§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board—
§ Appendix X., page 8.
§ Vatersay.
§ 1. "Net general expenditure" £1,188 7s. 2d. Of what items this sum is composed.
§ 2. "Loss on sheep stock, &c." £3,403 11s. 1d. How much of this was loss on sheep stock.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, the condition of the western islands of Scotland is serious, and is becoming more serious every year, indeed I may say almost every month, and it may be necessary to call your Lordships' attention to the whole subject at no distant date. But in the meantime, and as a preliminary, I think it is very desirable that we should understand the accounts which have been presented to us in the recent Report of the Congested Districts Board. There are several items which I have been unable to understand, and there are other noble Lords who have encountered the same difficulty. Therefore I propose, in the first place, to take the case of the Island of Vatersay and the Report which has been made upon it.
194§ Appendix X, page 8, gives the amounts which have been expended. There is one item, that of "Net general expenditure," which I do not understand. Apparently the land was purchased for £6,000 or a little more; but why has it been necessary to incur a general expenditure of £1,188 upon it? By the aid of this and other expenditure the rent of Vatersay is reduced from £350, which it paid as a farm, to £180 which the noble Lord proposes it should be rented at by the crofters in future. In the second place, there is an item, which your Lordships will see is called "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," of £3,403 11s. ld. I hope that the "etcetera" is a very large sum and that it is larger than the loss on sheep stock, because the number of sheep which were taken over was not really large, and if £3,403, or anything approaching that sum, was lost upon sheep stock, then I do not think this country will be able to go on sheep farming at the same ratio. It is quite clear that you could not lose such a sum as £3,403 on a comparatively insignificant number of sheep, and therefore there must be some item or items of a considerable amount of which the word "etcetera" does not give us a very clear understanding. I wish to ask these two Questions.
§ THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (LORD PENTLAND)My Lords, the details of the sum of £1,188 7s. 2d. under the heading of "Net general expenditure" are as follow: Law charges and clerk to the reference, £594 19s. 6d.; arbiters' fees, £188 17s. 6d.; stipend and Income Tax, £20 12s. 5d.; expenses in connection with keeping and the sale of the sheep stock, £372 6s. 0d.; sundry small items, £11 11s. 9d., making a total of £1,188 7s. 2d. The noble Earl next asks for information in regard to the "Loss on sheep stock, & c.," which is put at a sum of £3,403 11s. ld. The loss attributable to sheep stock is approximately £1,800, of which sum, however, from information before me, I think £175 represents the half year's rent from Whitsunday, 1908, making the sum attributable to loss from sheep stock, £1,625.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI think the noble Lord stated that some portion of this "net general expenditure" was in connection with sheep stock. Why should anything which refers to sheep 195 be put down as "net general expenditure?"
§ LORD PENTLANDThe noble Earl, I think, is confusing his two Questions.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNNo, I was taking your answer. I understood you, in giving the items, to say that in one of the items there was a sum in connection with sheep.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe item which I gave as part of the total sum mentioned in the first of the noble Earl's Questions was the item of £372 6s. 0d., which represents expenses in connection with the sale of the sheep stock and therefore not attributable correctly to loss on sheep stock. They were expenses connected with the sale.
LORD SALTOUNOf the £3,403 loss on sheep stock, & c., the noble Lord has accounted for £1,800, £175 of which represents rent, but he has not given any statement of what has been done with the rest.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe noble Earl, in his Question, asked how much of this sum was loss on sheep stock, and I thought it better and simpler to give the exact information asked for. If any other information is required, I will willingly give it.
§ THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN then rose to ask the Secretary for Scotland the second series of Questions standing in his name—viz.:
- 1. How many sheep were paid for by the Congested Districts Board as being on Vatersay Farm at Whitsunday, 1908; and what sum was paid for them.
- 2. How many sheep have since been sold; and what sum has been received for them.
- 3. Have the sheep on the Island of Sandray been sold, or agreed to be sold, to the Vatersay crofters; and, if so, on what terms.
- 4. Does the Congested District Board now own any sheep on the Old Vatersay Farm.
- 5. "What has been the total loss of the Board in connection with sheep in Vatersay, including the costs of the arbitration, all sums paid to the late tenant, and the legal and other costs incurred by the Board.
§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Scotland no specific account is given of what has happened owing to this experiment in sheep farming, and therefore I have put down these Questions, which speak for themselves. The Report itself covers the period up to March 31. It is stated in the Report that the Island of Sandray has been assigned as grazing to the townships mentioned. It certainly was not assigned in the period embraced by the Report. I naturally concluded, from reading the Report, that the arrangements had been made and completed with the cottars; but as a matter of fact there was, I understand, a dispute between the Board and the crofters with regard to these sheep. The crofters wished to take them over, but the Board did not wish to give them over, and unless 1 am misinformed the dispute had not terminated by the first week in May, when the island was still in possession of the Board, and I do not know whether it is over now. I presume it is, and therefore I wish to ask whether the sheep on that island have been sold or agreed to be sold to the Vatersay crofters, and, if so, on what terms.
§ LORD PENTLANDThe answer to Question 1 is 2,333, and the sum paid fur them was £3,158 14s. 5d. The answer to Question 2 is 2,378, including lambs, and the sum received for them was £1,863 10s. 3d. The reply to Question 3 is, Yes, to the crofters. They have been sold approximately at market prices, one-third of the price being paid down and the remainder in instalments of £1 per share per annum. The answer to Question 4 is, No. As to Question 5, it is difficult to separate the cost of arbitration in connection with sheep from that referable to other heads, but with that qualification I am able to say that the loss on dealings in sheep, as stated in reply to the former Questions, is approximately £1,800, including the half year's rent I mentioned, while the cost of arbiters and other legal charges amounts to £495.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNI hold in my hand a copy of the former account between the Board and the tenant, and while I agree with the noble Lord with regard to the figure of £3,158, yet in my account the sheep paid for were only 1,302.
§ LORD PENTLANDI shall be glad to look into that. This is the information that has been supplied to me, and I am inclined to think it is correct. But I will not contradict the noble Lord without further information.