§ Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, Lords Amendments in lieu of Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords, and Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments considered.
§ Message from the Lords:
§ The Lords agree to the second Amendment made by the Commons in page 5, line 42, but propose to amend it as follows:—
§ After the word "and" insert "county".
§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison)I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment to the Commons Amendment."
I am glad to be able to say that I advise the House to agree with all the Amendments on the special Paper. They have been the subject of careful and friendly negotiations and I am happy to say that there is no difference of opinion as far as this House and the other place are concerned with regard to any of these Amendments. I hope that my statement will facilitate the proceedings. There are certain drafting Amendments, and there is also a series of Amendments beginning at page 16 about which I shall have to say a few words. Apart from those Amendments I can assure the House that the Amendments are only drafting Amendments and I shall formally move them.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the first Amendment made by the Commons in page 12, line 34, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
§ Page 12, line 34, leave out "or".
§ Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]
932§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 16, line 30, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
§ Page 16, line 30, leave out "limitations prescribed by section twenty-one" and insert "provisions of this Part".
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."
This Amendment and the two which follow, including the long new Clause on pages 1 and 2, belong to one another. The first two Amendments are purely verbal in order to lead the way to the long Amendment beginning at the bottom of page 1. The point is, that in the other place, before the Bill came down here, there was a limit of a halfpenny rate placed upon the expenditure of Catchment Area Boards; and in our opinion and in the opinion of the Committee that made the working of the Bill, for all practical purposes, impossible. Therefore, the two particular Subsections were removed by the Committee upstairs, and their action was approved by the House on Report. Then we accepted an alternative method of limiting the expenditure by inserting a new Clause, Clause 56, by which, if the expenditure proposed to be incurred exceeded 2d. on the rates, there was to be a special inquiry before it could be sanctioned. Their Lordships disagreed with that Amendment, and the one on the Paper is an agreed substitute. What it amounts to is, that where the proposed expenditure exceeds 2d. on the rates, the expenditure has not to be incurred unless it receives the approval of a majority of the county council or county borough representatives on the catchment area board. I am assured that that exposes us to no risk of following up any good scheme because it is left entirely to the discretion of the catchment area board.
If the majority of the representatives of the boroughs and county councils of that Board disagree with the scheme it is evident that it will not be proceeded with. This makes it certain that where the expenditure is greater than that 933 amount, they will have to secure the approval of the majority, which is a reasonable proposition. But there is a very important and vital proviso, which their lordships did not at first contemplate but which they have inserted, with regard to representation, and that proviso is in page 2. It secures that the expenditure of a twopenny rate is altogether independent of any expenditure which may be incurred to provide interest and sinking fund on loans. A large scheme might be paralysed if this were not done. It is therefore necessary to provide a safeguard, and the proviso excludes those payments from the proposed limitation.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) who took such a very active part in our proceedings in Committee is, I dare say—and I see that he is on the alert—anxious to see to what extent this will react upon the internal drainage boards. I can assure him that it will be the purpose of the Ministry, and, I do not doubt, of the catchment area boards, to secure that this limitation which applies to the general rate of the catchment hoard, shall not by itself lead to any considerable charges which otherwise would fairly be levied upon the internal drainage districts. That is not intended to be the effect of it. I am sure that all parties will be interested to see that it is not so. At the same time, the hon. Member is well aware that under Clause 21, in page 19, it is provided that an internal drainage district shall only have levied upon it a rate which is considered to be fair. We have had long discussions upon that point. It is obvious that it would not be fair to take advantage of this particular provision in order thereby to increase the charge upon a smaller portion of the area. There are other safeguards for the internal drainage districts, and I am sure that the hon. Member need have no anxiety on this account.
§ Sir JOSEPH LAMBI presume that as the Minister has discussed the new Clause I shall be in order in discussing it now, rather than later.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must discuss the Amendment.
§ Sir J. LAMBI did not know whether you would rule me out of order if I discussed the Clause now.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is an inconvenient time to discuss the Clause when considering Lords Amendments.
§ Sir J. LAMBThen I will follow the remarks made by the Minister. I do not propose to ask the House to divide against the new Clause, but I do wish to protest against it as it comes from the other place for the reason that it is inadequate to achieve the avowed object which it has in view, namely, to act as a limitation upon excessive expenditure. The sum of 2d. is mentioned. I and several of my hon. Friends have attempted to reduce that sum and to put in the sum of 1d. The sum of 2d. is an inadequate safeguard against the excessive expenditure which is feared by the local authorities and agriculturists. Moreover, the 2d. is not the limit because, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the 2d. is to be the annual increased charge and is not to have relation to the loan charges and past expenditure.
