Plenary, 08 Mar 2001

Meeting date: Thursday, March 8, 2001

Official Report 649KB pdf

---

Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

The next item of business is the stage 3 debate on the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill. As there are no amendments to the bill, we move straight to the general debate on motion S1M-1721, in the name of Mr Adam Ingram, which seeks agreement that the bill be passed.

I am pleased to move the motion. If approved, it will result in the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill being passed. It is almost five years since the attention of the House of Commons was drawn to what was an obscure corner of Scots property law, in an adjournment debate that was responded to by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, the former Minister of State, Scottish Office and the only member of that UK Government to have found a new lease of life in the Scottish Parliament.

At that time, there was concern over the predicament of tenants in Boghead, in Lanarkshire. Out of the blue, they found themselves on the receiving end of demands for the payment of large sums—so-called casualties. They either had been badly advised by solicitors or had not been advised at all. Their situation seemed to be one of hardship and oppression, which needed to be addressed quickly through legislative change. Sadly, although the Scottish Law Commission was able to respond quickly to a reference by the Government of the time, the Westminster Parliament was not.

The journey that began with that 1996 debate has, however, reached an end today with what I hope will be the passing without demur of the bill. I hope that, although many tenants have had to find their own solutions to the problems that emerged in 1996, the bill will be of help to some and that the door has been firmly closed on any future oppressive use of leasehold casualties.

The retrospective effect of the bill is unusual, in that its key provisions have been backdated to 10 May last year—its date of introduction. That was intended to stop any last-minute attempt by landlords to claim casualties while the bill was being scrutinised by the Parliament. That has been effective, as we are not aware of any outstanding actions of that nature against individual tenants.

It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be the sponsor of the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill, and it is a tribute to the workings of the Parliament that it has, so far, had a smooth passage. I pay tribute to the efficient and careful way in which the former Justice and Home Affairs Committee went about its task. The committee took a balanced approach to the calling of evidence on the bill, and its stage 1 report supported its principles.

I also commend the Scottish Law Commission on its 1998 report, on which the bill was based. The commission looked into the issues carefully and produced sound recommendations. At stage 1, I explained the respects in which I departed on advice from the commission's recommendations. However, the commission did not lose interest in the bill but continued to give the Executive the benefit of its advice as to how the bill could be improved. As a result, at stage 2 on 14 February, seven Executive amendments were agreed by the Justice 1 Committee and incorporated in the bill. On that occasion, Iain Gray explained fully the purpose of the amendments. Some of them had been suggested by the Scottish Law Commission on the basis of research that it had carried out in preparation for the review of residential long leases. The amendments will ensure that the bill covers every tenant who should be covered. They also clarify that irritancy under common law, and thereby threat of eviction, will be abolished with retrospective effect, so back-door actions by landlords trying to get round the legislation will not succeed.

No more amendments have been lodged and the bill is ready to be approved by the Scottish Parliament and to pass into law. This is a significant achievement for the Scottish Parliament. Although it is not the first member's bill to pass into law, it is a further affirmation of the strength of our standing orders and parliamentary procedures that a bill such as this can be set in motion by a member on his or her own initiative.

I have, of course, benefited from the support of the Executive throughout the process. I am grateful to the minister and his officials for the way in which they made available their advice and their time. I am also grateful to members generally for their support and co-operation during what has been something of an adventure for me and for the Justice 1 Committee, which has not previously taken a member's bill through to a conclusion. I have learned a lot from the experience, and that will be valuable for future bills. It is an honour to move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Given the number of members who have indicated a desire to speak, I anticipate that decision time will be at about 4.30 pm.

The Executive has always supported the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill. There was unlikely ever to have been time to legislate on the matter at Westminster, and the Scottish Parliament is the ideal forum in which to do so. The Parliament can focus on specific aspects of Scots law and delve into its obscure corners.

