ERRIBOL ESTATE (SALE). (Hansard, 6 April 1927)

§ Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR

I do not propose at this late hour to debate the merits of the purchase and sale of the estate, farm, and sheep stock at Erribol. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), a week or two ago, made out a case against the sale and for the investigation of this transaction. We obtained, I think I am justified in saying, the assent of the great body of hon. Members, at least the great majority of those representing Scotland, and it certainly convinced public opinion, as reflected in the public Press of Scotland. You, Sir, pointed out that there was a certain disadvantage and inconvenience in placing on the Order Paper week after week questions which were meant to elicit the information which we want. I have, therefore, adopted this method of obtaining the information which I desire and which public opinion in Scotland demands. I gave the Secretary of State for Scotland notice of these questions a week ago. My first question 2226 to him is put in order to clear up the facts as to certain information which has reached me from various respectable individuals, mostly Scottish sheep farmers, but in one case an English valuer, to the effect that the arbiter, whose good faith the Secretary of State on the last occasion hotly defended, but which no one on this side of the House to my knowledge impugned, was hedged about by certain restrictions which made a proper valuation of the sheep stock impossible. I want to know whether any further intimation was made to the Arbiter by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland amplifying the Minute of Reference? Did any such intimation, after the original Minute of Reference, indicate that the award of prices should be based on certain calculations and figures instead of upon the valuation of each class of sheep? Did the minute of reference excuse the valuer from following the customary practice of making a provisional award before he issued his final award?

Did the purchaser take over the whole of the ordinary sheep-stock on the farm and pay acclimatization value? This is important, because invariably on Sutherland sheep farms, in the sale of sheep stock, the purchaser has been bound to take over the whole ordinary stock of the farm—that is the current phrase—and to pay acclimatisation value on every single sheep, which amounts to 10s. or 15s. a sheep. Not only is it maintained that the purchaser did not have to do this in the case of the Erribol sheep stock, but another point is that a number of people did not offer for the sheep stock who would have been very willing to do so if they had had any inkling that such a universal and onerous condition was to be waived in favour of the purchaser of Erribol.

My third question is: What was the number of shotts from the Erribol sheep stock; is there any precedent on a Sutherland sheep farm for shotting stock after the usual casts for the season have been disposed of? Fourthly: Is there any precedent for shotts being marketed by the outgoing tenant from a Sutherland sheep farm? Fifthly: How was the number of shotts arrived at in the valuation of the Erribol sheep stock; by whom were they drawn? It has been suggested to me—this time by an English informant—that the shotts, or sheep 2227 which were considered not up to the proper standard of the farm in each class, were actually drawn by the purchaser instead of being drawn by the Arbiter. I dare say that is an untrue suggestion, but if so, the Secretary of State will welcome the opportunity of denying it. Then I was informed some time ago, in answer to a question in this House, that certain special agreements were made with the purchaser, varying both the published conditions of the sale at the time the sheep stock was to be put up for auction, and the usual practice in three important respects, one in regard to the sale of five-year-old ewes. In answer to a question, I was informed by the Secretary of State that the departure in this case was very much in favour of the purchaser and against the public. So in respect of the other two points I want to find out whether the departures were in favour of the public or of the purchaser, and I ask what were the special agreements with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the number of tups—I believe you call them rams in this country—taken over?

What was the total number of sheep stock, including lambs, on the 1st September, 1926? What proportion and classes of the Erribol sheep stock remained in the Board's possession after the transfer of the stock had been made in accordance with the terms of purchase; what arrangements the Board made for carrying the stock until the usual sales for the classes retained; will acclimatisation value be paid by the purchaser on the stock retained by the Board and on the cast owes sold between Whit Sunday and Martinmas as was done by the Board when they purchased the sheep stock on Armadale?

