Mr. MACLEANasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, for several years past, repeated applications for land for small holdings and sites for proper dwellings have been made to the Board of Agriculture for Scotland by a number of landless people living in insanitary conditions in overcrowded hovels on the 119W estate of Banranald, in North Uist, Invernesshire; whether there are available for small holdings on the said estate several farms extending to about 3,000 acres each, at present under sheep and store cattle, belonging to the landlord, Captain Macdonald; whether the landless men waited for years in the hope that the Board would acquire lands on the said estate for the use of those who needed holdings; whether a number of landless ex-service men recently took possession of a few acres on the 3,000 acres farm of Paiblesgarry on the said estate for the production of potatoes and other food so much needed by themselves and their families, and for which plots of land they were willing to pay a fair rent; whether the landlord at once raised proceedings in the Sheriff Court of Lochmaddy, North Uist, to prevent the said ex-service men from using any part of his farms for the production of food or for any other purpose; whether, on being recently informed of the Board's intention to open negotiations with the landlord for their settlement on holdings, the men withdrew on the 9th instant from the lands seized by them, so as to enable an amicable arrangement to be concluded; whether the Board indicated to the men that if they attended voluntarily at the Lochmaddy Sheriff Court and placed themselves in the hands of the Court they would not be punished for their action, seeing they had complied with the orders of the Court; whether, in violation of the said understanding, the men, after submitting themselves to the Court at Lochmaddy, were, on the 21st instant, sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment, without the option of a fine; whether the Government had, through its officer, the Procurator Fiscal at Lochmaddy, given its consent and concurrence to the imprisonment of the said ex-service men; whether the men are advised that the proceedings have been irregular and oppressive; and whether, pending inquiry into the whole facts and circumstances, he will immediately order the liberation of all the imprisoned men?
§ Mr. MUNROI am aware that there is an urgent demand for small holdings on the estate of Balranald and elsewhere in North Uist, that a number of the applicants took forcible possession of part of Balranald in December last, and that they were interdicted by the sheriff on the application of the landlord. It is not120W the case that the Board of Agriculture for Scotland indicated to the men that if they attended voluntarily at the Court they would not be punished. This was obviously not a matter on which the Board could give any undertaking. The Board did, however, intimate that if the men complied with the law their applications for holdings would receive equal consideration with others, but that otherwise they would be struck off the Board's list. It is the duty of the Procurator Fiscal to grant his concurrence where there is a primâ facié case of breach of interdict. My hon. Friend is misinformed as to the sentence imposed by the Court. The men who were convicted were each fined £5, with the alternative of thirty days' imprisonment, twenty-one days being allowed for payment of the fine. They were also each ordered to find caution to the amount of £10 to observe the interdict for one year, with the alternative of a further thirty days' imprisonment. The last part of the question does not therefore arise. I may add that the estate extends to about 2,512 acres in all, and that the greater part of it is rough pasture. It is farmed as one subject by the occupying owner, whose only landed property it is. Although the formation of a scheme of land settlement on a subject of this nature is not free from difficulty, the Board are at present in negotiation with the owner for the acquisition of the property.