Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2
We are privileged to have the minister with us for the next item, which is stage 2 consideration of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill.
How exciting. I have been looking forward to it for the whole recess.
Your deputy managed to have something else on his agenda.
As the room is very warm and the meeting will be a long haul, I propose to have a short break at
3.30 pm, when the coffee arrives. Against all my usual rules, I will allow the coffee to be brought in, so that we can continue working without having a long formal break. I hope that members are content with that suggestion. I will interpret their silence as acceptance.
I welcome Ken Macintosh on his second visit to the committee—he must like us. Members should have a copy of the bill, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. Members should tell me if I move too quickly on some amendments. However, stage 2 consideration of the bill must be finished today in order to meet the deadline that was agreed with the Parliamentary Bureau.
Section 53—Duty of Keeper to enter on title sheet statement concerning enforcement rights
Amendment 120, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 121, 122, 192, 193, 194, 237 and 206.
Section 6(1)(e) of the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 requires the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland to enter in the Land Register of Scotland any subsisting real burden or condition affecting any interest in land that is the subject of an application for registration. The choice of the word "subsisting" in the provision is deliberate, as it relieves the keeper of any duty to establish whether or not a burden is actually enforceable by anyone.
On reflection, that is an unreasonable duty to impose on the keeper because the enforceability of a burden might be a matter of controversy, which might require a determination in the courts or, under new provisions in the bill, by the Lands Tribunal. The enforceability of burdens is not therefore a matter that is appropriate for administrative decision by the keeper. The keeper does not therefore guarantee that the burdens shown in the land certificate of a registered interest are enforceable.
Amendments 120 and 121 will ensure that that position is followed in relation to a statement by the keeper under section 53 regarding burdens that fall within the terms of sections 48 to 51 of the bill, or maritime burdens under section 60 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000. The keeper will make a statement in relation to burdens that appear to him to subsist and he will not have to make any judgment on their enforceability. If he were required to be satisfied that a burden was enforceable, it is unlikely that he would ever be able to make a statement such as is envisaged in section 53.
Amendment 122 is intended to assist in fulfilling one of the objectives of the bill, which is to bring greater clarity and transparency to the property registers. The amendment is related to the desire to have dual registration of burdens as far as possible on the title sheets of the benefited property as well as the burdened property. The amendment will apply if the keeper has sufficient information for him to describe the benefited property, as envisaged by the existing section 53(b)(ii), and also to identify the title sheet under which the benefited property is registered in the Land Register.
Amendment 122 will require the keeper, in addition to entering a statement and information on the title sheet of the burdened property, to enter an equivalent statement and equivalent information on the title sheet of the benefited property. The keeper would enter on the title sheet of the benefited property the same statement as on that of the burdened property, and would enter on the title sheet of the benefited property a description of the burdened property or properties. It is obvious that that information's being available could be of considerable assistance and benefit.
Amendment 193 will impose a duty on the keeper to make consequential amendments to the Land Register when registering a deed that creates, varies, discharges, renews, reallots or preserves a title condition under certain mechanisms in the bill or the 2000 act. Those mechanisms deal with the realloting of feudal burdens, the preservation of certain implied rights of enforcement and the creation of burdens and positive servitudes. The duty extends both to cases where the keeper is registering documents in the Register of Sasines and the Land Register. It extends only to title conditions that are constituted or preserved by dual registered deeds. The aim of amendment 193 is to improve the transparency of the property registers. In particular, it should be apparent from the Land Register who has the right to enforce a burden and whose property is subject to a burden.
Amendments 192 and 194 are consequential on amendment 193. Amendment 194 takes account of the terminology that is used in section 46 of the bill and in the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000.
Amendment 237 also aims to improve the transparency of the property registers. It will require the keeper to reflect in the title sheet of the burdened property the identity of a benefited proprietor or personal burden holder who has saved or created a right to a condition by sections 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 27 or 27A of the 2000 act, or sections 4(5), 46 or 66 of the bill. The keeper will also be obliged to enter on the title sheet of the benefited property the details of the burdened property. Amendment 206 is consequential thereon.
I move amendment 120.
Amendment 120 agreed to.
Amendments 121 and 122 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 54 to 57 agreed to.
Section 58—Manager burdens
Amendment 123, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 124, 125, 26 and 126. Amendment 125 does not pre-empt amendment 26, so if amendment 125 is agreed to, amendment 26 will still be called, but it will become an amendment to leave out "five" and insert "three". Before I ask the minister to move amendment 123 and speak to the other amendments, I point out that I will call Ken Macintosh to speak to amendment 26, which is in the name of Sylvia Jackson.
The group of amendments deals with various aspects of manager burdens. In its stage 1 report, the committee recommended that the maximum period for the extinction of manager burdens in sheltered housing developments should be five or six years. It also invited the Executive to reconsider the 10-year period in other developments that do not cover social housing.
Amendment 125 will implement the committee's suggestion across the board and will reduce the 10-year period to five years. That means that any manager burden that was imposed more than five years ago will be extinguished when the bill is commenced. I accept that the choice of a time limit is a matter of judgment and I am happy to accede to the committee's suggestion to reduce the period from 10 years to five or six years; indeed, amendment 125 would reduce it specifically to five years.
However, Sylvia Jackson's amendment 26 would go further by reducing the period to three years. As I said, the choice of a time limit is a matter of judgment, but the Executive is now proposing that the relevant period be halved from its original length. That is in response to the views that were expressed by the committee in its report, which states:
"The Committee is aware of particular issues in sheltered housing developments regarding the appointment and dismissal of managers. The Committee believes that it is in the interests of the owners (other than the developer) of properties in developments to have the power to appoint a manager. Given that a manager appointed under a manager burden may not be dismissed under section 59, and the particular concerns in sheltered housing, the Committee recommends that the maximum time period for the extinction of manager burdens in sheltered housing developments should be five or six years.
In the context of other developments (excluding social housing), the Committee considers that the 10-year period for the developer to retain the power to appoint a manager may be too long and asks the Executive to reconsider the issue."
