HC Deb 30 April 1953 vol 514 cc2320-1
3. Sir W. Smithers

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a number of farms which have been taken over by him under the Agriculture Act, 1947, have been allocated to members of the county agricultural executive committees and to their relatives; how many such cases have been brought to his notice; and if he will give instructions that these practices are to cease.

Sir T. Dugdale

No, Sir. When a tenant farmer is dispossessed for bad husbandry, the owner of the land is required either to farm it himself, if he wishes to do so and the county agricultural executive committee approve, or to let it to a tenant approved by the committee. If the occupier is also the owner he is required to let the land to a tenant approved by the committee, or he may sell it with vacant possession if he chooses.

Only when the owner fails to make satisfactory arrangements within a reasonable time do committees take possession of the land. They have done so in 17 cases. In three of these cases the land has been subsequently released, in three it has been kept in hand by the committee, and in 11 it has been let. I am not aware that in any instance has it been let to committee members or their near relatives.

Sir W. Smithers

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that in the many letters which I have sent him there are cases of alleged nepotism? Will he introduce legislation or amend the 1947 Act to enable dispossessed farmers to have the right of appeal on points of merit and of fact, which they do not have at present?

Sir T. Dugdale

That is an entirely different question. My hon. Friend and I have had a considerable correspondence, I have checked it over and I have not found any instances where he has suggested that a farm has been let to a committee member or to a relative.

Sir W. Smithers

What about the Odium v. Stratton case?