Only a few days to go: We’re raising £25,000 to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
I realise that I am taking my life in my hands by discussing legal points with two lawyers, but I will do it anyway.
I acknowledge that Annabel Goldie's amendment 22A is meant to be helpful. The concern is that the bill's definition, which refers to the date when the new owner acquired right to the flat, might give rise to confusion, and that providing for the date on which "missives were concluded" might be more certain. However, I do not share that concern. The phrase "acquisition date" is the established phrase for the date on which a purchaser acquires right to a property. It is familiar to conveyancing solicitors from legislation such as the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970—with which I am sure all members are familiar—and it has been used generally in recent legislation. It is also used elsewhere in the bill. Essentially, a person has right to a flat once that person has delivered disposition for that flat. We would prefer to stick with the established definition, which is in line with other statutes.
Moreover, I suggest in the nicest possible way that amendment 22A is defective, because it deals only with the normal purchase and sale situation where there will be missives of sale. Not all transfers of flats will require missives, for example transfers of property following the owner's death. I ask Annabel Goldie not to move amendment 22A.
Amendment 21 agreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—Mrs Mary Mulligan.
Amendment 22A moved—Miss Annabel Goldie.