Against that background, I believe that we have a consensus around a figure of five years. That is why I will be inviting Ken Macintosh not to move amendment 26. It is possible that a three-year limit could be applied only to sheltered housing developments and I am willing to consider making such a change at stage 3. However, I think that three years would be too short a period to apply to all developments, especially commercial developments. Not all developments are substantially sold off within three years of first sale.
Amendment 124 is intended to address concerns that owners in sheltered housing complexes have expressed that it would be possible for a developer to reactivate a manager burden during its life span by reacquiring a property. The holder of the burden might then wish to appoint his choice as manager, perhaps upsetting a management arrangement that had been put in place by the rest of the owners in the interim. The amendment will have the effect of extinguishing the manager burden after a period of roughly three months after the holder of the burden sells his last related property. If the manager burden were extinguished on the sale of the last property, that could prevent its being assigned to another developer. The Executive believes that the option should be kept open, but only for a narrow period of 90 days.
Amendment 126 deals with a definitional point. Section 58(2) makes it clear that the power that is conferred by a manager burden is exercisable only if the person on whom the power is conferred is the owner of one of the related properties within a development. In other words, a manager will not be able to continue to exercise the manager burden once he has sold all his units.
Section 61(2) will continue to prevent a manager from artificially retaining the power to exercise a manager burden by retaining ownership of a road or some other facility once he has sold off all his units. In the context of sheltered housing, a warden's flat will not count as a related property, and will not therefore allow a developer to maintain a manager burden by that means. However, amendment 126 will make it clear that common facilities are not otherwise excluded from the definition of related properties. That is important, as in terms of section 58(1) a manager burden is a burden that confers on a person a power to act as, or to appoint, a manager of related properties. Clearly, it is desirable that the manager should act in respect of not only the units themselves, but the common facilities.
Amendment 123 is a technical amendment that seeks to adopt the bill's general rules on sending documents in situations where a developer is notifying owners that the right to a manager burden is being transferred. That should help to avoid disputes in determining when proper intimation is made.
I move amendment 123.
Amendments 26, 27 and 28 are part of a continuing series of amendments, some of which the committee has already supported, for which I am grateful. I will not repeat the arguments behind all the amendments, but amendment 26 is designed to improve rights for owners in retirement complexes. Before I address the minister's welcome comments, I am pleased to say that the committee and the Executive have accepted that five years is a more reasonable and realistic time frame for a manager burden to be extinguished than 10 years. I ask the committee to take an even more realistic and reasonable attitude and to adopt three years as the cut-off point.
It is difficult to envisage a situation in which a developer's interest in the running of a retirement complex should outweigh the interests of the residents after a period of three years. However, with other developments it is easy to envisage a situation in which, after four or four and a half years, a developer wishes to alter the way in which a development is run in order to make the remaining properties more saleable.
I have no wish to alter the whole bill, other than to make the provisions of amendment 26 apply to sheltered and retirement complexes. Having heard the minister's reassurance that the Executive will consider lodging an amendment specific to retirement complexes, I am minded not to move amendment 26.
We are getting fans brought in, minister, as we are all beginning to wilt because of all the bodies in this tiny room—[Interruption.] Is this a fan coming in? No, it is coming shortly. I do not know whether everybody feels the same way, but some of us are beginning to wilt.
I will take the same line as Ken Macintosh if the minister will amend the bill to refer to three years for sheltered housing and five years for other developments. I accept the minister's argument that for some commercial developments five years is a more sensible figure. It would be helpful if he lodged in due course amendments for the five-year and three-year periods.
The five-year period would be affected by amendment 26. There is consensus on commercial developments, but I reiterate what I said when I moved amendment 123: with regard to sheltered housing—retirement complexes, as Ken Macintosh calls them—we are minded to lodge at stage 3 an amendment to reduce to three years the period of a management burden.
Does "minded to" mean the same as "undertake"?
Yes, we will do it.
I ask only to assist Ken Macintosh.
Amendment 123 agreed to.
Amendments 124 and 125 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 26 not moved.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
Section 59—Overriding power to dismiss and appoint manager
Amendment 27 is grouped with amendment 28.
I lodged amendment 27 with the idea that the appointment and dismissal of a manager should be agreed to by more than 50 per cent, or a simple majority, of the people in a retirement complex. However, my idea was based on a misunderstanding and, having spoken to the Executive bill team, I understand that sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) will apply and that, in normal conditions in a retirement complex—unless the deed of conditions say otherwise—50 per cent will be the rule. Given those provisions, I do not wish to amend the bill in line with amendments 27 and 28. The power in sections 27(1)(a) and 27(1)(d) is overriding and affects all properties, not just sheltered accommodation and I have no wish to amend it.
Amendment 28 was lodged to be consistent with amendments to section 50 that the committee agreed to at a previous meeting. However, given the information that I have received from the Executive that a simple majority will be required to appoint or dismiss a manager in sheltered accommodation, I will not move amendment 28.
I move amendment 27.
I confirm that Kenneth Macintosh had useful and constructive discussions with officials on the bill team. The simple majority provisions in section 27 will apply in the case of sheltered accommodation. I do not need to elaborate further.
Amendment 27, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 28 not moved.
Section 59 agreed to.
Section 60 agreed to.
Section 61—The expression "related properties"
Amendment 126 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 61, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 62 to 65 agreed to.
After section 65
Amendments 127 to 130 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 252 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 252 is primarily a probing amendment to find out how development management schemes, which all members support, will operate.
The minister will be well aware that one of the most common problems in many older housing developments in Scotland is the lack of a development management scheme, which causes problems with the maintenance of communal areas. Organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland have provided information about the level of back-dated repairs that has resulted from continuing problems with such work.
The primary purpose of amendment 252 is to find out what will happen if a developer chooses not to introduce a development management scheme. Given the problems that arise when such schemes are not available, is it likely that a backlog of repairs will build up if developers choose not to establish a scheme? If so, does the bill provide an opportunity to ensure that, when new properties are developed, some form of development scheme is mandatory to offset potential problems?
I move amendment 252.
I am grateful to Michael Matheson for lodging amendment 252, which is a probing amendment. I am aware of the body of opinion that believes that development management schemes should be compulsory, at least for new developments. However, I do not believe that amendment 252 is desirable or appropriate.
