§ LORD CLINTON rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the Congested District Board's Report—
§ Appendix X., page 9.
§ Kilmuir.
- 1. How much of the item. £27,628 7s. 2d. represents sheep stock.
- 2. Has the stock been sold to the settlers, and at what price.
- 3. Can the loss on stock be calculated now.
- 4. How much of the item £31,123 17s. 8d. represents arrears of rent.
- 5. Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d. Does the increase over last year represent a normal expenditure on repairs.
- 6. Rents received, £46,187. How much of this sum represents rents and how much sinking fund. Is any repayment for sheep stock included.
- 7. Is any interest chargeable and paid upon the capital expended.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Questions I have on the Paper are somewhat similar to those asked by my noble friend Lord Camperdown, but they refer to the Kilmuir estate. There are certain items with regard to sheep that I am anxious to inquire about. The first item I wish to draw attention to is that of £27,628 7s. 2d. I want to know how much of that item represents sheep stock. It is certain that there has been a loss, and I should like to know the amount. In connection with almost every other estate the loss is shown, but there is no indication of the loss here. It is lumped in with other sums. The payments profess to be the net payments, and probably the price received for the sheep when sold may in this figure be deducted from the amount which the sheep cost. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell me what the price given for the sheep was and what they were sold for, so that. we may calculate the loss.
§
The figure of £31,123 17s. 8d. in my Question appears to be an increase of £4,000 since the last account. I ask in
198
my Question how much of this item represents arrears of rent. I have since found out that the figure is given in the account. It appears that in March, 1910, the arrears on this estate were £3,447, and if the noble Lord has the information with him I should be glad if he would let us know on what rental those arrears have arisen. In this particular Report. there is nothing to show what the rental of that estate is, but by going back to the Report of the year before last I see it stated that the rental of the estate is £1,577. If that figure is correct, it appears that although this estate has only been in possession of the Board for some four or five years the arrears have now accumulated to a sum equal to two years rental. That is, of course, a serious state of things, and I know that the Board regard the whole question of arrears in the western islands as a serious one, because they state in their Reports for the last two years—
In a scheme of State-aided creation of new holdings it is manifestly of the highest importance that the settlers should make punctual payment of the sums due by them. We regret to say that in the case of several estates the settlers, with some exceptions, are considerably in arrear. We thought it our duty to intimate that unless there was an immediate improvement in this respect, steps would be taken to enforce payment or to foreclose. The result of this notice has not been satisfactory, and we have had to take proceedings against certain selected defaulters who we have reason to believe could have met their obligations in a more satisfactory manner than thay have done.
§ That statement appears word for word in both Reports, and I should be glad if the noble Lord could give information as to what the effect of taking proceedings against these selected defaulters has been, and whether, if they have not been successful, further steps are proposed to be taken.
§ The next item, "Works, repairs, & c., £8,825 17s. 3d.," represents an increase of £4,000 over last year. I see in Appendix XI of the Report that the works carried out on this estate have amounted during the last year to £1,200, which leaves a balance of £2,800 for repairs, & c. I ask the noble Lord whether that represents a normal expenditure on repairs. The cost of the repairs is about one and a-half years rental, and if that is to be the normal expenditure on repairs and upkeep it seems a very large one. An item on the credit side of the Report to which I wish to call attention is a sum of £46,187, which is entered as a deduction from the total 199 expenditure. That includes "rents, & c." The word "etcetera" appears in almost every entry in this Report. I should like to know what it includes besides rent. It possibly includes some repayment for sheep stock, although that would probably come in better as a deduction from the sum stated as the valuation of the stock. It may include interest on the expenditure, and it may also include annuities and repayment of loans if anything has been paid towards that purpose.
