IX. MEASURES FOR THE INCREASED PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION OF FOOD.

CULTIVATION OF LAND.

CORN PRODUCTION ACTS, 1917-1920.

The statutory provisions for the enforcement of the proper cultivation of land, hitherto contained in Defence of the Realm Regulation 2M, and the Corn Production (Amendment) Act, 1918, were modified as from 1st January 1921 by the Agriculture Act, 1920 (Part I.), which, with the Corn Production Act, 1917, is cited as the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920. The changes introduced by the new Act were briefly described in last year's Report. They involved a procedure differing in many respects from that followed under the repealed statutes. Under the new statutes the investigations of the Agricultural Committees were directed towards the discovery of holdings:(1) on which land, subject to certain exceptions, was not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry as defined in Section 33 (4) of the Act of 1920;

(2) on which the production of food could be maintained or increased by means of improved methods, without injuriously affecting persons interested, or altering the general character of the holding;

(3) on which the occupier had unreasonably neglected to execute necessary works of maintenance, as defined

in Section 4 (9) of the Act of 1920, for which he was responsible under his lease;

(4) on which the owner had unreasonably neglected to execute necessary works of maintenance for which he was personally responsible.

If a Committee were satisfied that the owner or occupier of agricultural land had shown negligence in any of these matters they submitted to the Board a detailed report, setting out the matters complained of and the improvements or works required, and this report, when adopted by the Board, was served by them in terms of Section 4 (3) of the Act on both owner and occupier of the land affected.

Failing satisfactory undertakings being rendered to the Board by the persons concerned, within a reasonable time after the service of this report, the Board proceeded to serve a notice in terms of Section 4 (1) of the Act on the occupier (and also on the landlord where he was not the occupier), requiring compliance with certain instructions as to cultivation or repairs.

If the recipient of such a notice were aggrieved by its terms, he had the right, within a period prescribed by the Board in terms of Section 4 (1) of the Act, to require to be submitted to arbitration the question whether :

(a) the land had been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; or

(b) the production of food on the land could in the national interest be maintained or increased by means of the required improvement in the method of cultivation;

or

(c) such improvement would injuriously affect persons interested in the land, or alter the general character of the holding; or

(d) the works required to be executed were necessary works of maintenance; or

(e) the time specified in the notice for the execution of such works was reasonable.

For the purposes of these proceedings the Board, on 18th March 1921, issued the Cultivation Arbitrations (Scotland) Order, 1921, which prescribed that "the time within which any person aggrieved by a notice may, under Sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Agriculture Act, 1920, require any question to be referred to arbitration shall be 14 days from the date of service on him of the notice or a copy thereof." Pending the result of such an arbitration the Board had no power to take any further action with regard to the notice.

If and when the requirements of a notice issued by the Board under Section 4 (1) of the Act became operative, unreasonable failure by an owner or occupier to comply with those requirements rendered him liable to prosecution in terms of Section 4 (4) of the Act. At the same time the Board were entitled, if so advised, to execute any work specified in the notice and recover the cost as a civil debt. Further, if the person responsible for implementing the requirements of a notice were the owner of land let to a tenant, and the owner failed to execute the required works, the Board had power to authorise the tenant to do so and at any time after the works had been executed to recover from the owner the costs reasonably incurred by him in so doing in the same manner in all respects as if those costs were compensation awarded in respect of an improvement under the Act of 1908."

66

One of the most important provisions of the Act was that under which the Board had power to serve a notice upon the occupier of any land on which injurious weeds were growing, requiring him to remove the weeds in the manner and within the time specified in the notice. Unreasonable failure to comply with the terms of such a notice rendered the occupier liable to prosecution and also to payment of the cost of destroying the weeds if the work were undertaken by the Board. In terms of Section 4 (10) of the Act, it was the duty of the Board to prescribe the injurious weeds to which this provision should apply. . The Board decided, after consideration and in agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, to confine the list of injurious weeds to thistles, docks, and ragwort, these weeds being the most dangerous of those which are not readily destroyed

F

by the ordinary processes of cultivation, and which, if allowed to mature, are the means of contaminating adjacent lands through the blowing of ripe seeds.

The Board were also empowered, under Section 4 (7) of the Act of 1920, to appoint a manager for an estate that had been grossly mismanaged "to such an extent as to prejudice materially the production of food thereon or the welfare of those who are engaged in the cultivation of the estate." An order to this effect could not, however, take effect for six months, during which period the landlord was entitled to appeal to the Court of Session. Reservation was also made of mansion houses, gardens, and parks, and of sporting rights that did not interfere with the production of food. The conditions under which the Board could exercise this power were of a restrictive nature and the prescribed procedure was, to some extent, lengthy and involved.