The committee will recall that it debated the development management scheme at its meeting on 17 December. The scheme provides rules for an owners association, an advisory committee, annual meetings and financial matters, and is applied to land by a deed of application.
One of my concerns is that the development management scheme that was debated is not designed to be imposed on all new related properties in the way envisaged by amendment 252. The intention of the Scottish Law Commission and the Executive was to create a model scheme. If we had planned to create a mandatory scheme, its terms would have been quite different from those of the development management scheme as drafted. That is not to belittle the reasoning that underlies amendment 252; it is simply not an appropriate scheme to be imposed across the board, and the bill is not the appropriate piece of legislation with which to impose a mandatory scheme.
I said that it is not appropriate to apply the development management scheme to all new related properties. "Related properties" is a broad term that includes not only housing estates but small tenements and even some semi-detached housing. The full complexities of the scheme would be inappropriate for the latter two categories. The scheme is intended to be used for larger and more complex developments. Its provisions are too sophisticated for ordinary tenements. For example, there is no need for a corporate owners association in a small tenement block, and an owners association would be completely unnecessary for two semi-detached houses.
It is worth recalling that the Scottish Law Commission, which devised the scheme, did not envisage that it would be used for all developments, irrespective of size. The scheme featured first in the commission's report on the law of the tenement alongside an alternative management scheme that would be much more suitable for general use. The commission recommended that that scheme apply to all tenements in Scotland, subject to existing provisions in title deeds. If there were any intention to impose a compulsory management scheme on all developments, it would have to be much more akin to the simple scheme for tenements.
That brings me to a more basic point. Michael Matheson's proposals in amendment 252 are an argument for another day. I agree with the committee's stage 1 report, which concluded that the proposed tenements bill would be a more appropriate vehicle to address the issue. The tenements bill, which I hope will be introduced in draft form at an early opportunity, will give members a chance to consider all those matters.
As members know, the housing improvement task force has also been considering a variety of matters to do with the management and maintenance of property, especially where there are issues of common maintenance. We expect the task force to publish its report in the early spring. We must assess its views and consider its recommendations along with the Scottish Law Commission's recommendations. It would be premature to take a decision until that process is complete.
In many cases, housing developments have their own schemes. Therefore, it is not open to have a completely default scheme. Against that background, I suggest that we revisit the subject in the context of other legislation. I hope that Michael Matheson is prepared to withdraw amendment 252.
The minister has confirmed that the issue could be addressed by another piece of legislation and his comments have been very helpful.
Amendment 252, by agreement, withdrawn.
Sections 66 to 71 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Sections 72 and 73 agreed to.
Section 74—Extinction following pre-sale undertaking
Amendment 131 is grouped with amendment 132.
Section 74 allows the holder of a right of pre-emption to make a pre-sale undertaking that they will not exercise the pre-emption for a specified period. The import of the amendments is that the undertaking would be binding on subsequent holders of the pre-emption right only if the undertaking were registered. If the undertaking were not registered, only the existing holder of the pre-emption would be bound by it.
I move amendment 131.
Amendment 131 agreed to.
Amendment 132 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 74, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Sections 75 and 76 agreed to.
Section 77—Reversions under School Sites Act 1841
Amendment 133 is grouped with amendments 134, 135, 248, 249, 137, 138, 139, 140, 250, 141, 142, 244 and 144 to 149.
I know that in the course of its deliberations on the bill, the committee has been waiting for the section on the School Sites Act 1841.
Blind us with science, minister.
The amendments in the group would make a number of detailed changes to the provisions affecting the School Sites Act 1841 and the Entail Sites Act 1840.
We knew about that.
As the committee knows, the bill provides that a right of reversion over a school site, which entitles the holder to ownership of the property, will be converted into a claim under section 77.
The purpose of amendments 133 and 134 is to ensure that every right of reversion would be converted into a claim for compensation, even if the cessation of use has already occurred or the reversion holder has already made a claim before the bill comes into effect. However, the provision would not apply where the holder has already completed title or accepted compensation.
Amendment 135 would ensure that titles to school sites are put beyond challenge on the ground that the land may have reverted under section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841 before section 77 comes into force.
Amendments 248, 249, 137, 141 and 250 are consequential to those changes.
Amendments 138 and 139 would provide for the date of the valuation of the land for the purposes of compensation payments to be made under section 77. They would distinguish between cases, depending on whether the reversion was triggered before or after the bill comes into force. For claims triggered after the bill comes into force, education authorities would be able to deduct the value attributable to buildings on the site if they were not erected by the original granter or his predecessors.
Amendments 140, 142, 244 and 144 are consequential to those changes
Amendment 145 would ensure that if the right to the land has passed to another authority or body under statutory provisions, that party would be responsible for payment of the compensation.
Amendment 146 would provide that where the reversion holder has not completed title to the land or accepted an offer of compensation, any proceedings that were commenced to claim the reversion would be deemed abandoned. Instead, the reversion holder would be eligible for compensation under the bill.
The bill provides that a right to petition for the forfeiture of land under the Entail Sites Act 1840 will be replaced by a compensation regime adopted from section 77, which deals with reversions under the School Sites Act 1841. Amendment 147 would ensure that a third party who purchased the land for value would not be obliged to pay compensation. It would be fair that that should be paid by the body that originally received the land or its successors—typically, an education authority. If the body has already received payment for the site, it would be unjust for the purchaser to have to pay compensation; he would, in effect, be paying for the property twice.
Amendments 148 and 149 would modify the language of section 77 when it is being used in the context of cases under the Entail Sites Act 1840. Properties subject to the 1840 act do not revert upon the stipulated use ceasing: they are forfeited on petition to the sheriff court. That is the reason for amendment 148. Amendment 149 is a technical amendment to correct an error in a cross-reference to section 77.
I move amendment 133.
I think that members all noticed the error.
