Perhaps I could explain. As the noble Lord has pointed out, Clause 4(2) states that the land certificate is a copy of the title sheet. In terms of that clause, the land certificate will bear the seal of the register and will be certified by the Keeper as authentic. It appears to us that to use the word "authentic" is rather better than to use the words "a true copy". This is partly because if one goes to Clause 5(5) which appears on page 6 of the Bill from line 12 onwards, one sees:
"The Keeper shall issue to any person applying"—
I pause there because Clause 4(2)—the one with which we are now concerned—relates to what he gives to the applicant, and Clause 5(5) relates to what he gives to any person applying:
"… a copy, authenticated as the Keeper thinks fit, of any title sheet, part thereof, or of any document referred to in a title sheet; and such copy, which shall be known as an office copy, shall be accepted for all purposes as sufficient evidence of the contents of the original.
If he issues a copy of this kind, the office copy, that must be a true copy and that would be the proper description. But when he goes to the extent of solemnly putting the seal on and saying that this is an authentic document which he issues to the applicant, we feel that the word "authentic", on reconsideration, is still better than the word proposed. Accordingly, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in the light of that, not to press this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am glad that the Government have had time to consider this point, and certainly at this stage I shall do no more than thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [The title sheet]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
Page 5, line 16, leave out from ("land") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would be consequential and would have to be made if the Government agreed to delete subsection (4) of Clause 3. As we have discussed that, I do not think it is worth while taking it further now, and so I will not move this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 16, after ("land") insert ("including a reference to the ordnance map").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19. This proposes that the words "including a reference to the ordnance map" should be inserted. We feel this would be sensible because it would be consistent with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Clause 3, where the applicant is obliged to identify the land by reference to the ordnance map. Surely the Keeper should also enter in the title sheet a description of the land by reference to the ordnance map. I hope the Government will be able to accept this point.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do accept what the noble Lord has suggested when he said that surely the Keeper must do the same. The Keeper accepts that. In fact, the Keeper, to whom I have spoken about this on a number of occasions, including this morning, cannot conceive of a situation in which he would not do so. For that reason we think that this Amendment is unnecessary. The cardinal principle of the proposed system of land registration contained in this Bill is that it should be map-based. Clause 3 (2) (a) directs the Keeper not to accept an application where
900
the land to which it relates is not sufficiently described to enable him to identify it by reference to the ordnance map. This points inevitably to the fact that the Keeper will include such a reference in the title sheet. Certainly that is his intention, and it would be bizarre indeed for the Keeper, on some future occasion, to depart from that.
If I may add a small point, I do not think that the wording is perfect because it might have been better to say, if we were crossing the t's and dotting the i's, not
"including a reference to",
but,
"including a description by reference to the ordnance map".
I would rest on the fact that it is unnecessary to spell out that which is obvious from the whole concept of the system which the Bill enshrines.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hope the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord means that there would be no doubt and that the solicitors, who will be the people mainly concerned with operating this Bill when enacted, will be happy about it. At this stage I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 20, which is a probing Amendment, because I am not suggesting that this subsection should be removed at this stage but I am asking for some explanation. On reading the clause carefully, it seems that the only application of this definition is to subsection (4) of the clause. I am sorry that again I have not had time to give the noble and learned Lord notice, in the way that I have usually been able to give notice to Ministers, but this is the first day after the Recess and all of us have been much pressed in getting Amendments in at all and in reading the Government Amendments. But if it is correct, would there by any drafting objection to making the definition paragraph (c) in subsection (4) and starting it within this subsection? I know it is normal practice for sections of Bills to have a definition at the end of the whole

901
section, but in this case it is thought by solicitors who have been in touch with me that it would have been clearer if it could be tied to subsection (4) because then it would be clear that it is only to that subsection that the definition applies. But the assumption may be wrong and that is why I started by asking the noble and learned Lord the question.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The assumption is in fact correct. The provision in subsection (6) applies only to subsection (4). I would think that in fact there would be no great difficulty for the practitioner, but I indicated earlier that the concept of overriding interest is a novel one to the conveyancing practitioner in Scotland; and so he is bound to go at an early stage in his consideration of this Bill to the definition section, where he will find on page 19 that "overriding interest" is defined and the words there begin:
"Overriding interest means subject to Section 5(6)".
His attention is instantly directed to subsection (6) here and therefore he will not miss it. But having said that and recognising that it applies only to subsection (4), I do not think there is any drafting objection to moving it. Subject to the draftsmen's advice in relation to that, I will undertake to consider doing what the consumer, in the form of the Law Society's conveyancers, would like.
The Earl of SELKIRK: May I ask why we see in four places in this Bill the information that short leases would be excluded? I should have thought the interpretation clause covered this quite sufficiently without these frequent references. There may be some good reason, but it seems redundant.
Lord McCLUSKEY: While I have been answering other points the noble Earl has been counting out the number of references to short leases. In fact, I do not know that there are any short leases, as such, mentioned: there are things which are not all long leases. I presume they figure in different parts of the Bill for different reasons, but I can check that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble and learned Lord again has been flexible enough to say that he will look at this. My Amendment was a probing
902
one intended to draw attention to this definition subsection, and so at this stage I will beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Ranking of titles]:
5.9 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 21, after ("title") insert ("or any other provision as to ranking in, or having effect by virtue of, any enactment or rule of law,").
The noble and learned Lord said: The proposed Amendment recognises that it is possible for the ranking of deeds to be governed not only by title deed but by Statute or indeed by common law. The Amendment ensures that this may be achieved for the purposes of the Land Register: a ranking created in that way will be effective for the purpose of the Land Register, and this Amendment proposed by the Government arises from a suggestion made by the Law Society of Scotland. We are grateful to them for it, as for many others. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I welcome this Amendment and I understand, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that it is welcome to the Law Society. I would only say at this stage that Amendments Nos. 22 to 31, which are in my name, are intended to be similar and consequential, but perhaps I shall deal with them as a group when we reach them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.11 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 22, leave out ("titles to").
The noble Lord said: As I indicated just now, I think it will be convenient to consider Amendments Nos. 23 to 31 with this one. The point of all these Amendments is simply this. Although the Henry Report recommended that titles should be registered, the way in which this Bill is setting about it does not carry out that recommendation. What the Bill is doing is arranging for interests in land to be registered and not titles, and for that reason it has been pointed out that changes of this kind are necessary.

