| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Nov 1996 : Column 460
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale):
I have long awaited the opportunity to have this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I should like to thank Madam Speaker for finally selecting me to have the Adjournment debate.
Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had a debate on land reform in Scotland. I congratulate him on his success in raising the issue, which I intend to cover in more detail than the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members managed to do then. The hon. Gentleman admitted that he exercised some restraint when describing the behaviour and antics of Mr. Brian Hamilton, the so-called "raider of the lost titles", but I can tell the House that I intend to free myself from such restraint. I intend to speak based on my experience of meeting him. My opinion of him is not a good one, and I am sure that, having heard of that man's activities, most will share my view.
I first became aware of the problem through a local councillor for Boghead, Councillor Esther Serrels, deputy provost of South Lanarkshire council. I would like to record my thanks to and appreciation of Councillor Serrels for her outstanding and tireless work on behalf of the people of Boghead and Kirkmuirhill, who have been on the receiving end of those outdated and abused Scottish land laws.
Councillor Serrels arranged a meeting at my constituency office on 26 August, which was also attended by a delegation of Boghead residents. They informed me of a litany of harassment, threats and intimidation. For example, bank accounts had been arrested, sheriff officers had served warrants, bailiffs had evaluated household goods for warrant sales, and threats of evictions had been made, as well as repeated calls of a threatening and intimidating nature. Such calls seem to be a common feature of Mr. Hamilton's tactics.
There was the case of Mr. and Mrs. Reid. Hamilton obtained an eviction order to evict them from the home in which they had lived for the previous 20 years, after a dispute over the ownership. The previous owner was an old lady who had sold the house to the Reids for £500. She gave them a receipt for the sale, but died two weeks later, before conveyancing had been properly completed. Mr. Hamilton reputedly bought the right of claim for ownership from the old lady's family for £4,000. He sued Mr. Reid for £29,000, in addition to £11,000 in back casualty payments.
Hamilton's attitude towards the Reids was vicious and venomous, and his behaviour was abusive and derogatory. He revelled in the torment that he inflicted on the couple.
I attended a public meeting in Boghead, on 11 September 1996, and met members of the community--among whom were some ordinary people who had been living a normal life one minute, but whose lives were threatened and virtually ruined the next. Forty families have been affected in Boghead, but they have received little or no help, except for the comfort of concern expressed by each other, their local councillor and their Member of Parliament, and by some other supporters.
13 Nov 1996 : Column 462
I decided to try to meet Mr. Hamilton to see at first hand what type of person threatens and intimidates an 88-year-old pensioner and a young widow and evicts people such as the Reids from their homes. I wrote to him, requesting a meeting. He agreed. I announced that Councillor Serrells and I would travel to Stonehaven, on Friday 27 September 1996, to discuss all the issues. Hamilton immediately released a statement to the press, stating that he would not meet with "that woman Serrells". It seems that Councillor Serrells had said something critical of his conduct--which should surprise no one.
I telephoned Hamilton, and I told him that Councillor Serrells was the local councillor, and that he was objecting to the attendance of one of the most decent, respected and admired women in the county of Lanarkshire. He reluctantly withdrew his objection to her attendance, and she and I set off to meet "the raider of the lost titles".
We decided that our approach would be to express our concerns, as expressed to us by our constituents, and then to listen to him and allow him to talk as much as possible. I was keen to discover what sort of chap he was, and he certainly displayed conduct that could be described as evil. Our meeting lasted for two hours, and the experience was worth the three-hour drive up and the three-hour drive back.
I should say something about how Hamilton behaved and operated in Boghead. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan briefly mentioned George Malone, but--understandably, because of time factors--he did not give a full account of Mr. Malone's treatment. Hamilton had initially demanded £9,000 from George Malone, an 82-year-old pensioner. He then reduced his demand to £4,800 and said, "Pay up and shut up, or I will withdraw my offer." The debt owed to Hamilton for a casualty fee was, in pre-decimalisation money, 1s 7d--or 8.5p in modern currency. Hamilton was trying to intimidate that old man to pay him £9,000 to buy the casualty that he owned on the house. When Mr. Malone passes on, there will be no casualty fee due because the house will pass to his son. When Hamilton agreed during our meeting to drop his demand against Mr. Malone, it may have been influenced by the fact that he was going to get nothing this side of 20 years anyway, although he still owns the casualty for the property. I could cite many more examples but I shall give only a few because of the constraints of time.