Section 77(5) states that the Lands Tribunal for Scotland would determine a dispute about the value of land. I was wondering whether the general thrust of the bill is that the value of the site would take account of its development potential. That issue has been raised by the Church of Scotland in relation to a later group of amendments. Some of the complications that arise in getting rid of churches may be the same as those that arise in getting rid of schools. Although the land would not valuable as it stands, it could be quite valuable if planning permission was secured to build houses on it. I wondered what the bill presupposes about development value.
The presupposition, or intent, would be the open market value of the land.
Is that the value of the land as it stands or its development value? Does its sale depend on somebody being willing to take a chance?
If the land has been zoned for housing with planning permission, its open market value will be greater than if planning permission has not been secured. Otherwise, it would be a matter for people's judgment whether the land would be likely to secure planning permission in the future.
The minister mentioned open market value. Would that be determined by the district valuer?
It would be determined by the Lands Tribunal in the event of any dispute, as stated in section 77(5).
Amendment 133 agreed to.
Amendments 134, 135, 248, 249, 137 to 140, 250, 141, 142, 244 and 144 to 146 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 77, as amended, agreed to.
Section 78—Right to petition under section 7 of Entail Sites Act 1840
Amendments 147 to 149 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 78, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 79 and 80 agreed to.
Section 81—Powers of Lands Tribunal as respects title conditions
Amendment 232 is grouped with amendments 150, 152, 154, 156, 161, 162, 163 and 164.
These are technical but nevertheless important amendments that relate to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The Lands Tribunal is responsible for hearing applications for the variation or discharge of title conditions. Its powers are set out in the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. The purpose of section 81 is to restate the powers and jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal with some additions. This group of amendments makes further provisions on the Lands Tribunal's powers.
Under the definition in section 110, variation of a burden will include the imposition of a new obligation. Under section 1(3) of the 1970 act, it is possible to apply to the Lands Tribunal to vary a land obligation. However, the bill allows only for partial discharge as opposed to variation, as non-owners such as tenants can apply. It was felt that non-owners should not be able to apply for the imposition of a new obligation.
Under section 81(6), the Lands Tribunal can, at its own hand, vary a burden subject to the owner's consent. It seems perverse that an applicant who might want a variation would have to apply for discharge or renewal, thus provoking opposition, in the hope that the Lands Tribunal would grant a variation. Therefore, amendment 150 will allow an applicant who is an owner of a burdened property to apply to vary as well as to discharge a title condition. Amendment 152 will allow an owner of a benefited property to apply to vary as well as to renew a title condition when it is threatened by termination under the sunset rule or extinction where land that would have been compulsorily purchased is acquired by agreement.
Where a majority in a community has signed a deed of variation or discharge, section 81(1)(c) will allow an owner from among the non-consenting minority to apply to the tribunal to preserve the community burden. If successful, the application will preserve the burden for the rest of the minority. There is no intention that the minority owner should be able to vary the community burden or to impose a new obligation on the minority.
Amendment 154 will amend the last part of subsection (1) to make it clear that there is no intention to allow part preservation where an application under subsection (1)(c) is refused. Minority owners will not have the opportunity to be notified of the terms of a part preservation and they might object to the terms of a partial discharge.
Personal pre-emption, personal redemption burdens and economic development burdens are to be subject to the sunset rule for the termination of burdens. The amendment provides that the person in whose favour the burden is constituted shall be entitled to apply for renewal of the burden.
Amendment 161 prevents a new obligation on a property from being imposed by an order of the Lands Tribunal under section 81(1)(a) or 81(1)(b) without the owner's consent. Without the amendment, the changes made by amendment 150 would allow the tenant of a property to impose a new obligation on the owner without the owner's consent. Amendment 161 removes that possibility. The amendment will also, for similar reasons, prevent a property that is not already the benefited property from becoming a benefited property. Amendment 232 is consequential on amendment 161.
Under section 81, a benefited proprietor may apply to the Lands Tribunal to renew a title condition threatened with extinction when land that could have been compulsory purchased is being acquired by agreement.
Amendment 164 ensures that where an application is refused, only a person who is trying to save a personal burden will be entitled to be awarded compensation by the tribunal. The entitlement of owners of properties that benefit from other types of burden to compensation is covered under the existing law. The bill does not alter their position. However, as personal burdens are a new category of burden created by the bill, and so will not be covered by the existing law, it is necessary to make express provision for them in the bill. Amendment 162 is consequential on amendment 161.
Since applicants are to be allowed to apply to vary a burden at the same time as applying for its renewal, amendment 163 will give an equivalent power to the tribunal to vary a burden on renewal, should it see fit.
Amendment 232 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendments 150 to 164 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 81, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Section 82—Special provision as to variation or discharge of community burdens
Amendment 165 is grouped with amendments 166, 167 and 168.
Amendment 165 seeks to leave out the first "the" in section 82, page 37 at line 40.
Are you trying to vary it for us or for yourself? [Laughter.]
Section 82 allows the owners of 25 per cent of the units in a community to apply to the Lands Tribunal for variation or discharge of community burdens. Amendments 165 and 167 ensure that, where several people own a unit, any one owner can commit the unit to be included in the one quarter calculation. Without those amendments, the section might be interpreted to mean that all the owners of a jointly owned unit would have to apply for that unit to count towards the 25 per cent. That would mean that where, for example, the developer owned a 10 per cent share of each property, section 82 could not be used without the developer's consent.
Amendment 166 ensures that a variation under section 82 will allow the imposition of an entirely new obligation. Clearly, communities may sometimes want to update or modernise the burdens affecting the community or correct mistakes in the current position. That may require that they impose new burdens on themselves. We intend that the bill will allow owners to make changes of that kind, but the present wording of section 82 seems to imply that there must be a pre-existing burden to be varied.
Amendment 168 is a technical amendment to correct the language used in subsection (3).
I move amendment 165.
No member has indicated that they wish to challenge the amendment, so I take it that the minister will waive his right to wind up.
Yes.
Amendment 165 agreed to.
Amendments 166 to 168 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
Section 83 agreed to.
Section 84—Notification of application
Amendments 169 to 171 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 84, as amended, agreed to.
Section 85—Content of notice
Amendment 172 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 85, as amended, agreed to.
I shall suspend the meeting before we continue.
Strictly speaking, I should have made a declaration of interests. My interests are laid out in the register of members' interests.
