Prosecutions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture. – in the House of Commons at on 23 November 1931.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Thomas Williams Mr Thomas Williams , Don Valley

34.

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?

Photo of Mr John Gilmour Mr John Gilmour , Glasgow Pollok

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.

Photo of Mr Thomas Williams Mr Thomas Williams , Don Valley

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

Photo of Mr John Gilmour Mr John Gilmour , Glasgow Pollok

The answer to that is in the negative.

Photo of Mr Thomas Williams Mr Thomas Williams , Don Valley

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

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:

19221
19239
19249
192515
192614
19276
192310
192910
193010

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:

1921–1924242
192550
192652
192742
192830
192926
193025

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.