§ But what I really complain of is that annual income and possibly capital income should be all lumped together and used as a set off towards the total expenditure on the estate. The expenditure consists of the purchase price of the Kilmuir estate, this sum for sheep stock, of which we have spoken, and various other things. These other items may be loans, or they may be ordinary upkeep, or possible free gifts; but what I want to bring before the noble Lord's notice is that if these are free gifts, as I anticipate a good many of them are, it is surely misleading to infer that they are paid off, because there can be very little necessity to pay off free gifts at all. If, on the other hand, they are loans, then it seems to me it is improper accounting to suggest that these loans are being repaid by sums which really are entirely on account of income. I suppose it is obvious that all payments on account of capital, other, of course, than free gifts, do require to show something in the way either of rent if it is a purchase price, or interest if it is a loan, before any part of the revenue can be allocated for capital purposes; and it seems to me really incorrect that you should make it appear in your accounts that your capital liabilities are being annually reduced by large sums when in reality a large portion of your receipts are obviously receipts on account of income, and ought not to be paid in reduction of capital. I think the system adopted might be made more clear to the ordinary observer.
§ I believe an alteration in this method of accounting would be very easy, and I ask the noble Lord to consider whether he cannot take into his consideration whether some other method cannot be adopted to make these accounts more clear. A large number of people are interested in this large experiment in the State management and State ownership of land. It is obvious 200 that in the western islands we are up against a problem which is of an entirely uneconomic nature. At the same time I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that we should be put into possession of facts so that we can see how uneconomic that problem has become, and be able to judge whether the vast expenditure now going on there does leave behind it benefits to the district and the crofters anything like commensurate with this large outlay of money.
§ LORD PENTLANDMy Lords, the noble Lord may rest assured that the Government are perfectly willing and ready to afford all the information in their possession with regard to these matters. I have to make two observations before I answer the Questions. But I hope your Lordships will not misunderstand me if, having been told by the noble Earl who put the first series of Questions that it is his intention to raise this subject as a whole for discussion in your Lordships' House at an early date, I reserve any discussion of the subject, so far as I am concerned, till I know exactly the purposes and wishes of noble Lords in regard to it. It seems to me very desirable that we should first get at the facts, and having got at the facts impartially and without controversy perhaps we shall be more able to discuss them.
As the noble Lord has said, the system of keeping these accounts may possibly be peculiar. I am not prepared to say that I have not found considerable difficulty, in the wording of the noble Lord's Questions, at arriving at his meaning, so that possibly he may, in the same way, have found some difficulty in understanding the figures which are put before him. These Questions were put down on Thursday or Friday of last week. Therefore I have had considerable notice, and I have made every effort to obtain the information which the noble Lord desires. But at this time of the year the staff of the Board is employed in different parts of Scotland, and I have not yet got the full information for which the noble Lord asks under some of these heads. I can only say that I shall be very glad to add to it at his instance if he so desires. I ought also to make this general observation, that this estate of Kilmuir can hardly be judged by the ordinary canons. It was not purchased as a w hole and then handed over to tenants as a whole. It was purchased by the 201 Government of the day, I think in the year 1901 or 1902.
§ LORD PENTLANDI forget the year; but it was purchased by the Government some time ago, and the condition of the estate, which was one of some congestion and in parts one of considerable confusion, required a thorough rearrangement of the razing belonging to the different tenants on the estate. It consisted of farms and of crofter townships. Same of these farms have been broken up to make new settlements of crofters, and a wholesale rearrangement of the pasture and the common grazing of these townships, which could only be carried out gradually and slowly, was necessary. Thus it is that we cannot give totals of some of the items in which the noble Lord is interested.
The answer to Question 1 is £24,773 Os. 2½ d. The answer to Question 2 is that most of the stock was sold at public sales. As to these, particulars are, I believe, obtainable, but I have nut got them before me to-day. In respect of such stock as was sold to the tenants I have this information: 1.630 sheep have been sold at a value of £1,529 to tenants. There is also a further number—a smaller number—of which I have not got the details and in regard to which the arrangements for sale ate not yet completed. It follows that the answer to Question 3 is that I am unable at the present moment to give the total loss on sheep stock, for it cannot be calculated. As to Question 4, the information which I have in regard to the arrears is contained in the published Report. I have no further information with regard to those arrears. I had thought that what the noble Lord wished to know was what arrears there were on the estate when it was purchased—that is to say, what debt we took over when we purchased the estate. That figure is£1773
§ LORD CLINTONIs that included in the item of £31,123?