Thank you. I suspend proceedings for five minutes. I have to leave at five to 4, so Maureen Macmillan will have the delights of taking over after that.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Section 86—Persons entitled to make representations
Amendments 240 and 173 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 86, as amended, agreed to.
Section 87—Representations
Amendment 174 is in a group on its own.
Section 87 explains how objectors to an application to vary or discharge a title condition may make representations to the Lands Tribunal. Amendment 174 changes the time at which representations are considered to have been made from when they were sent to when they were received. That is intended to assist the tribunal in administering applications. However, the tribunal will have discretion to accept late representations.
I move amendment 174.
The amendment is eminently sensible.
Amendment 174 agreed to.
Section 87, as amended, agreed to.
Section 88—Granting unopposed application for discharge or renewal of real burden
Amendment 175 is grouped with amendments 176 to 181.
Section 88 provides a procedure for granting some applications to the Lands Tribunal as of right, if they are unopposed. Such applications will be granted without further inquiry and without consideration of their merits.
Amendments 175 to 177 reflect other changes that have been made to the bill to allow for applications to the Lands Tribunal for the variation of burdens, as well as their discharge, renewal or preservation. Such applications will be granted as of right, if they are unopposed.
Amendments 178 to 180 make it clear that the provision for granting unopposed applications does not apply to applications for the variation or discharge of facility and service burdens. That is to ensure extra protection for those burdens. Any such application for variation or discharge will not be granted automatically and should be subject to scrutiny by the Lands Tribunal.
Similarly, amendment 181 ensures that an application under section 82(1) for the discharge or variation of a community burden by owners of 25 per cent or more of the units in a community cannot be granted as of right if that application relates to a burden that is imposed on a sheltered housing development.
Amendments 178 to 181 will allow unopposed applications for renewal or preservation to be granted as of right, even when they affect facility or service burdens or applications under section 82(1). The justification for that change is that when an application is for the renewal or preservation of a burden under paragraphs (b) or (c) of section 88(1), the burden is not lost, even if the application is unopposed.
I move amendment 175.
Amendment 175 agreed to.
Amendments 176 to 182 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
Section 89—Granting other applications for variation, discharge, renewal or preservation of title condition
Amendment 183 is grouped with amendments 184, 185, 187, 188 and 251.
Section 89 provides two tests for the granting by the Lands Tribunal of an application for the variation, discharge, renewal or preservation of a title condition. The first test, in paragraph (a), requires the tribunal to have regard to the factors that are listed in section 90 when determining whether it is reasonable to discharge, vary or renew a title condition. Those factors include any factor that the tribunal considers material.
The second test, in paragraph (b), is for granting an order for the preservation of a burden when the majority of owners in a community have signed a deed that grants a variation or discharge under section 32, or when the owners of the neighbouring benefited properties have signed such a deed under section 34. In that case, the tribunal must consider whether the variation or discharge is
"in the best interests of the owners of all the units"
or
"is unfairly prejudicial to one or more"
of the owners. A more stringent test than the test of whether the application is reasonable in the light of relevant factors is appropriate in the second case, since close neighbours or a majority have agreed to the proposal by signing the deed.
Amendment 183 will ensure that, in applying the second test, the Lands Tribunal may take into account the factors that are in section 90, including the willingness of the burdened proprietors to pay compensation. That will give the tribunal greater flexibility. For example, in the case of a section 34 discharge, the tribunal could refuse an application for preservation by a near but not immediate neighbour on condition of payment of compensation by the burdened proprietor. Otherwise, the tribunal might have no option but to preserve the burden, even if a compensation payment would have been a satisfactory means of adjusting the balance between the parties.
Amendments 185 and 187 are consequential on amendment 183.
On amendment 184, I have already indicated that section 34 allows an owner to attempt to vary or discharge a burden where he or she has obtained the agreement of all of the near neighbours. In some cases, it is possible that because of the geography of an estate there will be no near neighbours. As a result, only the owner's signature would be required. In either case, the other benefited proprietors will be able to apply to the Lands Tribunal to stop the change.
Amendment 184 ensures that the Lands Tribunal will use a different test depending on whether or not there are immediate neighbours who have agreed to the change. Where immediate neighbours have so agreed, the tribunal will have to be satisfied that the change will not be in the community's interests or will be unfairly prejudiced. Where there are no immediate neighbours, the tribunal's usual test of reasonableness will be applied. The reason for that is that, where the immediate and therefore most affected neighbours have agreed, the change would have to damage the community or a particular property in order to be rejected. The agreement of the closest properties means that some powerful reason, such as particular prejudice to an owner or to the wider interests of the community, is required for a more distant owner to stop the change.
Amendments 188 and 251 make it clear that the Lands Tribunal will be able to consider both the purpose of the title condition and the willingness of the burdened proprietor to pay compensation when deciding upon an application for discharge, variation, preservation or renewal. As a result, if a burdened proprietor refuses to pay compensation, the tribunal might deem it reasonable not to grant a discharge. Amendment 251 provides that, where a local authority acquires land by agreement in the shadow of its compulsory purchase powers, the tribunal may consider the purpose for which land is being acquired when deciding whether a condition threatened with extinction should survive.
I move amendment 183.
Amendment 183 agreed to.
Amendments 184 and 185 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 89, as amended, agreed to.
After section 89
Amendment 186 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace] and agreed to.
Section 90—Factors to which the Lands Tribunal are to have regard in determining applications etc
Amendments 187, 188 and 251 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 90, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 91 and 92 agreed to.
Section 93—Taking effect of orders of Lands Tribunal etc
Amendment 190 is in a group on its own.
After obtaining an order from the Lands Tribunal, the successful applicant will usually want to register the order in the property registers to ensure that the relevant title condition is extinguished, renewed, imposed, preserved or varied according to the terms of the order. However, in some cases, the applicant might not wish to register. For example, after an unopposed application for partial renewal of a title condition, the applicant, who will be a benefited proprietor, would be better off not registering the order as the condition could not then be even partially extinguished. In a case where the application was unopposed, there would be no other "party to the application" under section 93(2) who could register the order.