903
The noble and learned Lord has already suggested the first one, which we have just made in Amendment No. 21.
Among these Amendments Nos. 22 to 31, the point about title is being changed, but, at the same time, there are references to heritable securities and, as the noble and learned Lord knows, these are again related to the change in the definition clause, Clause 26, which we know that the Government will make. So it may be that the Government are now in a position to accept some of these Amendments which refer to title, but may wish me not to move those that refer to heritable securities until they have thought out the whole question of definition. I shall wait to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say, because if the Government prefer to do the redrafting I shall not move the Amendments, if I am satisfied that they have accepted the point. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I just say, generally, that we believe we are, in fact, carrying out the Henry recommendations in this respect. Certainly, that is the intention. Although the Henry Committee did produce proposals in the form of draft clauses, I recall—but I cannot put my finger on it at the moment—that they made it plain that they were not attempting to do the draftsman's job for him.
We accept that this clause could be improved. As I see it, there is a double use of the term "title" in the clause as presently drafted. It is used in subsection (1) to mean the deed itself, so that it mentions "ranking in any title", whereas elsewhere it is used rather in the sense of entitlement. Recognising that there is a possible ambiguity, we believe that it must be reconsidered. Rather than accept these Amendments, which might well do the trick but might not, I should like to ask the noble Lord not to press any of them at this stage. We are certainly considering how to tackle this ambiguity, and hope to come forward with a form of words which satisfies the general scheme of the Bill, and, at the same time, meets the point of substance and removes any ambiguity. Subject to that, I would ask the noble Lord not to press these Amendments.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Again, the noble and learned Lord has seen the main point that we are making. I should certainly be glad to leave to the Parliamentary draftsman and to himself the redrafting necessary in order to remove the ambiguity of the clause as it now stands. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Continuing effectiveness of recording in Register of Sasines]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("by") to ("has") in line 38 and insert—

("(i) an instrument which, having been recorded before the commencement of this Act in the Register of Sasines with an error or defect, or

(ii) a deed, which having been recorded before the commencement of this Act in the Register of Sasines with an error or defect in the recording").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to suggest to the Government that they may have gone further than Section 143 of the 1868 Act referred to. If a mistake is recorded under the Bill as it is now drafted, it appears that the actual deed could be taken back and altered. Indeed, another mistake could be made. Something could be rubbed out and something else put in, which was again wrong. We feel sure that that is not what is intended by the Government. We believe that what the Government are proposing is that a defect in recording can be corrected, and the wording proposed in this Amendment has that effect and protects the deed from being taken out and changed. That is the simple point. We believe that that is what the 1868 Act provides, and that it is the intention of the Government to continue that procedure and not to alter it. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Government certainly accept that the diagnosis of the problem, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just spoken, is correct and the Amendment is certainly acceptable in principle. The problem

905
possibly starts with Section 143 of the 1868 Act, which is referred to in this subsection. That Section differentiates between an instrument and a deed, and an error re-presented for registration is confined to an instrument. But we believe that the Amendment will require to be looked at more closely by the draftsman. In particular, we are considering whether or not we may, as a consequence, have to define an "instrument". We may not, but it is one of the matters that arise. So that, again expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, and indeed to the Law Society, I would ask him to withdraw at this stage, and we will undertake at Report stage to come forward with an Amendment which is intended to meet this point.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In complicated matters of this kind, I would not expect the drafting of an Amendment written under my name to be perfect. Of course, it started with a more expert draftsman and it has gone through some changes. But the noble and learned Lord has accepted the principle of the Amendment, and I am glad to think that he will be looking at an alternative and at the need, if it arises, for the word "instrument" to be denned. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Rectification of the register]:
5.19 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 16, after ("below") insert ("and subject also to section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 as amended by section 9 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading, we had a considerable amount of discussion of the question of prescription. I think that most noble Lords who spoke were worried that the effect of this Bill, as it is now drafted, might be to cause some doubts. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it absolutely clear that the provisions of sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this clause are subject to the law of prescription. Unless something
906
on these lines is put into the Bill, we believe that there could be considerable doubt. I shall not go into the question of prescription but, as noble Lords will know, it is the principle of 10 years' undisputed possession. It is a principle which is very important in Scotland and, indeed, in most countries of the world. I hope, therefore, that the Government will recognise that there is a need to remove any possible doubt on this point. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This is one of the matters upon which, despite a good deal of discussion between experts, agreement has not been reached. I am really an outsider. Although at the beginning of this debate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, suggested that as a lawyer I would therefore know something about conveyancing, there was a flaw to his particular logic, for I come to the matter as almost as much of a layman as the noble Lord. However, I shall look at the matter in the way that the noble Lord has presented it.
He says that he wants to make it clear beyond doubt that sub-paragraph (iv), to which he has referred, of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this clause is subject to the law of prescription. The anxiety to which he is giving voice derives, I think, from the fear that the word "unjust" in line 35 somehow confers upon the Keeper of the Registers an uninhibited discretion to make up the law as he goes along; he will decide these matters as a kind of court of equity. But that is not so. When one bears in mind, if one looks at paragraph (b), that the court, or the Lands Tribunal of Scotland, as it may be, can give to the Keeper an order—and that relates to sub-paragraph (iv) as well—then it becomes plain, does it not, that neither the Keeper, nor the Lands Tribunal, nor the court, whichever court it may be, is free to ignore the law of prescription or, indeed, any other law that is applicable. So the use of the word "unjust" is not designed to confer upon the Keeper or anyone else a discretion to ignore the law. Their obligation is to apply the law. We do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to put in this particular reference. Indeed, one might go further and say that if one refers specifically to the law of prescription, that could be positively harmful.

