§ 36. Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he persists in refusing a hill sheep subsidy to Mr. W. S. Murray, Crofter, Corrish, Lairg, whose application went astray in the post, as such arbitrary action must restrict the increased food production which the nation requires and which the Hill Sheep Act was designed to encourage.
§ Mr. T. FraserWhile I have considerable sympathy with this man, I can find no circumstances in this case which would justify my right hon. Friend in excepting it from the ruling which is applied impartially to all who fail to submit such applications by the statutory closing date. In this case no application was in fact received.
§ Sir D. RobertsonIs it not the fact that application was made and was lost in the post, and why should this intolerable rigidity be put upon a closing date? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nothing like this ever applies in the commercial and banking worlds, where days of grace are always allowed, and supposing 200 crofters were late in applying—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member must not start a supplementary question by "supposing 200 crofters" or something of that sort. That is going beyond the original Question and is hypothetical.
§ Sir D. RobertsonIs it not distressing that these crofters, who may not be good clerks or even good timekeepers, should be penalised in this way?
§ Mr. FraserI should be very surprised to think that if the hon. Member wrote to Littlewood's saying that he had posted his coupon last Thursday and that his forecast was all correct, he would get his dividend in due course. I somewhat regret that the name of the individual concerned in this Question should have been brought forward, but it so happens that this crofter claims that in 1948, as in this year, applications which he submitted did not reach St. Andrew's House.
Commander GalbraithIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government should be different from Little-wood's?
§ Mr. FraserIt is, of course.