Therefore, amendment 190 provides for registration of the order at the instance of any person who made representations about the application or was entitled to make representations. Section 86 lists the people who are entitled to make representations.
I move amendment 190.
Amendment 190 agreed to.
Amendment 191 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 93, as amended, agreed to.
Section 94—Alterations to Land Register consequential upon registering certain deeds
Amendments 192 to 194 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 94, as amended, agreed to.
Section 95—Extinction of real burdens and servitudes etc on compulsory acquisition of land
Amendments 195 to 197 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 95, as amended, agreed to.
Section 96—Extinction of real burdens and servitudes where land acquired by agreement
Amendments 198 to 203, 29, 204 and 30 to 32 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 96, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11
Form of application for relevant certificate
Amendments 33 and 34 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
Before section 97
Amendment 35 is grouped with amendments 241 and 242. I ask the minister to speak to and move amendment 35 and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Maureen Macmillan will speak to amendment 241 and the other amendments in the group, after which Donald Gorrie will speak to amendment 242 and the other amendments in the group.
Section 9(3) of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) (Amendment) Act 1933 created a right of pre-emption in respect of what were known as parliamentary churches and manses. The holder would have the right of first refusal in the event of a church affected by the act coming up for sale. The right of pre-emption was created in favour of the person who originally gave the land to the church, provided that no payment was made and that the granter owned land adjoining the church. The land next to the church, which was owned by the granter, would benefit from the pre-emption.
The amendments in the group seek to resolve problems that have arisen where adjoining land that has the pre-emption right has been divided. The owner of each property that has been sold off from the original piece of adjoining land has to be given the opportunity to purchase the church or manse.
We do not think that it is possible to interfere in cases in which the land has already been divided. In those circumstances, the owner of each property that makes up the original land could have the right of pre-emption. To remove the right by deciding that only one of them can exercise it seems unfair. That would be the effect of Maureen Macmillan's amendment 241 and Donald Gorrie's amendment 242. There is also the potential for a challenge to be made under the European convention on human rights.
Executive amendment 35 will prevent the problem from being perpetuated by future subdivision of the benefited land. In future, only one part of a property that is being divided up will retain the right to pre-emption. The default position will be that the property that is retained by the seller will keep the right to the pre-emption, but it will be possible to provide for the seller to lose the right and for the buyer to receive it instead. The right will attach only to the retained or conveyed property.
I accept and understand that that does not answer the problem of existing rights to the pre-emption being shared between several different properties. Amendments 241 and 242 propose stepping in and removing the right to use the pre-emption from everyone apart from the adjoining owner with the longest boundary. I understand and recognise the aim behind amendments 241 and 242, but the proposed solution seems somewhat arbitrary. It also has the potential to amount to confiscation of a valuable property right without compensation. We do not think that a statutory extinction of those rights is the correct way forward.
I would like to give an indication of the scale of the problem. There are only a limited number of sites to which section 9 of the 1933 act applies. Those are parliamentary churches, and the Church of Scotland has informed us of 43 churches, of which 28 remain unsold. Of 42 manses only 6 remain unsold. In addition, the pre-emption right was only created in cases where the granter had land adjoining the church.
Therefore, a limited number of cases remain outstanding. It appears that the pre-emption issue has been dealt with in sales that have already been made. That said, I do not in any way wish to belittle the concerns that have been raised by the Church of Scotland, albeit that we are talking about a small number of cases. I understand that there have been problems in one of those cases.
It is possible for the church to seek from each holder of the opportunity to purchase an undertaking that they will not exercise their right. That is what proposed subsection (6) in amendment 241 seeks to achieve. I do not think that that part of the amendment is necessary since no formal offer is required anyway.
Issues have also been raised about the valuation of property. Maureen Macmillan's amendment 241 and Donald Gorrie's amendment 242 propose mechanisms for identifying the value of the property, although the original act provides for arbitration, which is usually the best way of dealing with disputes. However, I am certainly happy to consider further the issue of valuation before stage 3.
I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Maureen Macmillan and Donald Gorrie. I understand their particular concerns, but I will allow them to expand on them. With the convener's permission, I will respond once they have had the opportunity to lay out their particular concerns.
I move amendment 35.
I am happy to let the minister respond when he winds up.
As the minister knows but the committee might not, parliamentary churches, manses and glebes were provided out of public funds as a result of two acts of Parliament passed back in the reign of George IV. Title to the land was originally taken in the name of parliamentary commissioners and it is unclear what compensation, if any, was received by the landowners from whose estates the land on which the buildings were erected came. The position was complicated by the fact that they would possibly be the sole heritor and would therefore have had considerable financial obligations in connection with provision of places of worship and so on under other legislation then in force.
All the parliamentary buildings were erected prior to 1830 in accordance with plans drawn up by Thomas Telford. Parliamentary churches and manses proliferate in rural areas and we have many of them in the Highlands. The buildings are of considerable historical merit and architectural interest. Title to them was transferred to the Church of Scotland general trustees under the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act 1925 and some additional properties were added by the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) (Amendment) Act 1933, which also contained provisions enabling the properties to be sold, subject to the right of pre-emption that is contained in section 9(3). That subsection reads:
"Before selling or otherwise disposing of the ground or any part thereof on which any Church or Manse included in the Tenth Schedule"
to the 1925 act, as extended by section 15 of the 1933 act,
"has been erected, the General Trustees shall give to any heritor whose lands adjoin such ground or part and by whose predecessor in title such ground or part was originally granted or disponed without valuable consideration for the erection of the Church or Manse, an opportunity to purchase or take in feu such ground or part at such price and on such terms as may be agreed upon between the General Trustees and such heritor, all, as failing agreement, may be determined by an Arbiter appointed by the Sheriff on application of either party".
Usually, if there is a pre-emption clause in a title, the person selling the property can at least put the property on the market to find out what the market price is. In this instance, however, the church is not able to do that but must go directly to the adjoining proprietor and negotiate with them to get a price that might not end up being a fair price.
Amendment 241 seeks to change the title conditions governing the sale of parliamentary churches that make it difficult for the Church of Scotland to sell them for a realistic price within a realistic time scale when the churches, most of which are in rural areas, become redundant.
