§ 60. Mr. RENDALLasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether H. Simper applied to the Isle of Ely Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in August, 1910; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land has been offered him during the whole of this period of two years and five months; and, if not, why this has not been done?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman)I am informed that the county council have recently acquired a farm of 115 acres at Manea, where Mr. Simper lives. The farm will be available from next Michaelmas, and Mr. Simper's application will be considered when arrangements are made for sub-letting it.
§ 61. Mr. RENDALLasked whether James Wakefield applied to the Isle of Ely Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1908; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land has been offered him during the whole of this period of five years; and, if not, why this has not been done?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed by the county council that they cannot trace the receipt of an application from James Wakefield. If my hon. Friend will send me Mr. Wakefield's address I will have further inquiries made.
§ 62. Mr. RENDALLasked whether Thomas Henry Pedley applied to the Staffordshire Small Holdings Committee for a small holding in 1909; that his application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any suitable land within reach of his abode has at any time been offered to him during this period of four years; and, if not, why this has not been done?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed that Mr. Pedley applied for twenty-five acres of pasture and fifteen acres of arable in July, 1910; that he has refused more than one offer of land; and that he insists on obtaining a holding in his particular locality, where land cannot be obtained at the rent he is prepared to pay.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Staffordshire County Council have got more land for small holdings than any other county council?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am quite aware that they have been most enterprising.
§ Sir A. MARKHAMAre they nearly bankrupt?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThat statement is absolutely without foundation.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs not any sign of bankruptcy due to the fact that you are putting their rates up on their improvements?
§ 63. Mr. RENDALLasked whether Ernest J. Hole applied to the London Small Holdings Committee for a small holding on the 11th October, 1909; that his 2201 application was in due course approved; and that he has since repeatedly asked the small holdings committee to satisfy his approved requirements; if any land whatever has been offered him during the whole of this period of three years and three months; and, if not, why this has not been done?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANMr. Hole applied for a holding of eight or ten acres within six miles of Woolwich, but I am informed by the county council that owing to the high value of land in the London area it is impossible to meet his requirements. The council tried to obtain a holding for Mr. Hole under the Essex County Council, but when this suggestion was made to him he stated that he was unwilling to move from the neighbourhood where he is at present employed.
§ 64. Mr. OUTHWAITEasked the right hon. Gentleman the assessment for rates of the Skidby estate, East Biding of York shire, and the East Headon estate, Northumberland, before and after acquisition for small holdings; and if any com plaints have been addressed to him regarding the increase in assessment resulting from the operations of small holders?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI will circulate with the votes the particulars asked for in the first part of the question.—[See Written Answers this date.] With regard to the latter part of the question, complaints are sometimes made to the Board, but they have no power to review assessments for rates or to intervene in any way.
§ 65. Mr. WEDGWOODasked the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the hardships suffered by the small holders in Staffordshire and elsewhere owing to the increase in the assessment of their land for local rating purposes due to the amount of capital sunk per acre in improving such land for intensive cultivation; and whether he pro poses to take any steps shortly to stop this increase of burdens?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am aware that small holders have been rated on assessments increased under the circumstances indicated, and I am alive to the importance of the questions raised by this fact. The Board of Agriculture, however, have no power to interfere with the operation of the existing rating laws in favour of small holders, and the grievance complained of can only be dealt with under a general consideration of the principles 2202 that should govern the rating of improvements on property.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODDoes my right hon. Friend contemplate introducing any legislation which shall give the relief to agriculture of exempting improvements from rating?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANLegislation with regard to rating does not come within the purview of my Department. I need hardly say that the present arrangements made by assessment committees for rating small holders' improvements are making the administration of the Small Holdings Act most difficult.
§ Mr. OUTHWAITEIs there any reason why English small holders should be in a worse position than the crofter who is not rated on improvements under the Crofters Act?