907
It would have the effect, we think, of making a title inviolate after prescription—which, apparently, is the intention—whereas such a title is itself subject to prescription under a competing title. So one would get an undesirable result.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 9 of the Bill which we believe does all that is required in applying Section 1 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to the scheme which we have here. There is also a technical defect, in that the last few words of the Amendment—"as amended by Section 9 of this Act"—are unnecessary, having regard to Section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978. But I do not rest upon the technical point. We feel that it is quite unnecessary and could be positively harmful to put in these words. Although I am not confident that agreement will ever be reached upon this somewhat knotty point, on the best judgment that we can make the Bill is satisfactory as it is, and I would resist this Amendment.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: I am sorry to speak after the noble and learned Lord, but I had hoped that he would be more forthcoming about this. I should have thought that the danger arises from Section 8(1) which gives the power to rectify any inaccuracy. That is the general power. Then it is cut down in various ways by subsection (2). One starts off with the power to remedy any inaccuracy. I should have thought that one could found an argument on the fact that that overrode the ordinary law of prescription. I cannot say that I have been into the matter nearly so fully as the noble and learned Lord, but it seems to me to raise quite an element of doubt as to how this squares with the law of prescription and I should have thought that it might repay further attention.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not think that we have considered the matter in quite that way before. Having regard to the source of that observation, plainly it merits further consideration and it will be given further consideration in the light of the observations which the noble and learned Lord has made. I do not think that it relates to precisely the same
908
concern that has hitherto been voiced by the Law Society, but that may be a better reason still for giving the matter further consideration. I hope that at the end of the day we shall all be agreed about this. Certainly we shall endeavour to look a little further at the matter.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think that we are all agreed on the objective. The noble and learned Lord has said that he and his advisers have considered the representations that have been made—that something ought to be put into the Bill on the lines of Amendment No. 33—but have not thought this to be necessary. None the less, ambiguity appears to exist. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has raised a further point, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that in the light of those observations he will consider the matter again.
At the beginning of today's proceedings I said that, as lawyer, the noble and learned Lord would be able to take over quite easily, and that he would be able to take following the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in his stride. The noble and learned Lord has demonstrated today that he can do so. However, I have come to recognise in the last few weeks that the subject of conveyancing is very specialised and that the noble and learned Lord is an advocate who would not necessarily have come into contact with it on many occasions. I can only say that solicitors in Scotland who specialise in this subject are worried that if all doubt is to be removed on this point the Bill in its present form is not complete.
I do not think that I need to pursue the matter further at this stage because the noble and learned Lord has said that he will look at it again, although his first reaction to the representations of the Law Society did not make him feel that this was necessary. It is one of the important points in the Bill. As I have said, our aim is quite clear, and it is the same: it is to remove any doubt. It is just a question of how best this can be achieved and whether the Bill needs to be changed or to have any addition made to it in order to achieve that objective. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 18, leave out ("any") and insert ("the").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 36. At this stage, I beg to move Amendment No. 34, but Amendment No. 36 is the substantial Amendment. The effect of Amendment No. 36 is to define "the court". For the avoidance of doubt, "the court" is defined, for the purposes of the clause; and since the definition refers to "the court", the previous reference in line 18 to "any court" is consequently amended. "The court", having jurisdiction in questions of heritable right or title, is rather more restrictive than just speaking about "any court". Not every court has the same jurisdiction in relation to questions of heritable right or title. Therefore, at this stage I beg to move Amendment No. 34.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
("(1A) Subject to subsection (2)(b) below, the powers of the court and of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland to deal with questions of heritable right or title shall include power to make orders for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This proposed Amendment provides that any court having jurisdiction in questions of heritable right or title or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland will have power to order the Keeper to rectify any inaccuracy in the Register under Clause 8(1) should rectification be required as a result of proceedings before the court or the Lands Tribunal. As at present drafted, such a power is inferred from Clause 8(1); the Amendment is provided merely for the avoidance of doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 40, after ("section") insert—

("(a)"the court"means any court having jurisdiction in questions of heritable right or title;

(b)")