In many cases, the lands owned by the original heritors have been sold off, as the Minister for Justice has said. There might now be several owners whose land adjoins the church and amendment 241 therefore seeks to limit the right of pre-emption to the owner of the longest adjoining stretch of land. That should ensure that negotiations are not as protracted as they are at the moment.
As I mentioned, valuation of the redundant parliamentary churches is a problem. At present, there is no requirement for the person with the right of pre-emption to pay market value. The church cannot be put on the market in an attempt to find out what another purchaser would be prepared to pay. That can lead to protracted negotiations in which a landowner wants the church for next to nothing or in which an uninterested landowner will not come to a decision and the empty church falls into disrepair. My amendment seeks to give the Church of Scotland the right to put the property on the market and then to offer it to the landowner with the right of pre-emption under the same terms as the prospective purchaser. That is the normal practice in relation to a right of pre-emption on a property.
To avoid a protracted wait for a decision from the adjoining landowner that, in some cases, as the minister said, can take years, proposed subsection (5)(b) would set a time limit of 21 days for the landowner to decide to buy the church at the price offered by another prospective purchaser. Proposed subsection (6) would provide that, when the sale to a third party is completed, the right of pre-emption by the adjoining proprietor will be extinguished.
I realise that this is not a perfect amendment and that there might be implications in relation to the European convention on human rights. I would like the minister to indicate—and I believe that he has already done this—that he is willing to undertake to discuss the matter with the Church of Scotland to see how those anachronistic conditions currently governing the sale of parliamentary churches can be brought into the 21st century.
Amendment 242 was also drafted by the Church of Scotland, but I am happy to put my name to it.
The Church of Scotland preferred Maureen Macmillan's amendment 241 but, if that was thought to be too far reaching, it would be content with amendment 242. Maureen Macmillan has covered the main issues, but there are still a number of points to cover. First, who has the benefit of the statutory right to the property? Secondly, how is the price fixed? Thirdly, there is a question about the time scale.
On the question about the benefit of the statutory right to the property, I do not see why a fair judgment cannot be made and the benefit allocated to the person with the longest boundary. The property cannot be divided up; it is rather like King Solomon and the baby. On the whole, it is a good thing for someone to keep the baby. An arbitrary decision has to be made about who gets the right to the benefit from the ground.
My second point is about how the price is fixed. The Church of Scotland gave us an example of one case where the proprietor of the land said he would never give his approval for drains, roads, electricity or anything of that sort, so no development would be allowed and therefore the ground would not be worth anything. The question of valuation is therefore quite difficult because there might be properties that would have considerable value if they could be developed but, if the other proprietor can prevent that development, the price is affected.
Thirdly, there seem to be instances where the person with whom the church is negotiating keeps on faffing about—I am not sure whether that is a parliamentary expression.
We all know what it means.
I mean delaying unduly.
Like Maureen Macmillan, I would be happy if the minister would discuss the issue with the Church of Scotland. I gather that there have been misunderstandings in the past as to the concerns of the church. If anything can be agreed between the minister and the church, he could make further proposals at stage 3.
It has been useful that Maureen Macmillan and Donald Gorrie have been able to raise the difficulties experienced by the church. The Executive's amendment 35 is intended to address part of the issue and to stop the problem getting any worse.
I am not unsympathetic to the difficulties that have been described. However, it is important to be clear about what we can and cannot do to help. I will make it clear at the outset what we cannot do. Donald Gorrie's first question was about who would benefit and who has rights of pre-emption. Section 9(3) of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) (Amendment) Act 1933 is very clear that it is
"any heritor whose lands adjoin such ground or part and by whose predecessor in title such ground or part was originally granted or disponed without valuable consideration for the erection of the Church or Manse".
It is therefore anyone who owns adjoining ground. That then leads to a problem because that right has a value.
The church recognises that there are ECHR issues in this area. Regrettably, neither of the amendments that have been spoken to gets round those problems. They both would remove the pre-emption right from all the owners of the relevant land, apart from the one who has the longest boundary. That would extinguish the rights of a number of heritors without compensation, which is likely to be contrary to article 1 of protocol 1 of the ECHR and therefore not within the Parliament's competence. I doubt that the church is prepared to consider paying compensation, although it might be. At most, we might be able to set down a procedure to regulate between the competing claims to pre-emption. However, I do not believe that we can simply abolish those claims.
I turn to what we might be able to do to help. From what has been said, it seems that the Church of Scotland would be happier if there were a prescribed method of calculating or arriving at the value of the property. I am sure that we could devise an amendment to meet that point. Arbitration proceedings are set out in the 1933 act, but it might help if we were to set out in statute that the arbiter is obliged to set the figure at the open-market value.
The existing statute does not put a time limit on the decision, which, as Donald Gorrie and Maureen Macmillan said, means that the church might become frustrated if the pre-emption holder plays for time. In another section, the bill limits the time for decision on ordinary pre-emptions, and we will consider whether we can create a similar provision for the circumstances that we are discussing, to benefit the church.
Given that the Executive is willing to lodge amendments at stage 3 on the basis for valuation and the time scale for pre-emption, I hope that Maureen Macmillan and Donald Gorrie will not move their amendments.
Amendment 35 agreed to.
Amendment 241 has already been debated with amendment 35.
I hope that the minister will meet with the Church of Scotland to discuss the issues involved with amendment 241.
We will enter into dialogue, but I am not sure whether I will meet representatives of the church personally.
Given that, and given what the minister said in his summing up, I will not move amendment 241.
Amendments 241 and 242 not moved.
I apologise to the minister, but I will have to leave, as the Conveners Group is meeting now and will discuss matters of relevance to the Justice 1 Committee. Maureen Macmillan will take over from me.
Section 97—Amendment of Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) (Scotland) Act 1947
Amendments 36, 233 and 37 to 47 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 245 is grouped with amendments 246, 247, 76 to 79, 217, 81 and 83 to 86.
The key amendment in the group is amendment 76; the others are consequential and of a minor technical nature.
