§ Where a landholder, whose rights to compensation for permenant improvements have been transferred in whole or in part, under section eight of the Act of 1911, to the Department, abandons his holding or breaks 736 any statutory condition, it shall be lawful for the Land Court, on the application of the Department, and after consideration of any objections stated by the landlord, to make an order for the removal of the landholder.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. W. ADAMSON
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of this Clause is explained by its title. It deals with the right of compensation for permanent improvements when a landholder has removed from or renounced his holding. Where the improvements have been provided by means of a loan from the Department the right to compensation is up to the amount of the loan transferred to the Department. Where the Department has made a loan for the purpose of providing improvements to a landholder who, without renouncing his holding simply abandons it, the right to compensation for the improvements does not emerge, and the amount of the loan is thus lost. The new Clause is designed to enable the Department, where a landholder to whom they have made a loan abandons his holding, to go to the Land Court for an order removing him.
§ Mr. MacROBERT
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that an order from the Department is required to remove a landholder who has already abandoned the holding. If so, it seems rather strange. I would also like further enlightenment on this point. Is its suggestion that the Department, having made a loan to this landholder, cannot recover against the landlord compensation which would have been due to the landholder, unless they get this order for removal. Do I understand that to be the situation? If that is the situation; if the Department are going to have the right to claim against the landlord for compensation, then what is the position of the landlord as against the landholder in regard to the fact that the landholder has abandoned his holding and left it derelict? Is he not to be entitled to retain from the compensation any damage which he has sustained?
§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I hope the late Lord Advocate will apply his great gifts of analysis and criticism to some of the material points concerning differences in policy which will arise as we proceed with the consideration of this Bill. Shortly, the point with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking to deal by this proposed New Clause is simply this: Under the Act of 1911 the Department has already power to deal with the landholder who is in breach of the ordinary conditions of repayment of loan, but the Department, so far, has no power to deal with the landholder who merely abandons his holding. The Department by this New Clause seeks the right to secure the compensation which would normally be due and to apply that compensation to the repayment of the loan. It is a perfectly simple and easy proposal, and I should have supposed that on this point, at any rate, we should have secured on behalf of the State, the cordial assent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert).
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
§ Clause added to the Bill.