§ LORD PENTLANDPart of it only. Part of it has been written off, I think, owing to arrangements made between the different townships. But I should not like to be positive on that point. In regard to arrears, the noble Lord will see there is a able of figures which shows the position of 202 the arrears at the present time. Steps are being taken in accordance with the statement contained in the Report, and I shall be very glad, on a future occasion, to state how the matter stands. In reply to Question 5, on my present information the increase over last year does represent a normal expenditure on repairs. The noble Earl made a reference to the Appendix in the Report. The heading there is "Works" and therefore when I give the noble Lord the figure of the repairs for which he asks in his Question, which is £350, it does not clash necessarily with the information he has taken out of the Report. I think light can be thrown on that by my further answers.
In Question 6 the noble Lord asks how much of the sum mentioned represents rents and how much sinking fund. There is no sinking fund included, but the sum does include rents and sheep stock. At this moment I am not able to give the figures for each of those two separate heads, Finally, the noble Lord asks whether any interest is chargeable and paid upon the capital expended. Loans for buildings, for which the noble Lord will see a sum of £190 included in the Appendix, have recently been given, but the fixed time for the beginning of the repayment has not yet arrived. When it does arrive interest will be payable on those loans in regard to roads and fencing, which are made for the general improvement of the estate; and this, I think, comes under the criticism of free gifts which the noble Lord mentioned. On outlay for those purposes no interest is charged to the tenants, and in regard to the purchase price it also ought to be noted that the rents are crofting rents; the tenants are crofters, and therefore no element of interest, as I understand it, arises. I have given the noble Lord all the in formation I have at the present moment; but, as I have said, I shall be very glad to supplement it later at the noble Lord's instance.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNMay I ask the noble Lord a question with regard to his answer to Question 6? The noble Lord is asked how much of the sum of £46,187 represents rents and how much sinking fund. He says rents are included, but he cannot say how much of that sum is repayment for sheep stock. This is rather unfortunate, because we do not know how to divide the two sums. Observe this, that whatever has been paid in the 203 form of rent is deducted from the capital outlay as if it were a repayment of capital. Surely that. is bad accounting. You have spent a sum of £140,000, you say, and you receive, we will say, £5,000 in rent. Then you put down that as if it is repayment of capital, but surely there ought to be some interest in the form of rent on an expenditure of £140,000. At this rate you have merely to go on receiving rent long enough to extinguish your capital. Surley that, on the face of it, must be wrong.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I rise only in order to express my hope that the Secretary for Scotland will endeavour to arrange that these accounts, if further accounts of the same kind are to be presented, shall be presented to us in a somewhat more intelligible form than that. which they assume in this Blue-book. I quite admit the intricacy and difficulty of the subject, but I do venture to say that if in some cases, at all events, it had been desired to obscure the real significance of the figures that operation could not have been more successfully achieved. The grouping is an unusual grouping—a grouping with which, I venture to say, no one who is in the habit of studying State accounts is at all familiar. and the constant addition of that comprehensive little symbol "& c." renders them more confusing still. You have in the Return relating to Vatersay a heading "Net general expenditure," which, as the noble Lord admitted, contains a considerable sum on account of loss on sheep stock, although the very next item is a separate one for loss on sheep stock. I venture to think that if your Lordships were to fill up some of those Returns which many of us are receiving from the Somerset House authorities at this time in an equally perplexing and ambiguous manner, we should be emphatically reminded that we were not performing the duties of citizenship as they should be performed.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I venture to make one suggestion. Unlike some of my noble friends on this side of the House, I have been through the mill of making this very Report in earlier days when it was not so large and comprehensive, and the suggestion I want to make touches the real point of whether these experiments are going to be successful or not. I was responsible for the purchase and for the divisions of three only of the groups of holdings mentioned in this Report—Syre, 204 Barra, and Sollas and Grenitote. I should like to know how they are going on at the present time. Are the arrears accumulating? Because that is, to my mind, the crucial point in judging whether this policy is going to be successful or not.
On such items as sheep valuation, those connected with Scotland knowing the difficulties must expect that there will he a less on taking over sheep stock and re-selling it in these days. There must be capital expenditure on new buildings; there must be grants for roads and bridges, and so on. What I think is of importance is that we should know, first of all, what the amounts of those are in the case of each of the estates, and we must regard that as sunk money for the purpose of giving the experiment a fair chance. I am most anxious to see the schedule of payments by those who are now holding. They enter into obligations to pay so much in rent, so much in sinking fund, and so much for return on their buildings, and I would like to see how these people are getting on. Are they year by year accumulating arrears, or are they, taking one year with another, meeting their obligations? There is no information in these documents which on a comprehensive scale shows what these tenants are doing.