The eventual purchaser first approached the Board tentatively on the 31st March, 1926. That was what the Secretary of State told me, to my surprise, in answer to a question two weeks ago. It was not until the end of August that definite negotiations were opened. Meanwhile, several inquiries were received from other sources. Why should the Secretary of State choose to open negotiations with this particular gentleman to the exclusion of these other inquirers? According to the Secretary of State, in answer 2228 to a question on the 14th February, several inquiries were received by the Board after the public exposure of the property at auction, and I want to know why the emissaries of the Board should approach this particular gentleman, who had been lying low all this time, not with an offer similar to that which other inquirers had refused through his agents, Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, but with unprecedented terms which they submitted to having dictated to them by the eventual purchaser.

Then I want to ask: Was the representative of the Board who advised the Secretary of State that a sum of £25,000 for the estate, farm and sheep stock of Erribol was less than he was likely to receive for the same subjects from the eventual purchaser on the terms of £10,000 for the estate and on a Martinmas valuation of the sheep stock, the responsible technical adviser of the Board? We in the North of Scotland know these practical servants of the Board who have a very good knowledge of the conditions in the Highlands of Scotland, and, when it was known that this sheep stock was to be sold on a Martinmas valuation, I was advised on all hands, and I informed the Secretary of State in a letter, that it would mean a reduction of one-third on the valuation of that sheep stock. As a matter of fact, it meant more, because of certain other conditions to which the Secretary of State submitted. The best of people make mistakes sometimes and it may be that the District Commissioner did make a mistake on this occasion, but it is inconceivable to me that a man of his experience should have made this mistake, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether it was on his advice that he rejected that offer of £25,000.

Then I desire to put some questions to the Secretary of State which he had not time to answer on the last occasion. What figures were suggested as a basis of negotiations for the sale of Erribol by the inquirers whose offers were forwarded by Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley? In one case the Secretary of State said he was offered £25,000. What other offers were made and what replies were returned to those offers? Was it stated that no alteration of the published conditions would be favourably con- 2229 sidered, or were inquirers encouraged to increase their offers on a modification of their proposed conditions? Was the eventual purchaser introduced by Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, who were the official agents appointed by the Board to sell the estate? Was the bargain completed through them? Through whose agency were the negotiations with the eventual purchaser conducted? Why was no opportunity given to the other inquirers to make competitive offers on the new basis?

Lastly, I would ask the Secretary of State—it is the most important question of all—what is going to be done for the applicants, for these ex-Service men for whom the estate was bought, and who were applying for it when it was sold? The Government are under a definite and honourable obligation to these men. They asked those men for the sheep stock no less than 70 per cent. more than they received from the pluralist farmer who eventually purchased the estate. These men would gladly have given not merely as much as but much more than he gave. They have waited for years for the promises made to them to be fulfilled. How much longer have they to wait, and what steps are the Government going to take?

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour)

The hon. and gallant Member assumes, I think, a greater amount of vital interest in Scotland in this one particular problem than really exists, but I am not desirous—and I think I have made it clear to him all through this trouble—of hiding anything in this transaction, nor, indeed, am I here to make excuses for what I have done. If the question is a question as between the offer of £25,000 and the figure which I have obtained, let me make perfectly clear what was achieved by the ordinary method of sale on valuation, as against accepting a blind offer. Against a blind offer of £25,000, which was not a definite offer, I have received in to to £21,818.

Let me come to the questions the hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked.

His first question was: "Was any further communication made to the Arbiter by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland amplifying or restricting the Minute of Reference after he had 2230 received it?" The answer to that question is "No".

Then I was asked: "Did any such communication, or did the original Minute of Reference, indicate that the award of prices should be based on a calculation of figures instead of upon a valuation of each class of sheep?" The answer is "No, except that the 5-year old ewes retained on the farm were by agreement transferred to the purchaser at the average price realised for the cast ewes.

The next question was: "Did it, or did the original Minute of Reference, prohibit or excuse the Arbiter from following the customary practice of making a provisional award before issuing his final award binding upon both parties?" As I have already stated, it is the usual practice for a valuator to issue his award without proposed findings, in connection with the valuation of stock, crops, etc.

