Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 31 May 2012

31 May 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Land Registration etc (Scotland) Bill

MacKenzie, Mike SNP Highlands and Islands Watch on SPTV

I compliment my fellow members of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee for their considered and intelligent scrutiny of the bill, and the clerks, who provided their usual high standard of support. Most of all, I want to record a personal thanks to Professor Kenneth Reid, who provided us with specialist legal advice. It is a great tribute to him that he did so in a way that facilitated our understanding, as lay people, of some fairly technical issues with both humour and patience. I also thank the many witnesses who gave evidence, and the people who wrote to me and took an interest in the committee’s work.

We all agree that the bill’s general thrust and focus is to be welcomed. Completion of the land register is itself a worthy goal. Smoothing and rendering more efficient the processes that pertain to property transactions are equally worthy objectives. However, my concern throughout has been that, in our bid to complete the land register, we do not sacrifice quality for speed and that we recognise some of the problems of the system and attempt to deal with them, so far as we reasonably can.

I am therefore glad that Mr Ewing, the minister, engaged constructively with the committee and with the various stakeholders. He listened carefully and responded to suggestions for improvements to the bill when it was wise to do so. For example, in section 42, on prescriptive acquisitions, he reduced the period of abandonment of land from the originally proposed seven years. That is only one example of a practical and wise judgment being made when it had to be made.

A certain amount of idealism was displayed in the amendments that were lodged by some of my colleagues on the committee. Idealism, of course, is a fine thing and I am glad that the spirit of idealism is alive and well in the Parliament. However, we must never enforce our idealism when it will cause harm and difficulty, when ordinary people going about their business will be victims of that idealism, or when the practical difficulties far outweigh any benefits that the idealism might bring. I therefore hope that Mr Harvie and Ms Grant will understand why I felt unable to support their amendments.

However, even the best of systems can never be perfect. Despite the keeper’s reassurances that all was well, I felt that it was important that a more efficient and perhaps more cost-effective mechanism than the courts ought to be available for resolving mistakes or disputes. I was therefore glad to be able to lodge an amendment at stage 2 that will have the effect of allowing the Lands Tribunal to provide such a mechanism. The unanimous support that the amendment achieved in committee was due much more to the common sense of my colleagues and the compelling evidence that we had heard than to any persuasive ability on my part.

The bill has been much improved in its course through the Parliament. I have been pleased to play my own small part in the process and I hope that members throughout the chamber will support the bill.

11:07

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 31 May 2012

In the same item of business