§ 24. Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, before the estate of Eriboll was sold, offers were made to the existing holders on the estate to purchase their holdings; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to safeguard them in the possession of their holdings and glazing rights?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The holders settled by the Board of Agriculture have the protection afforded by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886–1919, and I do not consider that there is any necessity for further action on my part.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIs it not in accordance with the policy of the Government to offer these holdings to the sitting tenants in the first place when an estate is for sale?
§ Sir J. GILMOUREvery case is considered on its merits.
§ Mr. EVERARDWould it not be entirely contrary to the policy of the Liberal party that the sitting tenant should have the option of buying the holding?
§ 25. Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland in what respects the conditions under which Eriboll and the sheep stock have been sold differ from those under which they were offered at public auction; and whether any attempt was made to obtain competitive offers on the revised basis accepted by the present purchaser?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe terms of sale to the present purchaser differ from those offered when the estate was exposed for sale by auction in respect that special agreement was made, after negotiation, with regard to various matters, namely. the price of transfer of the five-year-old ewes, the sale of the "Shotts" by the Board, the number of tups to be taken over and the charge on the estate in connection with the transfer of the Church property. As regards the last part of the question, negotiations were entered into with the present purchaser after the auction had proved abortive, and the terms agreed in these negotiations were not made the subject of competitive offers.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIf the whole basis of the transactions was to be revised, surely competitive bids could have been sought from other quarters?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe estate was put up for public auction on two separate occasions.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIt was not put up on the basis of a Martinmas valuation, with permission to reduce largely the sheep stock.
§ Mr. N. MACLEANIs the House to understand that after this estate had been offered for sale and failed to get a bidder the right hon. Gentleman then 1888 revised the conditions of sale, and sold it to a private individual without advertising the new conditions?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe facts are that this estate was offered for public auction on two separate occasions, and no bidder came forward. Subsequently a private offer was made, and after being considered on its merits this offer was accepted.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRSurely, if a private offer was made at all, should it not have been made to the smallholders in the first place, for the benefit of whom this estate was acquired?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot argue this point now.