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment and I now formally beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Positive prescription in respect of registered interests in land]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: If I may speak on Clause 9, again it has not been possible for me to give the noble and learned Lord notice and I do not expect him to be able to give an answer today, but I think this is the occasion for me to draw attention to a point. If one looks at paragraph (a) its effect is to add sub-paragraph (ii) of the 1973 Act, but to add it as an alternative; and the kind of shorthand amendment which I suggest may be necessary is, if one looks at the Bill on page 8, line 7, instead of the word "or" to insert "and/or".
I know that is not Parliamentary drafting but I think it is the best way of indicating how a possible change may be needed in the Bill. Could not the 10-year period of positive prescription be composed partly on a deed recorded in the Register of Sasines and partly on a deed registered in the Land Register, so adding up to ten years or more? If that is so, then redrafting does seem to be necessary to make it "and/or" and not simply an alternative. To spell it out, wording such as "and alternatively" or "in addition to" might be a longer way of putting it. So, not having an immediate drafting Amendment to put forward at this stage, I thought it would be better for me simply to try to explain this point on the Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill? so that the Government might have time to consider this and to see whether something was necessary in order to cover this point; that is to say, that the 10-year period could be composed of two parts and not an alternative of one or the other.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think ultimately this is a matter of the construction of the word "or" which may be read in certain contexts as meaning "and/or", as I should have thought it would be here. I certainly

911
agree with the noble Lord that "and/or" is not elegant drafting but, having regard to what he has said, I think this is a matter that we can consider. If there were any doubt about "or" as meaning "and/or" no doubt a technique could be found for solving that in a slightly more elegant way. The point has been taken and will be considered along with many others.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Transitional Provisions for Part I]:
5.35 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 20, leave out ("in that operational area").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would leave out, in line 20, the words "in that operational area". This is simply a matter of drafting but it also raises the question of meaning. If I may just explain, subsection (1) deals with an application related to land not in an operational area. It says later "then" —and that means at that time—provisions cannot then be enforced in a relevant operational area unless the meaning of the clause is that the Keeper notionally deals with the application as if it were in an existing operational area in another part of Scotland. If he does that than I can see that the words "in that operational area" would have a meaning, but as the subsection starts by saying that we are dealing with an application which is not in an operational area and then has the word "then", meaning "at that time", it is still not in an operational area, the appearance at the end of the subsection of the words "in that operational area" seem to be completely out of place. Indeed, they could be misleading and difficult to understand. I hope that the noble and learned Lord and his advisers will have realised what I was querying in tabling this Amendment and perhaps they have an answer. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I get the impression that this phrase in this subsection performs the same function as the human appendix does in relation to the human body: it is a survival which has no
912
obvious value. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to its superfluity. It is a useful drafting Amendment and I am happy to say that I accept it as it stands, and accordingly ask your Lordships to accept it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the Amendment. His answer has made clear what the Government intend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I am quite prepared to support Clause 10 and I also know that we have passed Clause 9; but on looking at my Marshalled List I cannot find any Clause 9. I just see Clause 8 and then the words "By the Lord McCluskey". I do not really know whether that is Clause 9. Then we go on to Clause 10. What has happened to Clause 9?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to seek to answer that query, being a very junior Member of this House, but as I understand the situation the Marshalled List contains a list of Amendments and as there are no Amendments tabled to Clause 9 it is not listed there. But of course as one goes through the Bill one goes through it clause by clause seriatim, and whether or not there is an Amendment proposed to a particular clause the Committee must be asked to consider whether that clause shall stand part of the Bill. If that is an incorrect explanation I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or some other noble Lord will correct me.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Am I to understand that at some time or other we shall see Clause 9 in the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Perhaps I can help my noble friend. She should have not only the revised Marshalled List of Amendments but also a copy of the Bill, because we are all looking at Clause 9 of the Bill. Because there are no Amendments to it I simply spoke on the Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the

913
Bill? In fact we are about to consider Clauses 12 and 13 which do not appear on the Marshalled List because there are no Amendments tabled to them.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): It may help the noble Baroness if I remind her that I have put Clause 9 to the Committee and it has been agreed to; the Question now is, whether Clause 10, as amended, shall be agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Indemnity in respect of loss]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: This would have been a consequential Amendment to what we have already discussed under subsection (4) of Clause 3, so I shall not move it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("particular") and insert ("condition").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, which would seek to leave out the word "particular" and substitute the word "condition". The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that there should be no exclusion of indemnity in relation to a defect in the description of the land. The exclusion of indemnity relates only to matters such as feuing conditions or obligations. There could be a preferable word to "conditions"; for example, the word "obligation" might be preferable to "conditions" in the eyes of the Government, or the Government might think that "condition or obligation" could be put in together. The purpose of the Amendment is to draw attention to this and to point out that "particular" is not clear enough on its own and that there could be confusion about what is to be excluded. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I accept with gratitude the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He has put his finger upon a weakness in relation to the use of the word "particular"; we accept
914
that that requires to come out and something put in to take its place. He indicated that he was not saying that the only possibility was "condition", and we are not ourselves sure that "condition" is the best alternative. We would certainly hope to improve upon "particular", because it has the weakness he has pointed out. Therefore, if the noble Lord will not press the Amendment at this stage I will undertake to come forward with an improvement upon "particular" which I hope will satisfy him.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking this thought away and for his undertaking to look at the word "condition" or something similar. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Simplification of deeds relating to registered interests]:
5.43 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, line 25, after ("14.") insert ("(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a paving Amendment for the addition of the new subsection (2) to this clause which is proposed in Amendment No. 43. I think in order to explain the paving Amendment I should deal with what we would propose when we come to Amendment No. 43. This Amendment will make it unnecessary to refer to burdens, conditions, provisions or other matters affecting a registered interest in a deed referring to that interest if the title sheet of that interest already shows such burdens, conditions, provisions or other matters affecting a registered interest. The effect of this Amendment will be to shorten and simplify deeds which deal with registered land. The provisions which are disapplied all contain references to the manner in which burdens and so on may be referred to in a title deed. The Amendment states this point directly. Previously, it would have had to be implied from other provisions of the Bill.
The only other point I should note in relation to this Amendment, No. 43, which

915
is the substantial one, is that at the beginning of it we have taken out "land" and referred to a deed. That is because the provisions referred to relate to deeds and not to land. This is a technical point which is being put right in association with the others. For the moment I confine myself to moving Amendment No. 40.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 12, line 28, after ("and") insert (", accordingly, section 13 of and Schedule G to the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868,");
Page 12, line 29, leave out ("section 8") and insert ("sections 8 and 24(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 go together and, with leave, I beg to move them en bloc. These Amendments add the provisions referred to to the list of those which lay down forms of description by reference, now rendered unnecessary for registered land. The additions made here come from what is now Part II of Schedule 3 which we propose to delete in fact by Amendment No. 72, but I will deal with that in due course. For the moment I beg to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 12, line 31, leave out ("land") and insert ("a deed.
(2) It shall not be necessary in any deed relating to a registered interest in land to insert or refer to any real burden, condition, provision or other matter affecting that interest if that real burden, condition, provision or other matter has been entered in the title sheet of that interest under section 5(1)(e) of this Act, and, accordingly, sections 10 and 146 of and Schedule D to the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868, in section 32 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1874, the words from the beginning to "shall be sufficient" and in section 9 of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act 1924, the proviso to subsection (1) and subsections (3) and (4) (importation or burdens etc. by reference) shall not apply to such a deed.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Omission of certain clauses in deeds]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 44:
916
Page 12, line 42, after ("successors") insert ("at his or their expense").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, which is one of three coming now on which I have been advised by the Law Society of Scotland that the object is to avoid long complicated conveyancing. If the words proposed here are inserted it will apparently avoid necessity for long insertions in conveyancing documents. This may at first sight seem surprising. This is inserting "at his or their expense" in Clause 15. I will leave this thought with the Government. It may be something which they may need to consider and discuss with conveyancing experts. But that is the purpose of the Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Amendment No. 44 I am certainly prepared to accept. I am not quite sure that I would do so for quite the reasons the noble Lord has put forward. If I may draw attention to Clause 15(2), it states quite specifically that title deeds and searches relating to land granted in feu should be made forthcoming at the grantee's expense. The same principle should apply to the conveyance of an interest in land which is what we are dealing with in subsection (1) of Clause 15. Accordingly it is desirable to put into sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 15 the same words as appear in subsection (2). Accordingly we are prepared to accept this Amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lord for suggesting it. I have nothing further to say.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Nor have I, except to thank the noble and learned Lord very much for accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Agreement as to common boundary]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 22, at end insert ("or any other person having an interest.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, which would insert

