HC Deb 06 July 1920 vol 131 cc1212-4
84. Mr. MILLS

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that a demobilised soldier named Patrick M`Ginlay, residing in Quay Street, Salt-coats, has had a decree ejection granted against him in the sheriff court to allow of his house being let to summer visitors at a much higher rent than he is able to pay; is he further aware that the above-named demobilised soldier is the holder of the Mons star, two 1914 rosettes with bars, and has also been decorated with the Military Medal; that M'Ginlay is at the present time paying 8s. a week rent for the single apartment which he occupies with his 10 children; and whether any action will be taken to prevent this ejectment order being put into effect?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. C. D. Murray)

I have made inquiry into this case and am informed that Mr. M'Ginlay, who has three children, occupied a furnished apartment from which he has had to remove in consequence of a decree of ejection. He obtained other accommodation which, I understand, he continues to occupy. Accordingly, the last part of the question does not arise.

85. Mr. HOGGE

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether Dugald Cameron, an ex-soldier, given land for food production in Glenorchy, on the Marquess of Breadalbane's estate, by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, has been warned out by the Board as from Whitsunday last; whether proceedings for the ejection of this ex-soldier have been raised with the knowledge and concurrence of the Board of Agriculture by the Marquess of Breadalbane; whether the land which this ex-soldier wishes to retain forms part of the Blackmount deer forest, now enlarged to about 80,000 acres; whether a considerable extent of this area was formerly food-producing and occupied by sheep farmers; and whether he proposes to instruct the Board of Agriculture to project any scheme for settlement of soldiers on this area, and particularly in Glenorchy, so that this ex-service man is not thrown into prison by the State?

Mr. MURRAY

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the Board are aware of the proceedings for ejection, but they have no status to concur. As regards the third and fourth parts, the land forms part of Craig deer forest, as to the former use of which my right hon. Friend has no accurate information. As regards the last part of the question, the Board have considered the matter of proceeding with a scheme in this area, but in view of all the circumstances they have not deemed it desirable to do so. I may add that I am informed that Mr. Cameron declined an offer by the proprietor of the choice of one of three holdings on the estate.

Mr. HOGGE

Are the Scottish Office willing that an ex-soldier on the land should go to prison as a result of this ejectment order?

Mr. MURRAY

My information is to the effect that the termination of the tenant's possession was due to the fact that the Board had ceased their powers of occupation under the Act.

Mr. HOGGE

Is the Scottish Office in that case going to do anything with regard to a settlement for soldiers?

Mr. MURRAY

I have told my hon. Friend that the matter has been carefully considered, but in view of the circumstances the Board could not proceed with the scheme.