Take the case of Syre, the individual holdings of which are larger than any other. It is in one of the most favourable districts. It was an estate bought from the Duke of Sutherland, and it was distributed into somewhat larger holdings than the others. That has been going on now for ten or eleven years, and it would be useful if we could see a schedule for each year of what these individual tenants have done. The difficulty of the circumstance is this, that there may be some successful and some may fail. There may be difficulties with regard to individuals which have to be carefully considered. I never would be desirous of pressing a man unduly if there had been disease in his stock, or if he had had a bad year through any particular cause. But if it be the case that over all the estates, one year with another, the practice has grown up of arrears accumulating and no steps being taken, you are going on a course which cannot be justified from public policy, for the essential thing is that these people should be taught that if they enter into obligations they must be made to pay or to suffer. If you do not do that, you put a premium on recalcitrancy, and you eventually sap the 205 independence of these people and the possibility of the experiment being successful. Therefore I should like to see an amended account taking a few of the older estates, and I think we ought to have a progressive account with individual names, or at any rate individual holdings ought to be capable of being identified, to see what proportion of these people are meeting their obligations and what proportion are not.
§ LORD PENTLANDMy Lords, I frankly say that I agree entirely with what has fallen from the noble Lord. What. he has said correctly describes the policy of the Board in regard, not only to the tenants who have arrears, but to the much larger majority of the tenants who have no arrears. I have not got the details of the various estates with me on this occasion, or I would willingly give the information. There are 500 tenants on one estate, and there are ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty on other estates. I did not know the information would be sought for, and if t here had been a hint in the Questions on the Paper that a general discussion was invited I should have endeavoured to be ready to meet it.
§ LORD PENTLANDNo; the noble Earl prefers that a general discussion should be avoided. It is true that this settlement does require mercy, and the consideration which Lord Balfour suggests should be shown to enable these people to get over the first difficulties of bringing ground under cultivation in some cases and of making a home for themselves. But after that, in the case of men who arc really not doing their best to meet their obligations, your Lordships may be sure that the policy of the Board is not to allow to occur what the noble Lord fears—namely, a leniency which would sap that independence and self-reliance which the Government should encourage in these men.
May I say one word in respectful protest of the intervention of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in this matter? He has lent the weight of his great authority to practically a censure on my Department. He has complained of the form in which the accounts have been presented to Parliament, and he has, as I say, lent the 206 weight of his authority to criticisms which, with the greatest respect, I think have really not been deserved. These accounts, as the noble Marquess will see if he examines the Return, do not profess to be complete accounts. They are simply a brief summary of expenditure under each property which is administered by the Board. They have never professed to be complete accounts and to put before Parliament the 'details of management, profit and loss, capital and current account, and so forth. The form of the accounts has not been altered by me since I have been responsible for the Department. It has remained the same from the inception, and has not been questioned, I think, until to-day. I venture mildly to protest against the criticism of the noble Marquess for this further reason, that he seemed to imply that I wished to shelter—
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI do not think I did.
§ LORD PENTLANDI am quite sure it is the last thing the noble Marquess meant, but he suggested that I was not willing to give the fullest information to your Lordships in this matter. He suggested that the form of the accounts was not calculated to make obvious all the information which it was desirable that Parliament should have. I can assure him that any representations which come from any quarter of this House desiring an amendment of the form of the accounts or fuller information concerning them will be welcomed. It is all to the good that your Lordships should take an interest, if I may say so, in what is going on in Scotland in this matter, and there will be no one more ready than myself to meet criticism, however severe.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I only wish to say that I had no idea of censuring the Department presided over by the noble Lord, and I do not think I used the particular expression which lie attributed to me. My friends behind me confirm that view. But, as a matter of fact, these accounts did come before the House in a shape which fairly puzzled some extremely businesslike and acute critics who sit behind me, and I ventured to express my regret that they should not be presented in a form more intelligible. That was the beginning and end of my criticism.