§ 20. Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Board of Agriculture took over some years ago the sheep stock on the farm of Armadale at a Martinmas valuation; whether any sum and, if so, what sum, and for what number of sheep, was paid to the vendor as compensation for the valuation not being held at 'Whitsunday; and whether any additional sum and, if so, what sum was paid on the same grounds per head of the cost ewes marketed between Whitsunday and the Martinmas of entry?
§ Sir J. GILMOURThe answer to the first part of the question in in the affirmative. A sum of £1,000 was paid by the Board of Agriculture to the tenant in full settlement of his claims arising from his agreement to vacate the farm at Martinmas, 1919, instead of Whitsunday, 1921, which was the natural termination of the lease. This payment was a lump sum covering several heads of claim. These included one in respect of a Martinmas in place of a Whitsunday valuation, but the total payment was not apportioned among the several heads. The number of the sheep stock taken over at Martinmas, 1919, was 2,310. In addition to this payment the sum of 10s. per head was fixed by the arbiter as arranged by the Board with the tenant in respect of the acclimatisation value of the 260 cast ewes sold off the farm between Whitsunday and Martinmas, 1919.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRDid not the right hon. Gentleman say, in answer to a question which I asked last week, that he was unable to recall a precedent for a Martinmas valuation, whereas his own Department—not himself—was involved in such a transaction only seven years ago? Will he further say whether the precedent in this case for a special compensation for a Martinmas as opposed to a Whitsunday valuation—compensation such as had to be paid by the Board of Agriculture when they got the estate—will be followed now that the Board of Agriculture are selling the estate?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs far as my recollection goes, I was answering a supplementary question as to whether I knew—
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRNot a supplementary question.
§ Sir J. GILMOURWell, I did not know of any other case. I have inquired since, and the hon. and gallant Genleman has got his answer now. As regards compensation, it is not solely concerned with the point of whether it was a Martinmas or a Whitsunday valuation.
§ Sir A. SINCLAIRIs it not a fact that part of this payment is due to the Martinmas valuation, and is the State receiving any compensation on account of the Martinmas valuation now that it is selling the property?
§ Sir J. GILMOURAs in most business transactions, the sale has to be arranged on the best terms which can be agreed under the circumstances, and the circumstances in each case will vary. I am not at all prepared to say that this is in any way a precedent for any future action.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEDoes this not show the difficulties which would arise if every farm were nationalised?