§ 30. Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he is aware that, in spite of the assurances that demands for rent from ex-service men who received holdings from the Board of 265 Agriculture in Caithness and Sutherland since the War would not be pressed while the terms of reference to the Land Court for the revaluation of these holdings were still under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, a letter dated the 17th of March, 1923, was addressed to Mr. Angus Mackenzie, of No. 4 holding, Wast Watten, and to other smallholders similarly situated, pressing them on this very point: and whether he will undertake that all demands for rent will be suspended until the Land Court has revalued the holdings?
§ Captain ELLIOTThe assurance which was given was that nothing prejudicial to the interests of the holders would be pressed while the subject of the reference to the Land Court was under the consideration of my Noble Friend. That assurance did not mean that all payments by the holders were to be suspended pending the competion of any revaluation, and the Board's letter was sent in reply to resolutions to the effect that no further payments would be made by the holders concerned pending revaluation. It would not be in the interests of the smallholders or in the public interest to suspend all such payments pending revaluation, and my Noble Friend is not prepared to give the undertaking suggested in the last part of the question. If in any instance revaluation is likely to lead to a reduction of the payments, the Board will be prepared to accept a reasonable payment on account subject to readjustment after any evaluation is completed.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the assurance to which allusion is made was in answer to a question whether these men would be pressed for their rent and interest charges? To what could the assurance possibly refer except to the rent and interest charges?
§ Captain ELLIOTSurely the hon. Baronet will realise that there is a great difference between a reduction in these charges and the total abolition of the charges.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIt is not claimed that there should be an abolition of these charges, but that the men should not be pressed for payment.