The provisions of the Agriculture Act (Part I.) for the enforcement of the cultivation of land, were intended at the time of the passing of the Act to stand as the expression of part of a permanent national policy for agriculture; but by the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, were repealed as from 1st October 1921. On that date, therefore, the Board's powers to control cultivation lapsed with the exception that the Repeal Act continued the powers of the Board under Section 4 (10) of the Act of 1920 with regard to injurious weeds. These powers are set out in detail in the schedule to the Act of 1921, which also specifies the weeds with regard to which the Board's powers are exerciseable, namely:-Spear Thistle, Creeping or Field Thistle, Curled Dock, Broad-leaved Dock, and Ragwort.

The period of nine months during which the Corn Production Acts, 1917 and 1920, were in operation was too brief to enable the Board to form a definite opinion as to the efficacy of their provisions for securing the better cultivation of land.

It may be stated that most of the Agricultural Committees entered with zeal on the duties allotted to them under the Corn Production Acts. Many holdings were reported by the Committees as suitable subjects for the exercise of compulsory powers, but it was not always possible to adopt the Committee's recommendations in view of the restrictions contained in the

statutes.

In 11 cases the Board, after the prescribed procedure, served notices upon occupiers requiring them to comply with certain specified directions either with regard to cultivation or the destruction of injurious weeds. No notices were served in connection with the maintenance of works. The geographical distribution of the cases referred to was as follows:

The Board are glad to state that in both cases where notices requiring the destruction of weeds were served their directions were satisfactorily complied with by the occupiers. With regard to the notices requiring improved cultivation, the Board decided in one case to prosecute for failure to comply with their requirements, and the occupier, who pleaded guilty, was fined £15. In another case the tenant claimed arbitration on the question of the justice of the Board's demands, but the arbiter decided in the Board's favour. In the remaining cases the occupiers fulfilled more or less satisfactorily the requirements of the Board. PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION.

During the year the following claims for loss sustained by reason of the exercise of the Board's powers under Defence of the Realm Regulation 2M were adjusted :

Broomieknowe Golf Course (Midlothian).-A portion of this Golf Course, about 24 acres in extent, was taken over by the Board in February 1918. Two crops were taken off the land, which was restored to the Club at Martinmas 1919. The Club submitted a claim for compensation, amounting to £1,900, but an agreement was eventually arrived at whereby the sum of £850 was accepted in full settlement of all claims.

Torbrex and Braehead (Stirlingshire).—In March 1917 an area of 43 acres on these farms was taken over by the Board, who arranged through an agent for a five years' course of cropping. The Board withdrew from possession of the land at Martinmas 1921. After protracted negotiations an agreement was effected whereby the representatives of the tenant of the farms accepted the sum of £1,150 in full settlement of all his claims, including rent and loss of profits for the period of the Board's occupancy. The original claim submitted by the tenant, which applied only to the first three years of the Board's Occupancy, amounted to £1,822.

Farm of Whyack (Perthshire).-The proprietor of this farm accepted the sum of £50 in settlement of his claim for compensation for loss sustained in 1918, as a result of his compliance with the requirements of the Board acting under Defence of the Realm Regulation 2M. The original claim amounted to £120.

GRAZINGS ON DEER FORESTS.

It was stated in their Ninth Report that the Board had entered on thirteen deer forest areas during the course of the war and had let these areas for grazing to tenants under the powers conferred by Defence of the Realm Regulation 2 M, and that in 1920 a withdrawal from possession had been made in seven cases. Of the remaining schemes the tenancies expired during 1921, and the Board withdrew from possession of the land which they had held under the Regulation.

The Board's powers under the Regulation ceased on 1st January 1921 (in view of Section 9 of the Agriculture Act, 1920), except in relation to any land of which they were on that date in possession, and although somewhat similar powers were conferred by Part IV. of the Corn Production Act, 1917 (which came into operation immediately after the powers conveyed by the Regulations were withdrawn), the Board did not utilise the Act of 1917 in dealing with any applications for land in deer forest areas received during the year. Such appli

cations were dealt with instead under the Small Landholders Acts, as the latter enabled more permanent arrangements to be made. The progress made with schemes for the settlement of new holders or for the extension of existing holdings on land previously held by the Board under Defence of the Realm Regulation 2 M has, therefore, been reported in Section IV. of this Report.

Several claims for compensation from landowners in respect of the Board's entry on deer forest land under Regulation 2 M were received during the year, and negotiations proceeded with a view to settlement of these. Only one payment had been made, however, before 31st December, viz., in the case of Inverailort Deer Forest, Inverness-shire, where in terms of the award of the arbiter appointed under the Corn Production Act, the Board paid the claimant in settlement the sum of £572. 19s. 7d., plus one-half of her expenses in connection with the arbitration. The sum claimed in the arbitration was £4,596.

Cultivation Schemes.-In addition to the grazing lets that have expired during the year, the tenancy has also terminated in one scheme where the land (part of the farm of Eriboll, Sutherland) was entered on by the Board under Regulation 2 M and let for arable cultivation. This property has since been acquired by the Board for purposes of land settlement. Two compensation claims were received in respect of similar schemes of cultivation in Skye that had been terminated at the end of 1920. Settlement of these had not been made by the end of the year.