Adam Ingram has reminded us of the issues that led to the need for the bill, and I do not propose to go into them again. Suffice it to say that the bill will stop any further use of leasehold casualties to oppressive effect. As the bill's sponsor, Adam Ingram has worked with the Executive at each stage. At stage 2 in particular, he was most helpful in supporting certain amendments that we lodged following further scrutiny of the bill. He is to be congratulated on what I am sure will shortly be his success in seeing the bill through to fruition.

Like Adam Ingram, I express my appreciation of the scrutiny that the bill received at stages 1 and 2 from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and, later, the Justice 1 Committee. Members with a legal background took a particular interest in the bill, but all members have taken seriously their responsibility for scrutinising the bill. They have been particularly concerned to ensure that no door is inadvertently left open to allow further exploitation of leasehold casualties. I am confident that, if the bill passes this stage, that will be assured. Also like Adam Ingram, I acknowledge the work of my officials in the justice department.

I hope that the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill will enjoy a smooth final passage through stage 3 this afternoon and will reach royal assent after the requisite four weeks' waiting period has elapsed. I am delighted to support the motion.

The bill has been a great disappointment to me because, try as I might, I could not find anything really contentious about it. I have to congratulate Adam Ingram on introducing it. I did so in May last year, at the very start of the parliamentary year, at the time when he introduced it. At that time, I reminded him—and he conceded—that the bill was born in the mind of Michael Forsyth. I am sure that Michael Forsyth has a wee grin on his face, knowing that this Parliament is now passing his legislation.

Having said that, I remind the minister on a perhaps slightly more serious note that this is one of four bills to tackle feudal law. The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill has been passed; we still have the law of the tenement to deal with; and we still have the title conditions bill to come. I am not sure where those have got to at this stage, but we did support the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill, just as we give whole-hearted support to this bill. If the minister is to sum up, I ask him to comment on where the two proposed bills are.

That apart, I cannot even find any comment to make on the bill with regard to the European convention on human rights—other than to say that that did form part of the consideration, and that the bill does seem to comply, given the compensation element that was included in it. Finally, I simply congratulate Adam Ingram on getting his member's bill through.

I add my congratulations to Adam Ingram on his achievement in lodging the bill and on his handling of it during its passage. It is clearly an important measure. It does not affect a great number of people, but the impact of leasehold casualties on the lives of the people concerned is disproportionate. It is therefore important that that legal anomaly is ended. I am pleased that the Parliament has been able to achieve that.

As has been said in previous discussions, the bill is necessary perhaps because of an omission on the part of the Asquith Government in 1914. As a Liberal Democrat, I am particularly pleased to be able to rectify any such omissions by a previous friendly Government of that nature. Even the best of Governments can occasionally omit things from its legislative programme. It may be that it was the House of Lords which removed that opportunity to abolish leasehold casualties.

It is important to record that the Liberal Democrats are fully behind the bill. We will be pleased to vote for it, as we did at stage 1, and I, too, conclude by congratulating Adam Ingram on his success in achieving a most important and worthy reform in the context of the on-going land reform programme.

I do not want to repeat what I said during the stage 1 debate. In looking around the chamber, I think that it is the members who spoke then who are speaking today. However, we should never let a bill pass stage 3 without marking its importance. I believe that this small piece of legislation will be particularly important for Scots law.

Leasehold casualties, like long leases, are generally found only in certain parts of Scotland. That does not make their abolition any less important, as they have caused much distress for people in the parts of Scotland that are affected by them. I know that the people directly concerned will appreciate what is being done today.

Adam Ingram has to be congratulated on his contribution to Scots law. I am not referring just to his contribution in the Parliament today—the bill is a truly important contribution to Scots law itself. In due course, I believe that the positive effects of the bill will prove themselves.

Without going into detail, I wish to mention a few points about the bill. The shaping of the bill has been quite successful; we know that there have been several attempts to abolish leasehold casualties in the past. The bill's provisions are clear and, having sat through the scrutiny of the bill, I feel confident that we will have abolished leasehold casualties once and for all, and will have left nothing behind. I suppose that people have to be interested in the subject to appreciate this, but the drafting of the bill is very good. I am sure that those involved in that should also be congratulated.

