§ Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether, in the case of proceedings under the Small Holdings Act for the acquisition of land for small holdings on the Dysart estates, after confirmation by the Board of the Surrey County Council's orders for compulsory purchase and hire, the council abandoned their scheme of acquisition after costs amounting to several hundred pounds had been thrown away, the whole of such expense having been incurred in respect of less than fifty acres of land, the greater portion of which was already occupied by three of the applicants; and, if so, whether the Board in such cases takes any steps to prevent such waste of public money?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYYes, Sir. The facts are substantially as stated in the question. Every proposal for the acquisition of land is carefully considered, in order, as far as possible, to prevent the loss of public money. The scheme had to be abandoned in consequence of the applicants refusing to pay the rent necessary under the award.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWould it not be possible to so amend the Small Holdings Act as to prevent these constantly recurring abortive proceedings on the part of county councils and the waste of public money?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThey are not constantly occurring.