917
the words "or any other person having an interest". The purpose of this is to make it clear that the rectification of a discrepancy in a boundary is automatically binding not only on the proprietors on each side of the common boundary but also on all other persons having an interest—for example, superiors and heritable creditors. The purpose is to avoid bringing in creditors or others when in fact it is only a discrepancy—when it is not a quarrel or an argument. Therefore, the purpose of the Amendment is to simplify the Bill and again simplify procedures when the Bill is put into effect later. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before I state my attitude towards this Amendment, I should indicate that it seems to me that the noble Lord is here using the word "or" to mean "and/or", but that may be unfair. We certainly accept the principle behind the Amendment. Indeed, this was one of the matters to which the Law Society of Scotland drew our attention. We accept it in principle and, as with all the other matters, in order to try to get the drafting correct once and for all, as it were, we should like to consider the matter and put down an Amendment for Report stage. On that basis only I ask the noble Lord not to press this particular Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Of course, on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Tenants-at-will]:
5.52 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 15, line 42, at end insert—
("(6A) Where the landlord is the proprietor of the dominium plenum of the tenancy land, the interest which the tenant-at-will is entitled to acquire under this section shall be that of the proprietor of the dominium utile of the land.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46. I should explain that the purpose of the Amendment as drafted was to reduce the unintentionally wide scope of Clause 19
918
which entitles a tenant-at-will to acquire his landlord's interest in tenancy land. As Clause 19(1) is drafted, the tenant might be entitled not only to the title to the land itself, but to the superiority over it. That would go beyond the intention of Clause 19(1) which is to give a tenant a registrable title to the house or buildings occupied by him. It would have particularly undesirable effects in the case of land over which the Crown was landlord of the tenancy land, since the sovereign in feudal theory holds the ultimate superiority of all land held on feudal tenure, and feudal tenure applies in the areas of Scotland where tenancies-at-will exist.
However, we have been looking at this matter ourselves very critically and in particular at the concept of dominium plenum which is mentioned in the new subsection which is proposed. In the light of that consideration which we continue to give, we are not proposing to move the Amendment at this stage. We are not certain that we have achieved what we want to achieve. Therefore, I do not intend at the moment to withdraw the Amendment because I should like to give noble Lords who wish to speak on this subject the opportunity to do so. However, I do not intend to press the Amendment at this stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the fact that he is considering this Amendment carefully and would not wish to put it to the Committee at this stage. I am also glad that he did not move it immediately because it gives me an opportunity to add various points. I am told that this is an extremely technical conveyancing point. However, the question which has been raised is that the effect of the Amendment appears to be concerned with a feu title. Is that the intention? I certainly am in no position to interpret the Amendment and all that I can do is to pass that point on to the Government. Is it intended that there should be a feu title? I leave it now to the experts to reconsider the wording of the amendment and to decide whether it is necessary. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will come back during the Report stage if he wishes to make an alteration to this part of the Bill.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I certainly intend to come back. As your Lordships will see, as it stands the second line of Clause 19(1) includes the words "as such". Those words were included to make it plain that what the tenant-at-will was entitled to was the interest of his landlord as a landlord. That, of course, related only to the dominium utile. The purpose of the new clause was to make it clear that he was not entitled to acquire any superiority that the landlord might, in fact, own or have an interest in. However, we are not convinced that we have gone about it the right way and we shall come back to it. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am rather more slow on my pins today than normal, but I wish to raise some points on the question of whether the clause shall stand part. The clause deals with the strange form of tenancy-at-will which is concentrated, I think, in the North-East of Scotland. It emerged during the Second Reading debate that there was a need for a definition of tenancy-at-will or tenant-at-will, but that no satisfactory one had yet been found by either the Government or anyone else. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they are still seeking a definition or is it proving an impossible task. Secondly, subsection (6) appears to need some addition to cover the situation where there are mortgagees and they are not willing. In that event it appears that the subsection will not operate because there is no provision to provide for it.
Thirdly, I understand that the Crown or the Government are parties themselves to tenancies-at-will, again, presumably most, if not all, in the North-East of Scotland. I understand that they are still being created. If that is so, are the Government, on behalf of the taxpayers, completely happy about the formula for compensation in Clause 19 of the Bill—for example, the first 24 lines on page 15? It will indeed be the taxpayers who are involved where the Government are concerned. Again, I am sorry that I have not been able to give the noble and learned Lord notice of these matters, but
920
they are ones which he may be able to deal with before the Report stage and perhaps give us a final answer at the Report stage.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should like to ask a question. I have not the faintest idea what is meant by "tenant-at-will". Is it the intention in Clause 19 to create a feudal title or is it not? I do not know from what is proposed whether that is so. If it is, it will probably require greater examination. I do not know what is at stake here or whether this is a major change or merely an adjustment. However, I would be extremely grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell us.
Lord McCLUSKEY: First, in relation to the matter of definition, it is certainly true that we have been unable so far to formulate a definition of a tenant-at-will. Indeed, the Law Society of Scotland's conveyancing committee who are expert—and there are none more expert—have not so far been able to suggest a definition. They said, and it has been said before, that it may well be that we are in the category of the elephant that is easier to recognise than to describe or define. However, the situation is that following the discussions we had with them last week they are deferring to experts in the North-East of Scotland who deal with these matters from time to time and are hoping for some further assistance from that quarter. It may be that we shall be able to advance not so much to a definition as at least to some provision of this kind, namely, that "tenant-at-will shall include", and then name certain characteristics which are thought to be appropriate in relation to that matter.
However, at present we are in the position that, although we ourselves are considering the matter again, we are hoping to get some further assistance from the Law Society. How long that might take to emerge I do not know because there may be difficulties in it obtaining advice from its own members. I would accept the noble Lord's offer to return to the point about subsection (6) on Report. As he indicated, it is certainly true that the Crown is still creating tenancies-at-will. As I understand it, the Crown is happy with the formula for compensation, but these are all points that we might take when we come to study what the noble Lord has said.

921
As regards the query raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the difficulty here is that at the moment there is no definition of a "tenant-at-will". In a way it is a very odd concept because it rather involves a person who has acquired, or who seems to have acquired, a right to the building, the house or whatever it may be, but not to the land on which it stands, which rather seems to defy one of the basic principles of Scottish law that the building goes with the land. But when we are talking about building here we are not necessarily in all cases talking about bricks and mortar; we might be talking simply about a small shed or something of that kind. Therefore, we are looking at this again. We are conscious of the fact that we have not necessarily arrived at the best solution and we hope to do so. At the present time I cannot say whether we shall manage that in time for the Report stage or whether it might be a matter that has to be dealt with later.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Rules]:
6.2 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 18, line 19, after ("any") insert ("deed or any").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47. Again, this is an Amendment which I am advised will simplify the procedure for solicitors and their clients. It would avoid the use of archaic long formulae. The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the rules to provide for the form of conveyance to be used under registration of title. Therefore, I hope that this simple Amendment inserting the words "deed or any" will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Government accept this in principle. Indeed, initially it was thought that the words "other document" might be good enough to cover what was intended here, but that may well not be so. Therefore, we accept this in principle. For the reasons which I have already outlined in connection with
922
other Amendments, again we should like to look at the drafting. Subject to that, I would ask the noble Lord not to press the Amendment at this stage. The Government will table an Amendment on Report which I believe will cover the point and I hope satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Of course I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that undertaking. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Interpretation etc.]:
6.4 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 19, leave out lines 1 and 2.
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 48 which would omit this definition. I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 49, which is an alternative Amendment. Part of the discussion has already taken place earlier today, when the Government undertook to reconsider the definitions affecting "interest in land" and a "heritable security". Therefore, I shall not rehearse that part of Amendment No. 49 which concerns itself with a heritable security.
However, I should like to say a few words about the long lease addition which I have included in Amendment No. 49. The present definition does not make it clear that it includes a heritable security. But in the Bill it is intended that only long leases should be registrable. A lease which is not a long lease should, we believe, be excluded from the definition "interest in land". For example, I am told that, under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, a short lease of a house, even a furnished let for six months, could be treated as an interest in land. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend. I am told that the Henry Committee warned that a definition might have that effect unless care was taken to deal with the long lease situation.
Therefore, at this stage I am addressing myself to Amendment No. 49, and the

