LAND DRAINAGE [EXPENSES]. (Hansard, 1 May 1918)

§ Mr. KING
I do not know who is in charge of this Resolution. I think, however, that someone connected with the Board of Agriculture ought to be here, and I must protest. (Sir R. Winfrey here entered the House.) I am very delighted to see a representative of the Board of Agriculture present. What I want to suggest is that even in a small Bill like the Land Drainage Bill some definite sum ought to be fixed in order that we may know that we are not launching out into a vast expenditure. I presume this Bill would never have been brought in unless the Treasury had been consulted, and had fixed some limit to the amount of money that was to be expended under it. If so, why cannot that sum be stated in the Financial Resolution? I must protest again—I do it for the twentieth or thirtieth time—against Financial Resolutions on quite small matters being brought in with unlimited amounts. How are we to know what expenditure is here involved? It may be £100,000, or it may be £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I hope we shall have some assurance, at any rate, that the amount is to be limited, that the Estimate has been well considered by the Treasury, and that there is a limit beyond which the expenditure is not to go.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Winfrey)
It is not estimated that the expenses under this Bill will be at all large, because under the measure the Board of Agriculture will carry on the drainage scheme, and then we shall recover from the different landowners the expenses which are incurred. There will, however, naturally be a certain amount of expense in promoting these drainage schemes in the country. As to how far we shall be able to get on with these schemes during the War it is impossible to say, but at any rate the expediture is not going to be of any considerable character.

§ Mr. KING
Has any limit been given?

§ Sir R. WINFREY
I am afraid not.

Sir F. BAN BURY
The hon. Member (Mr. King) has stated that in his opinion it is a mistake to pass a Resolution of this sort unless a limit is given to the expenditure. That is one of the things I have been endeavouring to do for a number of years, and it is one on which, as a matter of fact, I defeated the Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a staunch supporter, and in all probability he voted against me on that occasion.

§ Mr. KING
I am afraid I did.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am sorry to hear that, because I am afraid it shows that the hon. Gentleman is not as consistent as he might be.

§ Mr. KING
I am reformed now.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
Then I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should have followed my example and moved an Amendment limiting the amount which the Board of Agriculture could have spent on this one particular thing. I would point out to him that it is a perfectly easy thing to do. All he has to do is to put on the Paper an Amendment to the Resolution "Providing that such sum shall not exceed" any particular amount, and when that is done reasons ought to be advanced why that is not accepted.

§ Mr. KING
I will do it on the next Bill.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The next Bill is not as important as this Bill, because the next Bill involves a very much more limited amount. Seriously, however, I was not here yesterday for reasons over which I have no control, but I should like to have some assurance from the Government a little more definite than the mere statement that the amount will not be large, because in these days a statement that the amount will not be large may mean anything or may mean nothing—

§ Mr. J. HOPE (Lord of the Treasury)
You have just said that millions are nothing.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
As the hon. Gentleman says, millions are nothing. The Parliamentary Secretary may mean that he will not exceed £10,000,000 sterling, or something of that sort, and that is a very large sum of money to vote at the present time. The hon. Gentleman says they are going to recover it from the landlord. That is not very pleasant for the landlord from whom you arc going to recover it.

§ Sir R. WINFREY
It will improve the land.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Board of Agriculture have done a great many things lately which have not improved the land, which have caused a loss, and I am a little doubtful in giving powers to the Board of Agriculture which are not going to improve the land. I think it might probably do considerable damage to the land. We are fortunately now in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman 1669 can speak again. I would like, therefore, to have some assurance from him, firstly, that if damage is done to the land some compensation will be given to the landlord, and, secondly, that the amount will be limited to—what shall we say? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ten millions!"] No, something really small, say, £500,000, or something of that sort, which in these days is not very much. I trust the hon. Gentleman will give me some answer which will satisfy me, otherwise I shall be compelled to do what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. King) has not done, and move an Amendment containing the words I have suggested.

§ Mr. RAFFAN
The speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) compels me to put to some extent the contrary view to that he has expressed. I should have been very glad if we had had an estimate, but I can see the difficulty with regard to that. The Minister for Agriculture stated last night that under this Bill it may be possible—and, indeed, he hoped it would be possible—that 1,000,000 acres of land now waterlogged would be made available for food production. As my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench has stated, one can quite conceive this difficulty of seeing how much work can be done during this year owing to the War, and Die consequent difficulty of giving any detailed estimates. I should, however, like an assurance in regard to this. As I understand the scheme of the Bill is that the actual cost of the drainage work is to be defrayed by those who benefit from it, and is to be covered from a drainage rate imposed on the owners of the land which is improved. I should like to secure if I could an assurance that if no opposition is offered at this stage the expenses incurred will be strictly limited to expenses of administration, and that so far as the actual work of drainage is concerned it is intended that any burdens shall fall on those who benefit because of the improvement in their land. If I could have that assurance, so far as I am concerned, I should for the moment be satisfied, but I think we are entitled to ask what is intended. If the idea were to subsidise schemes of reclamation and drainage then, indeed, if you are to deal with a million acres, this House might be launched into very, very large expenditure indeed. I should like some assurance on that point.

§ Sir R. WINFREY
I think I can give the hon. Member the assurance that he requires, that the expenses under this Bill should be limited to the administration; and I think I can assure the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) that we hope to improve the land by our scheme

§ Sir F. BANBURY
I am satisfied with the first, but not with the second.