Then I was asked: "Did the purchaser take over the whole ordinary stock of sheep on the farm and pay acclimatisation value thereon?" As I have already stated, the purchaser did not take over the whole of the sheep stock on the farm, but the valuation of the stock taken over by him, with the exception of the five-year old ewes, included an allowance for acclimatisation value.

In reply to the next question: "What was the number of shotts from the Erribol sheep stock?" the number was 671.

As regards the next question: "Is there any precedent on a Sutherland sheep farm for shotting stock after the usual casts for the season have been disposed of?"—in the only similar case known to me, the Arbiter fixed the shotting of the stock, after the usual casts for the year had been taken out.

I was asked: "Is there any precedent for shotts being marketed by the outgoing tenant from a Sutherland sheep farm" I know of none.

As to the following question: "How was the number of shotts arrived at in the valuation of the Erribol sheep stock? By whom were they drawn?"—the shotts were drawn by the purchaser and thereafter examined by the Arbiter, who had 2231 power to return any which he thought did not come within that category, to the stock to be taken over by the purchaser.

I was asked: "What were the special agreements with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the number of tups taken over?" It was agreed with the purchaser, who considered that there were more tups on the farm than were required for the stock, that the arbiter should decide the number of tups to be taken over by the purchaser, and that the surplus would be drawn by the purchaser and sold by the Board.

In reply to the question: "What was the special agreement with the purchaser of Erribol in connection with the transfer of Church property?"—the Board undertook liability for the charge falling on Erribol Estate in respect of expenditure incurred by the heritors in connection with the transference of the Parish Church property to the General Trustees of the Church of Scotland under the Church of Scotland Act, 1925.

I was further asked: "What was the total number of sheep stock, including lambs, on the 1st September, 1926?"The number is 5,030. I cannot agree however, that the date selected is a proper one for arriving at the correct numbers of the sheep stock pertaining to the farm. The lamb sales were not completed and sales for regular cast of stock not begun.

As to what proportion and classes of the Erribol sheep stock remained in the Board's possession after the transfer of the stock had been made in accordance with the terms of purchase, the Board retained—

Ewes	…	336
Gimmers	…	77
Dinmonts	…	1
Tups	…	32
Tup Huggs	…	28
Wedder Hoggs	…	53
Ewe Hoggs	…	176
Total	…	703

representing 3½ per score of stock presented for valuation or 17½ per cent.

As to what arrangements the Board made for the carrying of stock until the usual sales for the classes retained, the stock remaining in the Board's hands were disposed of by sale by auction, or by 2232 private bargain shortly after the valuation had taken place, save in the case of the hoggs at wintering, which were sold at the end of the wintering period.

I was asked: "Will the acclimatisation value be paid by the purchaser on stock retained by the Board and on cast ewes sold between Witsunday and Martinmas, as was done by the Board when they purchased sheep stock on Armadale?" The answer is "No".

I was also asked: "Why did the Secretary of State choose to open negotiations with this particular gentleman to the exclusion of the other inquiries?" As I have already stated on several occasions, I instructed acceptance of a firm offer to purchase after the estate had been exposed for sale by public auction on three occasions. It was the difference between a definite proposition and tentative inquiries that might never have come to anything, while meantime the offerer might have withdrawn.

Further, I was asked: "Was the representative of the Board who advised the Secretary of State that a sum of £25,000 for the estate, farm and sheep stock of Erribol was less than he was likely to receive for the same subjects from the eventual purchaser on the terms of £10,000 for the estate and on a Martinmas valuation of the sheep stock, the responsible technical adviser of the Board?" I deal with the Board as a Board. They have of course, their technical advisers, and I cannot, of course undertake to speak for any particular officer, but the advice was the advice of the Board, in consultation with myself, and the decision was mine.

As to the question: "What figures were suggested as basis of negotiations for sale Erribol by those who made the several inquiries referred to in the Under-Secretary's reply to my Parliamentary Question, 15th February—the only figure suggested by an inquirer was the one which I have already mentioned, namely, a slump sum of £25,000 for the estate and everything on it.

I am afraid that time does not allow me to complete the whole of the answers, hut I will supply them to the hon. and gallant Member.