923
exclusion of a lease which is not a long lease. Amendment No. 48 and the reference to "heritable security" have already been discussed in earlier debates.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that I need add nothing in relation to the first part of Amendment No. 49, or Amendment No. 48; we have already dealt with that. On the second part, I am grateful to the noble Lord. We acknowledge that there may be some room for doubt and we see this provision as an avoidance-of-doubt provision, to ensure that leases which are not long leases are not registrable under the Bill. Indeed, one would not want to see that because, as the noble Lord has indicated, they would be too numerous and often too informal in constitution because one can have a verbal lease for a period of less than a year. Therefore, again, we accept this part of the Amendment in principle. As I have already indicated, we shall, I hope, return to this matter on Report with our final version of the definition "interest in land". This matter would then be considered and, I hope, embraced in that. On that basis only I invite the noble Lord not to press either of these Amendments at this stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 19, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 8 and insert ("in relation to any interest in land, the right or interest over it of—")
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 50 is associated with Amendment No. 51. I beg to move Amendment No. 50. These Amendments together are intended to clear up any doubts as to the true character of an overriding interest. This is essentially a right over an interest in land or, in other words, a right which does not appear in a title sheet but one which none the less affects the interest contained in the title sheet. The present drafting of lines 34 and 35 of the clause might suggest that an over-
924
riding interest could be a right in land rather than a burden over land. The Amendment avoids this possibility.
At this stage I should like to return to something raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, just before the House considered certain Statements, when we were looking at an earlier Amendment and an earlier clause. The overriding interest is, of course, referred to in the clause with which we are now dealing and is defined there. In the course of his remarks the noble Earl referred to servitudes. As he sees, both types of servitude—the public one, as it were, and the other referred to in paragraph (d)—appear on page 19. Of course, it may well be that a particular servitude is created, although there is no writing at all and nothing indeed to register, as the noble Earl will know. One may create the servitude by prescription and it may be that in that case it is possible to register the servitude by the usual form of deed. But in the case referred to in paragraph (g), comprising part of the definition of "overriding interest", it may not be possible to register it at all. I think that merely amplifies the answers I sought to give in relation to the noble Earl when I dealt with this matter earlier.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am sure it is my fault for not studying the reports of Professor Henry or the Reid Report, but I confess that I do not find this overriding interest a simple concept to get right. I should like to draw particular attention to the second Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has here, which I do not understand. The Amendment would read that an overriding interest in the second clause is not registrable—at least not in the ordinary way. Then we have the definition here of what "overriding interest" is. An overriding interest can be a real interest, and in Clause 5 we are told that where this comes to the attention of the registrar it will in fact be registered. Then you go through a number of things which are overriding interests which apparently need not be registered. They can always be registered if it is in the discretion of the registrar.
The second Amendment gives an exception, a limitation. Having given the list of matters which are overriding interests it goes on:

925
"but does not include any subsisting burden or condition enforceable against the interest in land and entered in its title sheet".
I do not quite understand those last words, "and entered in its title sheet". Does the nature of the burden change when it is entered in the title sheet? I cannot for the life of me see how it could change.
If you have a valid burden on the land, whether it is entered on the title sheet may be a matter of proof, but it would not alter the nature and strength of the burden. I do not understand why those words come in. Is there any change in the nature of the liability of the landowner once it is entered on the sheet? I should not have thought that there was. As I read it, it appears that any subsisting burden or condition enforceable against the interests on the land, left at that stage, becomes an overriding interest and need not be entered. I am giving the noble and learned Lord my limited understanding of what these words mean. I have not studied the report as fully as I should have done, and I must apologise for that, but reading this through it does not make clear to me what the Government have in mind in proposing this Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall have to read that to be sure that I understand it. In essence, if you have an overriding interest which, as the noble Earl said, may have the character of a real right, and if it gets on to the register or, in this scheme, gets into the title sheet, then it seems to have all the characteristics of, and to be virtually indistinguishable from, a burden. When one looks at the wording proposed in the second Amendment "subsisting burden or condition", and then going on to the later words, "entered in its title sheet", of course the entry of a burden in the title sheet is essential in order to make the burden real. It is not a real burden unless it is published in the register, or published in the land register, as the case will be. I do not know whether that is a sufficient answer. I should like an opportunity to study more carefully what the noble Earl has said, and I undertake to do so before coming back to this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 19, line 34, leave out from ("any") to end of line 35 and insert ("subsisting burden or condition enforceable against the interest in land and entered in its title sheet").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.13 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like to raise one question about Clause 26. Again I do not expect the noble and learned Lord necessarily to be able to give the answer now, but it would be useful if we could have it before Report stage. If one looks at line 5 on page 19 one sees that there is the present definition of "long lease". It means,
"a probative lease exceeding 20 years".
The question I should like to ask is whether that definition is intended to cover the following case—a 10-year lease with the option to renew for at least another 10 years, so adding up to 20 or more years. That is an example. It is important to know whether the definition is intended to cover a case like that before we reach Report stage, so that there is an opportunity of amending, if necessary.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord both for drawing my attention to that particular case which, on the face of it, does not appear to be readily embraced by these words, and also for his giving me the chance to consider it between now and Report. I shall certainly do that and come back to this.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Amendment and repeal of enactments]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54:
Page 20, line 12, leave out ("Part I of")
Page 20, line 12, leave out from beginning of line 15 to ("the recording") in line 17.
Page 20, line 12, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 52 is associated with Amendments Nos. 53 and 54, and indeed with the proposed Amendments to Schedule 3, which we are seeking to