Adam Ingram mentioned section 5, which is on irritancy provisions. Most people will ask themselves what those are. It is important to draw members' attention to the section. That feature of Scots law involves non-payment of a small duty, and the landlord's using that as an excuse to undermine the whole lease, by evicting people—just on the basis of a small debt. Section 5 establishes an important principle.

We have dealt with compensation issues in the past. We have mixed feelings over whether compensation should be payable, but we do not want to breach the European convention on human rights, so it is important that there is provision for compensation.

I congratulate Adam Ingram and thank him for allowing me to co-sponsor the bill. It will be an important piece of legislation and I am sure that it will be passed without controversy this afternoon.

At the risk of repeating everything that has been said, I will say that I remember Gordon Jackson's immortal words in the stage 1 debate that none of us would know a leasehold casualty if it fell in our soup. Now I would know one if it landed in my soup, but unfortunately it is being abolished just when I have learned to recognise it—one cannot have everything in life.

I congratulate Adam Ingram on his persistence and shrewdness in picking up this legislation, which is essential to ordinary people whose lives are being made a misery. In an atmosphere of consensus, I congratulate Iain Gray and the legal team on giving the bill a very fair wind. This is one of those moments when, in putting legislation on the statute book, the Scottish Parliament is not just a talking shop but a doing place.

The interesting thing about the bill is that in four weeks' time or so, after it has received royal assent, it will be in force and will apply retrospectively to the day on which Adam Ingram introduced the bill.

I do not want to sour things, but the same cannot be said for the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000, which many people think is in force, but is not. We will have several years of possible injustices. Perhaps the minister will take the opportunity of saying how the enforcement of that legislation is being accelerated, given that the title conditions bill has been deferred until the end of the year for early consultation. There is a huge scrap between the Justice 1 Committee and the Justice 2 Committee about the delights of land reform and the title conditions bill. I think that Pauline McNeill would say that we in the Justice 2 Committee are winning the debate to get land reform instead of the title conditions bill.

I add my voice to the congratulations to Adam Ingram. Most of all, I congratulate the Parliament on passing much-needed legislation.

I congratulate Adam Ingram on introducing and seeing through the bill. In my constituency, many people have suffered at the hands of a number of unscrupulous landlords, not least Brian Hamilton, for whom the passing of the bill will be a very sad day. Those people suffered severe emotional and financial hardship. The bill will go a long way towards proving to them that the Parliament can work for the Scottish people.

I put on record my thanks to one local person, Esther Serrells, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the people in Boghead to take the matter forward. She will be very pleased to know that the bill is being passed. I congratulate Adam Ingram again. I look forward to the bill receiving royal assent as soon as possible.

Before I ask Adam Ingram to wind up, I should say that as four members have dropped out of the debate and speeches have been significantly shorter than the three minutes that was allocated, we are in some difficulty. I propose to take Mr Ingram's speech and then suspend the meeting until decision time at 4.30 pm. I think that it is only reasonable to do that, as that is when we advised members that decision time would take place.

I must have expended several thousand words in the course of the passage through Parliament of the Leasehold Casualties (Scotland) Bill, so I intend to be brief now. I thank all the members who spoke today.

By passing the bill today, the Scottish Parliament will be seen to have taken effective action against an injustice that has blighted the lives of some of our fellow citizens. We will have eradicated anachronistic and oppressive landlord rights. We should all be proud that we will have done so. I feel privileged to have been the sponsor of the bill, and I thank the many members who have taken an interest in it for their support. On that note, I shall close.

The next item of business is consideration of motion S1M-1645, in the name of Allan Wilson, on the Culture and Recreation Bill, which is UK legislation. However, I am in some difficulty—[Interruption.] I will come back to this item before decision time. Because of the fluid time scale this afternoon, Mr Wilson is not with us.