APPLICATIONS TO LANDS TRIBUNAL REGARDING ALLOCATIONS OF FEUDUTIES (Hansard, 11 May 1970)

§ Mr. Buchan
I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 38, leave out ' to such of ' and insert: ' as may be prescribed, to '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
We can discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, and 21.

§ Mr. Buchan
It might be useful if I were to adopt the same technique as was adopted before and read out subsection (2) of Clause 4 as it would read if the Amendments were accepted: On any application to the Lands Tribunal under this section, the Tribunal shall give such notice thereof, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, as may be prescribed, to the persons who appear to them to be 914 proprietors of parts of the feu in respect: of which the cumulo feuduty is exigible, and to such other persons as the Tribunal may think fit; and the Tribunal shall allow the superior of the feu and any such proprietor, and may allow any other person who appears to them to have an interest in the application, to be heard in relation thereto. The purpose of the Amendments is to deal with the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), and, more generally, to bring subsection (2) of Clause 4 into line with subsection (2) of Clause 2. We have come 95 per cent. of the way towards meeting the needs of both sides of the Committee. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

§ Mr. Wylie
The Minister has come a. very long way to meeting us. The Amendments improve the subsection considerably. The only difference between us is about whether any person with an interest in the application should be entitled to be heard. If our Amendment No. 21 were accepted, the provision would read. and the Tribunal shall allow the superior, any such proprietor, and any other person who appears to them to have an interest in the application, to be heard ". It would bring in the third party with a statutory right to be heard.
I would not advise my hon. Friends to press our Amendment to a division if the Government were not prepared to accept it, but in a sense it is stronger than the Government's proposals. When one is dealing with cumulo feudities, the position of a heritable creditor is important because his security is affected. I do not think that there was an Amendment in Committee which dealt with the heritable creditor's position, but he was referred to in Committee. In view of the general argument, I should have thought that in his interest there was a strong case for altering the wording of the subsection along the lines proposed in our Amendment No. 21.

§ Mr. Buchan
The proprietors of the feu are basically the people with whom we are concerned. The main body of people with which we were concerned in Committee are to be included. I agree that the heritable creditor is left on one side, although the tribunal will no doubt pay attention to his position. The main body of people affected have been 915 brought in mandatorily, which is precisely what the Committee and I sought to do.

§ Mr. Wylie
As I say, the hon. Gentleman has gone a long way towards meeting us, for which I am grateful. We should, however, have liked him to go a bit further.