What provision has been made in regard to the maintenance charges for past work? The cost of maintenance in addition to the 2d. and the loan charges may come as a very heavy expenditure ultimately upon the counties. The proposal that has been made is not a safeguard against the extravagance which many of us feel. Everyone will agree with me that to-day economy is the crying need of the country, and although there are the possibilities of great good in this Bill I am confident that owing to the charges there is great danger of the advantages in the Bill being bought at far too high a price. The 2d. is not sufficient to justify the assumption of certain hon. Members opposite that it is an adequate safeguard against the extravagance which we in the industry fear.
§ Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSONI should like to express my appreciation to the Minister on his having met the points that I have previously raised and to ask him to what extent the acceptance of this Amendment will act detrimentally to the interests of agriculture, through the instrumentality of the precepts which will be made upon the internal drainage boards. I attach very considerable importance to this Amendment. The main purpose of the Bill was to assist agriculture and, as the Minister knows, the in- 935 dustry of agriculture looked with some doubts upon the Bill, and those doubts were almost mainly financial. The industry felt that the time was not opportune to place increased burdens upon agriculture. The only increased burden that can be put upon the industry of agriculture by this Bill in the precept which will be made upon the internal district drainage boards. It has been thought that I am merely representing some particular area of the Fen country, but I want to say very definitely that there are hundreds of internal drainage boards and that hundreds of internal drainage boards will be set up by the Bill, therefore in speaking on behalf of the internal drainage boards I am speaking on behalf of the whole country as well as the particular district for which it is assumed that I have been speaking.
12 n.
The Amendment by limiting the rate to 2d. may possibly add a further financial burden to agriculture. The reason for my fear will be obvious when we consider the financial provisions of the Bill. The revenue to meet the expenditure of a catchment board is to be obtained from three sources, the State grant, the precept upon the county and town councils and the precept upon the internal drainage boards. The State grant, whether by block grant or percentage grant, will be a limited one. The precept upon the county councils and the town councils is to be made upon the general rate of the county or the municipality. It will be remembered that agricultural land is de-rated, therefore the precept that is made upon the county councils and the town councils will not be borne by agricultural land. The only way in which agriculture will be affected financially in this Bill and by which a burden can be placed upon agriculture is through the precept which will be made upon the internal district. I think we may call that precept the agricultural rate. The expenses of the catchment boards which are not borne by the Government grant will be borne by the precept upon the county and town councils and the agricultural rate through the internal districts. In the Bill this balance is to be adjusted as between the county and town rates and the agricultural rate as is considered fair, but our fear is that 936 the interpretation of the word "fair" may be interfered with by the Amendment.
Let me put to the House my fear of what may happen. I will assume, as an example, that a catchment board undertakes expenditure of £100,000, and the State comes in with a 50 per cent. grant. That will leave £50,000 to be found and to be fairly distributed between the town and county rates and the agricultural rate. Assuming that £25,000 to each of these is considered fair. At the end of a certain time, and this always happens in these large drainage schemes, instead of the expenditure being limited to £100,000 it amounts to £120,000. The State will give their 50 per cent. grant, which will amount to £60,000, but there will be an additional £10,000 to be found, because the £25,000 to be borne by the town and county rates is up to the 2d. prescribed in the Bill. Who is to find the additional £10,000? it will be the person who is unlimited in his liability, and that is the agricultural ratepayer, through the internal districts. It is because I have that fear that I am raising the point now.
The Bill came to this House from the other place with the town and country contribution limited, and with the agricultural contribution unlimited. When we recollect that the catchment board is represented by two-thirds town and county representatives and only one-third agricultural representatives, it will be obvious to the House that the agricultural area may be exploited by the catchment board. I took the only line I thought possible to obtain three things, either that if you have a limit to the town and county rate you should also in fairness and justice have a limit applied to the agricultural rate through the internal district board, or else you should give equal representation on the catchment board; or, if you do not obtain these two things, then remove the limit on the one hand, and do not leave agriculture penalised with an unlimited liability, when the town and county have a limited liability. I failed in the first two concessions, but the second concession was passed. This Bill came to the Third Reading with the elimination—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot go into a Third Reading debate on the Lords Amendments.
§ Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 21, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
§ Page 19, line 22, leave out "(3)" and insert "(2)".
