HC Deb 23 November 1931 vol 260 cc28-30
34. Mr. T. WILLIAMS

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of prosecutions in each year since 1921 under the Injurious Weeds Order; the number of tenant farmers whose tenancy has been terminated in each year since 1921 on the ground that they were not farming in accord with the principles of good husbandry; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation providing for the expropriation of owner-occupier farmers who are bad farmers?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour)

As the reply is necessarily somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?

Sir J. GILMOUR

The answer to that is in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Then are we to understand that the Government are not interesting themselves in that matter?

Sir J. GILMOUR

No.

Following is the reply:

The number of prosecutions in respect of injurious weeds under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, to which the hon. Member presumably refers, for each year ended 30th September since 1921, were as follow:

1922 … … … … 1
1923 … … … … 9
1924 … … … … 9
1925 … … … … 15
1926 … … … … 14
1927 … … … … 6
1923 … … … … 10
1929 … … … … 10
1930 … … … … 10

The figures for the year ended 30th September last are not yet available.

As regards the second part of the question, the number of certificates which were granted under Section 12 (2) of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, that holdings were not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry were as follow:

1921–1924 … … … … 242
1925 … … … … 50
1926 … … … … 52
1927 … … … … 42
1928 … … … … 30
1929 … … … … 26
1930 … … … … 25

Separate figures for each of the years 1921 to 1924 are not available. It does not necessarily follow, however, that in every case where a certificate is granted the tenancy was terminated. On the other hand application for a certificate is not essential in a case in which a tenancy is terminated on the grounds of bad husbandry. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.