Amendments 76 and 77 will apply provisions—which are similar to those that section 6 applies to real burdens—to assignations that are granted under the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857. Those provisions will allow conditions to be imported from a deed of condition that is registered before the appointed day.
Amendment 83 will remove servitudes that are created under section 66 from the category of overriding interests under the land registration system. Amendment 217 will provide that such servitudes are instead to be entered on the register of conditions.
Amendment 84 will change the Mortgage Rights (Scotland) Act 2001 to bring it into line with changes made by the bill to the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.
I move amendment 245.
Amendment 245 agreed to.
Amendments 48 and 234 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 97, as amended, agreed to.
Section 98—Amendment of Forestry Act 1967
Amendments 235, 50 to 55, 246, 56, 57, 247, 58 to 62 and 236 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
Section 99 agreed to.
Section 100—Amendment of Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979
Amendments 237 and 206 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 100, as amended, agreed to.
Section 101 agreed to.
Section 102—Amendment of Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990
Amendment 207 is grouped with amendments 68 and 74.
Amendments 207, 68 and 74 make minor changes to the arrangements for the abolition of feudal tenure and the transition to the new system of land tenure.
Amendment 207 is a minor drafting alteration to ensure that the provisions of sections 18A and 18B relating to counter-obligation due to a feudal superior are couched in the same terms. It does not alter the substance of the existing provisions.
Amendments 68 and 74 make changes to the deadlines by which superiors have to take action to preserve feudal rights. Superiors will now be able to take action when part 4 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) 2000 is commenced. The amendments are a consequence of the changed arrangements for the commencement and implementation of the two acts, on which I have already written to the convener.
I move amendment 207.
Amendment 207 agreed to.
Amendment 208 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 102, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 12
Amendment of Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000
Amendments 64 and 65 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 66 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 66 is a technical amendment that makes it clear that a person who would be perfectly entitled to enforce a burden is not to be prevented from doing do simply because he or she was formally the feudal superior with the right to enforce the burden.
I move amendment 66.
Amendment 66 agreed to.
Amendments 67 to 72 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 243 is in a group on its own.
Amendment 243 is a technical amendment that is consequential to amendments 106 and 208, which the committee discussed and accepted on the first day of its stage 2 consideration. The amendment simply adds the definitions of "economic development burden" and "local authority" to section 49 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000, which relates to the interpretation of part 4 of that act.
I move amendment 243.
Amendment 243 agreed to.
Amendments 238, 239 and 73 to 75 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 103 to 109 agreed to.
Section 110—Interpretation
Amendments 209 and 210 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Amendment 211 is grouped with amendments 212 and 213.
Amendment 211 is a consequential amendment that follows from the introduction into the bill of the development management scheme and economic development burdens.
Amendments 212 and 213 tighten up definitions in the bill. Amendment 212 is designed to ensure that existing feudal burdens will be treated as real burdens under the bill. That is of particular importance for the transitional provisions that are contained in part 4 of the bill. Of course, it will not be possible to create feudal burdens after the appointed day and, following that day, the estate of dominium directum will cease to exist.
Amendment 213 is a technical amendment that is designed to clarify the meaning of "owner" in relation to the definition of "real burden" in section 1. If no change were made, an "owner" could include a heritable creditor who happened to be in possession of the property at the time when a burden was being created. We do not think that it would be desirable for a burden to be created in favour of a body—or person—that had only a very temporary interest in the property.
I move amendment 211.
Amendment 211 agreed to.
Amendment 12 not moved.
Amendment 212 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 110, as amended, agreed to.
Section 111—The expression "owner"
Amendment 213 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 112 to 114 agreed to.
Section 115—Orders, regulations and rules
Amendment 214 is grouped with amendments 215 and 216.
Committee members may recall that I wrote to the convener in October, indicating that the Executive intended to lodge what are now amendments 214 to 216. The 2000 act gives Scottish ministers the power—subject to affirmative resolution—to make consequential amendments or repeals to existing legislation. Parliament recognised that it was impossible to guarantee that the act caught all provisions containing feudal terminology or concepts. Indeed, some of the detail that we have gone into today underlines the tremendous job of the draftsmen, although no one could put hand on heart and say that they have definitely caught everything.
Once enacted, the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill will have a similar wide-ranging effect on a number of statutes, so it seems a sensible precaution to take a power to make adjustments to the law without recourse to primary legislation. I re-emphasise the fact that Parliament would have to give specific approval before any changes could be made. The three amendments together give Scottish ministers the necessary powers to make any such adjustments.
I move amendment 214.
No members have indicated that they wish to comment on this group of amendments. I take it that you do not wish to add anything, minister.
As this is the final group of amendments, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, deputy convener, and the convener, Christine Grahame, as well as all the other members of the Justice 1 Committee for their co-operative and constructive work during stage 2 consideration of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill. The bill is a complex but important piece of legislation. There has been some useful discussion on sheltered housing in particular and I believe that the bill is the better for the committee's work on it. Once again, I thank you, deputy convener, committee members and officials.
Thank you very much, minister. We appreciate your comments. We did not find dealing with the bill an easy task. As you say, the bill is complicated and technical, but, as we got into the detail of it, we found our work very rewarding.
I thank the minister for his offer to meet representatives of the Law Society of Scotland. I hope that that will be a fruitful meeting.
Amendment 214 agreed to.
Amendment 215 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 115, as amended, agreed to.
Section 116—Minor and consequential amendments, repeals and power to amend forms
Amendment 216 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 116, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13
Minor and consequential amendments
Amendments 76 to 79, 217 and 81 to 84 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
We are almost there now.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 14
Repeals
Amendments 85 and 86 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
Section 117—Short title and commencement
Amendments 218 to 221 moved—[Mr Jim Wallace]—and agreed to.
Section 117, as amended, agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Bill. I feel that we should all cheer at this point. Well done, everybody.
The committee will continue its meeting in private for the last two agenda items, which concern our draft report on the Prostitution Tolerance Zones (Scotland) Bill and witness expenses in relation to the committee's inquiry into alternatives to custody. The committee agreed earlier to discuss those matters in private. I therefore ask members of the public to leave.
Meeting continued in private until 17:00.