§ Question, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 19, line 26, but propose to insert the following sub-section in lieu, of the sub-sections so rest[...]red to the Bill:
§ "(2) The aggregate amount which may be demanded under this Part of this Act in any one financial year by a Catchment Board from the council of any county or county borough shall not, except with the consent of the majority of those members of the Catchment Board who are appointed by the councils of counties and county boroughs, exceed the estimated amount which would be produced by a rate of twopence in the pound levied on that part of the county or county borough which is within the catchment area:
§ Provided that where the Catchment Board has borrowed or is about to borrow any money in pursuance of this Act the foregoing provisions shall, if the said members or the majority thereof so resolve, have effect during the currency of the loan as if the said sum of twopence were increased by such amount as is specified in the resolution.
§ In this sub-section the expression 'financial year' means a year ending on the thirty-first day of March."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.
§ Dr. ADDISONI beg to move, "That this House doth not insist on its Amend- 938 ment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEI should like to ask whether in any way this new Amendment affects the drainage boards which are just outside the catchment area and in their present assessment are partly in the catchment area and partly outside. The second question is this: It is obvious that this whole scheme has meant that the catchment areas undertake the duties of sea defence. Will this limit of 2d. refer to any expense to which the catchment area may be pat for sea defence. If so, I want to put a third question—whether, in the case of any contribution made in excess of the 2d. in aid of a loan it is necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture or the Board of Trade to deal with the loan? While sea defence up-to-date is under the Board of Trade, land drainage is under the Ministry of Agriculture, and I think that the matter has never been cleared up either in Committee or on Report as to how the Board of Trade is interested in the transference of sea defence. I understand that this limit of 2d. will include the whole amount.
§ Captain RONALD HENDERSONThere is one question I should like to ask the Minister. On coming into existence of the internal drainage board, there will be a considerable number of loans to be taken over. As this 2d. rate is exclusive of sinking fund, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will refer to past loans incurred before this Bill comes into operation, or will the interest on past loans be included in the limit of the 2d. rate?
§ Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLEIn the counties and county boroughs, the ratepayers are to be congratulated on this Amendment, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), has pointed out, the Amendment does not go nearly far enough. The history of the Amendment is instructive. When the Clause went to another place, the Minister had unlimited power. It was modified very largely in the other place. The rate limit was inserted, and also the appeal to a tribunal. In Committee these safeguards have been eliminated. The Minister was strongly urged by some of 939 us to provide some substitute safeguard. I am not saying that he did not go some way to meet us by Clause 56. That Clause provided a limit of £50,000 and a 2d. rate, but it also provided that the ultimate voice in the matter should be with the Minister. Now we have this provision which, to my mind, is very much better, although it does not go nearly far enough. A very important point which we pressed in Committee, and which now appears in this Clause, is that the ultimate voice is left with the majority of the members of the catchment board, who come from the counties and the county boroughs. In other words, the majority of the representatives of those who find the money have the final voice in the matter. That is a very great improvement. The second paragraph in this Amendment may add very considerably to the 2d. rate. That, again, will depend on the representatives of the counties and the county boroughs. May I say that I congratulate the Minister on getting his Bill, not indeed on the merits of the Bill, but on his own merits in the conciliatory and humane way in which he has conducted the negotiations.
§ Mr. WELLSI am one of those who have been interested in this Bill all through. I think this hardly goes far enough in regard to the question of interest on loans. I can quite understand my hon. Friend's fear, which many of us have had, as to the very heavy cost that will fall not only on local authorities but on agricultural areas as well. We have at least some ground of comfort in this limitation, and I hope that the local authorities will seize the opportunity and see that there is a limit to the expenditure on these great schemes for the drainage of land.
§ Dr. ADDISONThis Clause will not be retrospective in its effect. This particular Amendment re-enacts two provisions which were originally in Clause 23 which relates to the necessity of the publication of these Orders in newspapers so as to give a wider publicity to the schemes before the Minister deals with them. So far as the department is concerned, it is a departure from the usual procedure which was not contemplated, but the other place takes the view that this additional publicity is a safeguard. I do not think it is necessary because everything will be dealt with quite openly 940 in any case. At the same time I do not propose to ask the House to insist upon their Amendment.
§ Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof," put, and agreed to.
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 20, line 14, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
§ Page 20, line 14, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)".
§ Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, and doth agree to the Lords Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 23, line 4, for the following reason:
§ Because they consider it desirable to preserve the safeguard afforded by the requirements with respect to the publication and confirmation of orders.
§ Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the New Clause (Provision as to large schemes of Catchment Boards) for the following reason:
§ Because they consider that the limitation on the expenditure of Catchment Boards imposed by the new provision inserted in Clause 21 is sufficient.
§ Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Message from the Lords:
§ They disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons in page 65, line 37, for the following reason:
§ Because these Amendments are rendered unnecessary by the form of the Amendment inserted by the Commons in page 65, line 35.
§ Resolved, "That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed."—[Dr. Addison.]
§ Remaining Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments agreed to.