§ Sir RANDOLF BAKERasked whether the Dorset County Council have only placed forty-four out of 196 applicants for small holdings on the land?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYYes, only forty-four directly, but, indirectly, in addition ninety-four through private landowners.
§ Sir R. BAKERWould the hon. Baronet kindly inform the hon. Member for Burnley officially of the facts he made statements to the contrary?
§ Mr. MORRELLDoes the hon. Baronet consider that the placing of small holders 1146 on the land by private owners is in fact carrying out the Small Holdings Act?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYCertainly; if the same object is achieved.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs my hon. Friend aware that the tenant does not obtain the same security of tenure?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYTo my own knowledge some small holders have themselves asked county councils to allow them to rent their holdings direct from land owners.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs my hon. Friend aware that in one case the action of the county council in referring small holders to private land owners has had the effect of breaking up a co-operative society formed for the purpose of carrying out the Act?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYI am not aware of that. If my hon. Friend will give me the particulars I shall inquire into it.
§ Viscount HELMSLEYDoes the hon. Gentleman accept the view that small holders under private landowners would not have the same security of tenure as under county councils, and if not to what section of the Act he refers; and is it a fact that under private landowners the rents are lower?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYIt depends upon the landowner.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of the Board has been drawn to the fact that a proposal of the county council of Buckinghamshire to supply two applicants with small holdings, by putting in force a compulsory order for fourteen acres of land, was thwarted by the owner thereof letting thirty acres, including the fourteen acres, to his son; whether the owner is a member of the council; and whether the Board will adopt the same attitude as they did on a similar occasion at Rainham and proceed with the compulsory acquisition of these fourteen acres?
§ Sir EDWARD STRACHEYThe answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. The Board understand that the county council have been advised that in the circumstances it is not competent for them to make a compulsory order for the acquisition of the land in question, and it is not possible, therefore, for the Board to take any steps for the purpose. But the council are 1147 under an obligation to satisfy the requirements of the applicants for the small holdings, and we shall at once take steps to ascertain what further action the council propose to take in the matter.
§ Sir HARRY VERNEYWhere it has been shown that a deliberate evasion of the Act has been attempted, is the Board prepared to take steps, irrespective of what the county councils may do?
§ Sir E. STRACHEYThe Board of Agriculture have no locus standi in the matter, but they have informed the Buckinghamshire County Council that if they take action they will indemnify them in the matter of costs.