§ Sir F. BLAKEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether it should have been an instruction to those who were deputed to visit farms with a view of deciding whether land under grass should be ploughed out that they should give notice of their intention to visit to the tenant 717W of the holding to enable him to meet them and state his views; whether recommendations made without such notice were irregular; and, if so, who is responsible for loss and damage caused by ploughing out unsuitable land under such circumstance?
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe Government's scheme for increasing the area under the plough was carried out in 1917 and 1918 as an emergency measure necessitated by the pressing need for rapidly increasing the home production of food. The work was undertaken by local committees of practical men familiar with the districts, and any instruction such as is suggested in the question would have rendered the task practically impossible. As a matter of fact, farmers were, as a general rule, notified of the intended visit of the person or persons deputed to select grass land to be broken up. They were also invited to suggest suitable land, and in any case, every farmer had ample opportunity after he had been served with. a, cultivation order of stating his views to the committees and of suggesting alternative land. It was competent for any person who considered that he had suffered loss as a result of a compulsory ploughing order to submit a claim for compensation to the Board through His County Agricultural Executive Committee up to the 31st July last.