HC Deb 15 February 1926 vol 191 cc1520-2
44. Mr. WILLIAMS

also asked the Minister of Agriculture what provisions are laid down, if any, before spending national funds for the improvement of privately-owned land with regard to the future use of the land and regarding restrictions on the rent after improvement respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS

The only expenditure of the Ministry of the nature referred to by the hon. Member is in connection with the grants in aid of drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment. In these cases it is estimated that, owing to the conditions under which the work is carried out, the land is not likely to be increased in value by more than the amount of the cost falling on the owners and, consequently, no provisions of the kind he suggests have been considered necessary.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the land will be used after the drainage schemes have been carried out?

Mr. GUINNESS

Presumably it will enable the land to be cultivated, and without public assistance, some of this drainage would not in itself be economic under present marketing conditions. Without it the land would have gone out of cultivation.

Mr. D. HERBERT

Is it not the case that this expenditure is very largely for the purpose of removing a nuisance to the land in question, which is not the fault of the landowners, that is to say, clearing and making efficient the watercourses, which are not privately owned by them?

Mr. WILLIAMS

Since the land is privately owned, is it not the duty of the private landowner to remove any nuisance that there may be on it?

Mr. GUINNESS

No, because it is not in the power of the individual landowner to do so. None of these schemes are for the benefit of one landowner; they are always combined schemes which cannot be carried out without public action.

Mr. THURTLE

Will not the effect of these combined drainage schemes be to enhance the value of the land of these landowners?

Mr. GUINNESS

Not even in proportion to the amount which the landowner has to contribute. The reason why no provision is made for taking control of the land is that it is believed, and it is borne out by experience, that the landowner does not raise his rent even by the amount which represents the interest on the capital which he has to contribute towards the drainage.

Mr. MACLEAN

What proportion of the expenditure is borne by the landowner, and what proportion by public funds?

Mr. GUINNESS

It varies according to the scheme.

Mr. MACLEAN

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an actual statement as to what it is, if not now, later on?

Mr. GUINNESS

I should have to have notice.

Mr. MACLEAN

I will give you notice.