927
rearrange and simplify. At this stage it is sufficient to say that Clause 27(2) translates references in existing enactments to the Register of Sasines or to the recording of a deed therein to the land register. Certain references would, however, be inappropriate for a system of registration of title and should not be so translated. These are dealt with in Clause 27(3) as read with Schedule 3. I shall come back to the reasons for altering Schedule 3, but that is the explanation of these Amendments. I would beg to move Amendment No. 52 and, with leave, Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 at the same time.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of Enactments]:
6.18 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57:
Page 21, line 23, at end insert—
("The Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868
1A. In section 142 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868, for the words "day, and hour" substitute "and day".")
Page 21, line 23, leave out lines 32 to 34.
Page 22, line 7, at end insert—
("The Housing (Scotland) Act 1974
4A. In section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 (conditions of improvement grants), in subsection (9)—

(a) in paragraph (i), after "tenant-at-will" insert "or was a tenant-at-will who, since applying, has acquired his landlord's interest in the tenancy";

(b) in paragraph (ii), after "was" insert", and continues to be,".

4B. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1974 (consequences of breach of conditions under section 9)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "tenant-at- will" insert "or was a tenant-at-will who, since applying, has acquired his landlord's interest in the tenancy,";

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "was" insert", and continues to be,".").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 55, 56, and 57 are all to Schedule 2, which derives its validity from Clause 27(1) of the Bill. The Amendment which is first proposed here, No. 55, to the 1868 Act reflects the policy behind Clause 6(3), which is that two
928
interests in land registered on the same day shall rank equally. A deed registered earlier on the same day will not obtain a prior ranking to one registered later on that day. That is what is achieved here.
The deletion of lines 32 to 34, which I would propose by Amendment No. 56, to which I might speak at the same time, removes an unnecessary reference to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. The provision is already covered by the translation provisions of Clause 27(2).
The third Amendment—namely, that to the Housing (Scotland) Act—ensures that information as to the conditions imposed when an improvement grant is made or was made before the tenancy has been converted to a feudal title will enter the Register of Sasines, or the Land Register as the case may be, when the feudalised title is recorded or registered, and that a notice of cesser of these conditions will also enter the appropriate register. This brings the ex tenant-at-will into line with other proprietors in this respect.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments referred to in section 27(3)]:
6.21 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 58 to 72 en bloc:
Page 22, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 22, leave out line 13, at end insert—
("The Real Rights Act 1693 The whole Act,")
Page 22,line 30, at end insert—
("(dd) In section 19, the proviso.") leave out line 33 and insert—
("(a) Sections 9 and 10") leave out line 34 and insert—
("(b) Sections 12 and 13")
Page 22, leave out line 40, at end insert—
("(j) Section 146
(k) Schedule D
(l) Schedule G.")
Page 22, leave out line 42 and insert—
("(a) In section 32, from the beginning to "shall be sufficient"
(b) Section 53
(c) Section 61.")
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("(2)")
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)")
Page 23, line 12, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(2) and (5)").
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Section 1(1) except the words from "and any writ" to "appropriate burgh register of sasines".")
Page 23, line 18, at end insert—
("11A. The Conveyancing Amendment (Scotland) Act 1938 Section 6(1) and (2).")
Page 23, line 25, at end insert ("Section 28(3)")
Page 23, line 25, at end insert—
("14A. The Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 Section 1.")
Page 23, leave out lines 26 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: All these Amendments to Schedule 3 are made necessary as a result of the incorporation of Part II with Part I to make an undivided Schedule. The enactments in Schedule 3 could have been repealed but for the necessity to keep the Register of Sasines running in parallel with the Land Register during the transitional period of something of the order of 20 years. Those enactments fall into two categories: first, those which should not be available for use in connection with any deed in a transaction destined for the Land Register, and that is Part I; and those which are still required for deeds accompanying an application for first registration but not thereafter, and that is Part II. The provision in Clause 27(3)(a) that the direction in Clause 27(2) should not apply to enactments in Part I of Schedule 3 was effective in making those enactments unavailable for deeds registered in the Land Register.
The terms in which the enactments in Part II are couched are such that the restriction of the application of Clause 27(2) did not have the desired effect and—this is the crucial point—specific provision has therefore been made for those enactments by expanding Clause 14. It is still necessary that references to the Register of Sasines in the enactments in Part II should not be construed as references to the Land Register. I apologise for the complication of that explanation. I believe that those who study these matters carefully will find it intelligible.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
6.24 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 24, leave out lines 6 to 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the last Amendment. This Amendment recognises that since the implied clauses in deeds which are provided for in Clause 15 may be specially qualified where necessary, the relevant sections of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 may still have to be used and should not be repealed, and that is what we seek to achieve here.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I would only comment that that takes out almost the whole of Schedule 4. Am I right in thinking that Schedule 4 will consist of perhaps only one and a half lines? If so, is it really worth having that Schedule if this is a matter of editing?
Lord McCLUSKEY: It is necessary to have it because it is a Schedule of a slightly different character from the other Schedules and the noble Lord will be aware of the old Scottish expression, "There's guid gear in sma' bulk". We are left with a small Schedule but a valuable and treasured one for them.
The Earl of SELKIRK: We should note that the 1693 Act needs only one word altered in it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL
Petition against, from the North Yorkshire County Council, withdrawn.
HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.