Mrs. Anne Judge, a young widow recently bereaved, had her bank account frozen by Hamilton. Bailiffs and sheriffs were sent round to value her property for warrant sales. Her lawyer behaved less than honourably too, by running up further legal bills when he knew that he and/or his firm had failed Mr. and Mrs. Judge by not properly advising her and her then husband of their liabilities when they bought the property. When Hamilton froze their bank account, he had the neck to telephone her to say that he had to do it so that she would push her lawyer into a quick settlement. That young woman had been widowed for only five months and Hamilton had no regard for her well-being. He was driven by greed for money.
In another case, a young couple, Fiona and Hunter Fairley, bought their home as an investment with a view to renovating and improving it. Like Mrs. Judge, Mr. and Mrs. Fairley were not served well by their lawyer, Mr. Scanlon, and subsequently had to sue him. Mr. and Mrs. Fairley were devastated by their experience and put
13 Nov 1996 : Column 463
Before coming to my conclusions, I want to alert hon. Members to another problem that could potentially devastate private home owners in Scotland--superiorities. Do hon. Members have superiors over their homes?
I recently met a constituent who has given me permission to mention his case here tonight--Mr. Maurice Benyon of 12 South avenue, Carluke. Mr. Benyon lives on what he describes as a Barratt estate in Carluke. He bought a house from Barratt and had extra land where he wanted to build another building. He applied for planning permission but was told by Barratt or its agents that they were the superior of the estate and that he would have to pay them £5,000 for permission to build. The superior can also charge for significant alterations to homes or extensions. The potential for panic and damage to the housing market is overwhelming. That is why this outdated law has to be changed.
I want to draw my remarks to a close. I apologise for the time that I have taken, but I hope that hon. Members agree that the people's stories had to be told. I hope that I have done that tonight.
Mr. Hamilton challenged me to name any individuals who have had to pay him money directly. I can answer his challenge tonight.
The masonic hall in our area paid Mr. Hamilton £6,300; it was not the insurers. The local hairdresser's shop paid him £1,150; it was not the insurers. A plant hire shop paid him £255; it was not the insurers. Mrs. Judge, a recent widow, and Mr. and Mrs. Arlott are still being drawn through the courts, defending themselves from demands for many thousands of pounds.
Mr. Hamilton has sought to portray himself as a man who is only exploiting a bad law, and he says that only lawyers get hurt. The media, while being been critical of him, have assisted in fostering that perception. I met the man and I have seen what he has done to good, decent people, from an 82-year-old pensioner to a recently widowed woman, and many others.
Mr. Hamilton is not just a land speculator. He is an evil, twisted man. He invades people's lives and seeks to destroy them on the altar of making money from a bad law. When I met him, I had the impression that he probably had a very unhappy childhood. He is so
13 Nov 1996 : Column 465
That the draft Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Latvia) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.
Question agreed to.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (China) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd October.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Korea) Order 1996 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 28th October.--[Mr. Brandreth.]
10.31 pm
Those are not the actions of a decent person who was only taking advantage of the law.
May. The Sun Alliance (Mr. Scanlon's insurers) got in touch with Mr. Hamilton to sort out the mess. They have agreed on a sum for the feu and are trying to agree a sum for buying the casualty clause.
June. Mr. Hamilton is still hassling us. He called to inform me that the insurance company might get in touch to offer us a sum of money if we don't claim anything else after they pay the feu to Mr. Hamilton. He said it would be in our own interest if we refused it as they would approach him with a better sum. I refused and said I'd think about it. He then told me that if I accepted the money that they offered then I would still have the clause on the house and if we passed the house to the boys in years to come he would still get his money.
Phoned solicitor to write to Mr. Hamilton's solicitor again telling him to stop phoning us.
July. At last! Solicitor asked to see us to sign the papers confirming Sun Alliance had paid Mr. Hamilton.
Now we don't have this hanging over our heads any more. Sun Alliance also wanted us to sign a letter stating that we won't be making any further claims against Mr. Scanlon. We refused. We are awaiting word from our solicitor on whether the Law Society will reprimand Mr. Scanlon."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |