LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) [MONEY]. (Hansard, 27 June 1930)

§ The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison)
This Financial Resolution was referred to in the discussion on the Second Reading of the Land Drainage (No. 2) Bill, when I stated that a Clause had been drafted and would be introduced in the Bill following very closely the words of the Financial Resolution. I should like to express my appreciation of the help that was given to us by the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and to express my thanks to the right hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) for his helpful intervention. The principles underlying the Financial Resolution are fairly clear, but one or two points may possibly give rise to differences of opinion. The principle that we recognise is that in connection with this work there must be national grants. It is not a new principle to have national grants in aid of drainage schemes. There are in operation to-day other kinds of drainage schemes on which 1516 the Ministry is giving grants of 50 per cent., or on some other basis.
I think it is recognised, as was set forth by the Royal Commission, that if this important work, which is not only of a local, but of a national character, is to be taken in hand there must be some national contributions in aid. There is another reason why that should be the case. A number of authorities would not be disposed to undertake the very considerable task which will be required unless they do receive some national assistance. A point which has given rise to a good deal of question in our discussions with the local authorities is whether a certain Section in the Local Government Act of 1929 does not in fact cover the service that is proposed to be undertaken by the new bodies. Section 135 of the Local Government Act, 1929, refers to assistance being given to local authorities in the event of new services being placed upon them. It is suggested that this is a new service. I understand that among the legal experts various -questions have arisen as to whether this is or is not a new service. Whether it ranks as a new service or not within the meaning of that Section, we resolve that to-day by deliberately bringing forward a Resolution to enable the Government to make contribution. Therefore, so far as that question is concerned, it is largely academic.
The important principle in the Financial Resolution and in the Clause of which it will form the foundation, is that no specific proportion of grant is mentioned. The Clause which we propose to put down will embody the provision that Subject to the provisions of this Section the Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, make grants towards expenditure incurred by Catchment Boards under this Act in the improvement of existing works or the construction of new works, of such amounts as the Treasury may from time to time sanction. It is also provided that no grant shall be made unless the scheme is properly carried out, and so on. That Clause does not mention any specific proportion of grant to be made in each case, and the reason is because the extent of the undertakings in different areas bears little relation in ninny cases to the capacity of the district to pay for them. If we had a flat rate, it 1517 might well be that in a poor area the burden would be impossible, whereas in a well-to-do area it would be almost imperceptible. The House will appreciate the importance of that provision if I give them a few figures which have been worked out to illustrate these inequalities. Let us take the charges arising out of works costing £100,000 as a unit. In the case of the Thames catchment area the cost of interest and sinking fund for 50 years on a scheme costing £100,000 would be a rate of one-tenth of a penny. In the Great Ouse district, in Cambridge and Norfolk, the cost would be a little less than a halfpenny rate.

§ Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON
Is that halfpenny on the precept in the upland area, or including the whole area?

§ Dr. ADDISON
The whole catchment area, the area over which the Catchment Board will operate and over which it will levy its precept. I am making calculations on a unit of works costing £100,000 to illustrate the differences in the various areas and to show why we have not made a flat rate proposal in the Financial Resolution. In the Thames catchment area the rate would be one-tenth of a penny. In the Great Ouse area it would amount to 44 of a penny, or a little less than one halfpenny, and in the Stour area, Essex and Suffolk, it would cost 7d. It is clear, therefore, that what would be fair for one area would be entirely inequitable in another. The burden is 70 times greater in the Stour area than in the Thames area.

§ Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE
Is that for 30 years?

§ Dr. ADDISON
No, for 50 years. In the Clwyd area in Wales, the cost would be 4½d., and in the Romney Marsh, where works are very necessary, the cost would be rather over 9d. If hon. Members want particulars of the other catchment areas I can supply them from the table from which I am quoting. These figures are sufficient to show that when there is a variation from one-tenth of a penny in the Thames catchment area to rather over 9d. in the region of Romney Marsh for works involving the same capital expenditure, the inequalities are very great, and could not be 1518 fairly met by a flat rate contribution. That is the reason for the elasticity in the Resolution. I do not think I need enlarge upon that point because it is obvious. One other source of assistance which will be available for schemes of this kind is the unemployment grants scheme. This assistance will be continued as long as the unemployment grants scheme remains. It is open to authorities to apply for this assistance under appropriate conditions, and the Committee is aware that the Government has relaxed the conditions relating to transferred labour. Therefore, apart from this Financial Resolution, that avenue of assistance is still open and as long as the fund remains it will continue to be open.
There is an omission in the Financial Resolution in regard to maintenance and I notice that several hon. Members have put down an amendment on this point. I expected that the matter would be raised. The reason why it is not in the Bill is because at this stage, and for several years to come, we shall be quite in the dark as to what may be involved, and there will be plenty of opportunity to adjust this if in the future it is found that there is a fair claim for adjustment. There is no case now for committing ourselves in perpetuity to maintenance grants. Practically the whole of the work under this Bill is new work or the improvement of existing works, and on a moderate estimate it will be ten years during which the major portion of this expenditure will be incurred. For several years to come it will be a question of new construction and not a matter of maintenance and, therefore, it is obvious that at this stage the Government should not commit themselves to maintenance grants, although I have no doubt in the future local authorities will not be slow to bring the matter before the Government. I hope I have sufficiently explained the scheme of assistance designed in the Financial Resolution, which will be subsequently embodied in a Clause in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will approve of it.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
Has the right. hon. Gentleman no solid figure as to the amount to which we are committing the country?

§ Dr. ADDISON
I gave some figures during the debate on the Second Reading, but they are extremely conjectural at this stage. I gave a figure as to the cost of the works in the Ouse area of £4,000,000, but I was called to task and a figure of £2,500,000 was mentioned. That figure, I understand, relates to a scheme which is only two-thirds of what the engineers tell us will be required. Areas like the Thames and the Ouse and the Trent will require schemes involving a large expenditure, but what the total amount will be I do not know, and I should be only misleading the Committee if I attempted to give an estimate. Until you have an estimate from the engineers, no useful purpose is served by attempting to give any figure as to the cost. It can be called for at any time.

Mr. GUINNESS
It is quite evident from the course of the discussion the other day that it is in accordance with the general wishes of all parties that assistance should be given from the Exchequer to these drainage areas. It is long overdue. The present system has involved great injustice by concentrating upon small and poor sections of the community what in reality, owing to the growth of civilisation which has accentuated the problem of drainage, is a national responsibility. I can understand the anxiety of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. Williams) because no figure is given as to the expenditure which will be incurred in connection with land drainage, but after all we shall have a very effective check as the money will have to be voted year by year. Strictly speaking the money could have been voted without any statutory sanction at all, and it is only to carry out the fullest precautions that the right hon. Gentleman is inserting this provision in the Bill. Obviously, you cannot get any definite figure as to what will be spent because of the very uncertain factors in the case. There is first the matter of survey. No one can really form an estimate to-day as to what will be the result of these surveys; and the amount of expenditure will necessarily depend upon what local authorities feel they are in a position to spend. The amount of assistance from the Exchequer is really the governing factor. The proposals for the Ouse broke down for various reasons, but finance played a really large part in the 1520 difficulty. The Bill which was thrown out promised £1,250,000, but the authorities of the Ouse considered that the State should find a much larger sum. They were to find £1,600,000 outright and £600,000 in the way of a loan. I think it was 75 per cent. of the total that was to be treated as a loan.
All these transactions must be negotiated on the merits of each case and in view of the local resources. It is right that the locality, in view of the fact that it will be responsible for adminstration, should be primarily responsible for finance. It will be the duty of Parliament, in voting the money year by year, to see that a due proportion is kept between the assistance from central funds and the burden which in fairness should be borne by the local community, whether the ratepayers generally or the area that is to benefit. I think that this Resolution will assist the progress of the Bill in another place if an Amendment be made as to the date of commencement, as it is quite evident that the House of Lords were very much alarmed as to the burdens on the ratepayers and they certainly were strongly of opinion that assistance should be given from central funds. I do not quite agree with the very optimistic expectations which have been expressed as to what this Bill will do in relieving unemployment. When we considered this matter is months ago we came to the conclusion that the really costly works would not involve a great amount of labour. The big works would be done chiefly by mechanical means. The smaller works for the most part would be carried out by internal authorities; works on smaller dykes and so forth would involve only small parties of men. In any case in their total volume they are not such as offer any considerale contribution to the problem of transferring labour from black spot areas.
That matter of the work which will be done in the smaller areas draws my attention to what appears to be a curious limitation in the Resolution. There is no power in the Resolution to give assistance to authorities other than catchment boards. I quite appreciate that the Minister need not have taken this power at all, and that he is doing it only to re-solve any doubts, but I do not quite understand why he should limit the Resolution in this way. We all know that in certain areas there is an ascend- 1521 ing scale of responsibility in these drainage authorities. It is a question of the big flea and the little flea and then of the lesser flea, though not perhaps ad infinitum. We know that great works have been carried out in the Ouse area with public assistance by important but intermediate authorities. In a debate the other day it was stated that over £300,000 worth of capital works were now being carried out by that very efficient authority the Middle Level Commission.
Is it intended that this Bill shall not provide assistance from the central fund for any work which is not carried out by a catchment authority? I cannot believe that that is the intention. I do not want to prejudge the issues at this stage. I imagine that there will be so much work done to cover the neglected part of the main arteries of drainage that at least in the first instance it may be wise to limit the assistance from the central funds to works of a capital character. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he does intend to limit the grants to catchment boards. I think it would be safer to draw the Resolution a little wider so as to cover all authorities which, after negotiation with the Minister, are found to be doing work of an important character.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I want the Minister clearly to understand that I do not by any means oppose this Resolution. In fact he may look upon me as rather a too ardent supporter of the Resolution. I can assure him that in bringing forward this Resolution to give assistance for drainage purposes from the State, the Minister will receive the gratitude of the agricultural community. I wish to remove any misunderstanding that might occur with regard to grants to internal drainage. I refer to the small internal districts, which are the first unit in the drainage system. The large drainage area of the Middle Level has been very generously assisted by the State and by the Minister. Whenever we have come up before the Minister and his Department on our knees, pleading for help, we have always been treated not only sympathetically but have never gone away empty, and I want now to express my gratitude.
The purpose of my Amendment, which I have on the Paper, is certainly not to oppose the Bill, but to help the Minister 1522 to remove an obstruction in the way of the fulfilment of his desire. As I have said, when I and others have come to the Government the Government have been sympathetic and desirous of helping. They have been all kindness to us; we have left the Board of Agriculture smiling, with the sun shining and everybody happy. We have then been sent to the Treasury. The atmosphere of the Treasury is vastly different from that of the Ministry of Agriculture. Hon Members must have recognised the great pleasure with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer closes his lips and says, "Certainly not!" I am not suggesting that when we go to the Treasury we meet the Chancellor himself, but I do suggest that in the Treasury there is a "certainly not" atmosphere, and my purpose is to try to remove that atmosphere and to get the Treasury to be a little more lenient towards the desires of the Minister himself.
I want to see the best use made of these grants. It is held that if we were to remove the restrictions from these grants it would necessarily involve an increased cost to the State, but I do not think that such is the case. The Minister and I have within our knowledge a certain scheme on the middle level system in connection with which a considerable amount of work had been done in putting up new pumps. The engineer estimated that the scheme would cost £80,000. I suggested that help should be sought from the Minister for the scheme and help was promised by the Minister if we assented to certain conditions. Those conditions involved a great deal of extra work because it was said that the place where we had put up the pumps was not suitable, and in consequence it was found that the cost instead of being £80,000 might be from £160,000 to £200,000. Had it not been for the restrictions put upon us, a very considerable saving would have been made in that case.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Is the hon. Member now arguing on the first two Amendments in his name on the Paper—in line 6, after the word "improvement," to insert the words "and maintenance," and after the second word "works" to insert the words "or for Administration purposes"?—If so, I must point out that those Amendments are out of order.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I was referring to the Resolution as a whole. The Minister has rightly said that he has no idea of the total sum which will be involved and that it may amount to £50,000,000. My desire is to make the most effective use possible of that money, and that is my only purpose in making a plea to the Minister for a further extension of these grants. I should like your guidance, Mr. Young, on this matter. You have ruled that the Amendments on the Paper are out of Order, but I believe that it is possible for the Minister to withdraw this Resolution and put another Resolution before the Committee covering the points which I desire to raise. I do not know, therefore, if I should be in Order in mentioning the reasons for which I desire the removal from this Resolution of the restrictions with regard to maintenance and so forth.

§ The CHAIRMAN
On a Money Resolution the hon. Member cannot discuss anything beyond the expenditure with which the Resolution is concerned. He can ask the Minister to withdraw the Resolution, but it must rest there.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
In asking the Minister to withdraw the Resolution, may I not mention the reasons why I should like him to withdraw it?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think the hon. Member has indicated the reasons in his two Amendments, but they are out of Order and he cannot argue on them.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
On a point of Order. The grants under the Resolution are subject to certain restrictions, and as the Minister gave reasons in connection with those restrictions, may we not reply to his reasons?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We are confined to the Money Resolution, and I understand that the Minister merely gave certain information to hon. Members to abridge discussion and prevent the raising of matters which would be out of Order on the Resolution.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I am placed in a very difficult position, because I cannot seek to remove these restrictions when the Bill comes up for discussion again, as we shall then be bound by the Financial Resolution, and, therefore, I am deprived of any opportunity of making 1524 my point. However, I bow to the Ruling of the Chair. The Minister may ask why I 'am apparently opposing this Resolution. We have had considerable experience of administration with regard to drainage, and a few years ago we had before us the Ouse Drainage Board Bill, which we did not seriously oppose, and which has since become law. We recognise to-day that on that occasion we were offered a pup and that we bought the pup and the pup has turned out to be a mongrel. We wonder are we being offered another pup and will this pup turn out to be a pure bred animal and will it function? These are the doubts that we have, and I want to assure the Minister that, having been bitten once, we are going to vet the animal on this occasion very carefully indeed.
We in the lowland counties look upon drainage taxes as a form of insurance, but if the taxes are increased beyond a certain point, the premiums become too high and in order to keep the taxes down, I appeal for generous treatment. The cost of this Bill as far as it is not met by the Treasury grant or by the rate of a halfpenny or three-farthings in the upland areas, will fall upon the lowland areas, but if the Minister can assure me that we shall be limited to any figure like 1s. per acre or even 1s. 6d. per acre as our contribution, then our fears will be very largely allayed. I appeal to the Minister to be as generous as he can and to do something in this matter to assist the great agricultural community.

§ Mr. STRACHEY
I rise to ask the Minister a few questions as to the actual conditions on the grants which were mentioned by him in submitting this Money Resolution. I think we are all agreed that the question of whether any consider_ able amount of work will be done, turns on the exact relationship between the Treasury and the new local authorities which are being set up, and on the establishment of a workable system. In spite of the remark, of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) as to the limitation of the employment which will be given under this Bill, we attach considerable value to it as an employment-giving scheme.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I was on the point of calling the right hon. Gentleman him 1525 self to order when he proceeded to go into that matter. This subject does not arise on the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. STRACHEY
I have no intention of going on with that. As far as I understood the Minister, we are to have no scale of grants whatever, no guiding principle in the conditions of grants which are to be made to these new authorities, but there is to be complete elasticity in the matter. That may sound on the whole satisfactory, but I rather wonder whether in fact it will lead to an expedition of the work. After all, what it will lead to in practice is a completely new bargain between the Treasury and the local authorities in each individual case, with no guiding principle between the two bodies as to the amount of grant which the local authorities may expect, and I wonder whether that is not likely to be protractive rather than expeditious for the lack of some principle of that sort. The Minister has told us of the great disparity between the financial resources of the different catchment areas, but surely the fact that the rate levied in a poorer catchment area will produce so much less means that the value of the land to be reclaimed will be considerably less also, and therefore that lower expenditure would be undertaken in such an area.
Again, I cannot quite follow why we are having a whole new set of grants established for these catchment areas. Why are not the grants simply going to be given under Unemployment Grants Committee conditions? One very important question with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal is whether these catchment areas will be eligible for grants of both kinds—the Unemployment Grants Committee grants and these new grants which we are establishing under the Financial Resolution. I presume that can hardly be the case, but from what the Minister said, one might suppose that it was. Then I want to raise once again a quesion which I asked on the Second Reading of this Bill, and to which I received no answer. That was the question as to what transfer conditions there would be under these new grants. The Minister told us that transfer is to be relaxed in the matter of Unemployment Grants Committee grants, and I think we are very likely to hear—

§ Dr. ADDISON
They do not apply at all.

§ Mr. STRACHEY
The Minister says they do not apply at all, so there will be no question of transfer. I think we shall be very glad to hear that, and that will be a very valuable concession, of which we shall take notice. In conclusion, I feel, as a person who has had some very slight experience of the way in which these grants to local authorities work, that it is rather a pity that we are establishing a new system of Treasury grants to local authorities. We have an immensely complicated system of grants now. Local authorities get Treasury grants through the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Unemployment Grants Committee, all with different conditions, all applying to different kinds of work, but very often overlapping. Surely it is time we tried to make same codification of our system of Treasury grants to local authorities, rather than establishing a new form of grant to a new form of local authority, as we are doing under this Financial Resolution.
I cannot help feeling that the administration of this new system, cutting across the Unemployment Grants Committee grants, but, as we have been told, with those grants applicable to these new local authorities, so that they can, I suppose, apply either for one of these new grants or for an Unemployment Grants Committee grant, will lead to very considerable administrative difficulties and will really delay the work getting going. I would appeal to the Minister to give his attention to that question and to see whether some simplification cannot be introduced into the procedure by which he will make the grants for this work.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
As a rule, I do not like these Money Resolutions in which no limit is laid down, but from what the Minister has said it is obvious that it is impossible to make any real estimate in this case, and I think there are ample checks provided. I am very glad indeed that the Minister has brought forward this Resolution, because it would have been unfair if the Government, through some legal quibble, had refused to give any grants for this work. The Minister mentioned the question of giving a specific propor- 1527 tion of grant. I will not enlarge upon that subject, but I would like to ask him to reconsider this question. We do not ask for a definite proportion to be laid down, but we do ask for a minimum proportion to be laid down. It is a matter on which the county councils are very uneasy. They feel that they ought to have a grant for maintenance and administration and a minimum grant of 50 per cent. both for administration and maintenance and capital expenditure. Therefore, I would ask the Minister whether he will not give further consideration to that question.

§ Mr. EDE
I wish to know exactly what relationship the grants under this Bill will bear to certain special grants which have been made for special works carried out recently—works that will be carried out, after the passing of the Bill, presumably by the catchment area boards. Some few weeks ago I introduced a deputation to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the river Thames and one of its tributaries from a couple of county councils, those of Middlesex and Surrey, which have undertaken very heavy works, at very heavy expense to themselves, assisted by a Government grant. Those works will have to be paid for over a period of 30 years. At the moment the Government are giving grants, I think it is, of 75 per cent. for the first 15 years and 37½ per cent. for the next 15 years. I desire to know whether, under this Bill, those grants will be absorbed in the general grants paid to the Thames catchment area board, and whether the expenses that have been incurred up to the present, because these grants have been made, by the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils will continue to be ordinary expenses of those two county councils, or whether they will pass over and become part of the expenses of the new Thames catchment area board, to be charged to the area as a whole. There was no possibility of doing that when these grants were originally applied for.
I also want to know how far these new obligations that the county councils have taken on become the obligations in future, ranking for grant, of the catchment area board that is formed. I tried to raise this point the other day on the Second Reading, but no reply at all was vouch- 1528 safed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade When these matters were brought before him. I would like to have had an answer then, so as not to have found it necessary to intervene again to-day
There is one other matter I would like to mention in conclusion. I am desirous of seeing money spent under this Bill. I want to see a very considerable scheme of land drainage carried out but I cannot help thinking that, as far as the Thames area is concerned, the constitution of the Board will prevent the Minister from making any grants, because I cannot but imagine that the Board as it is constituted, with the tremendous influence the right hon. Gentleman is giving to London, will prevent a satisfactory scheme for the Thames being brought forward. If this scheme is meant to put people to work and to drain the land, I think the attitude which the London County Council has assumed up to the present, and which they voiced to the right hon. Gentleman in my presence, namely, that they have no intention of allowing us to spend any money and get any of these grants until they have carried through a comprehensive scheme dealing with flood prevention in which they talked about having to raise the walls 18 inches, will prevent the effective drainage of the Thames area. I do ask him, if he desires, as I believe he does, to see the Thames area properly drained, men put to work and grants paid, to bear that in mind when he considers, as he said he may consider, increased representation of the London County Council.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
The question I put just now raised, I think, a most important consideration. I fail to see how we as a Committee of the House of Commons, in passing this Financial Resolution, can possibly in any circumstances be doing our duty unless we get some line of proportion and amount of money to be expended. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness), speaking as the late Minister of Agriculture, naturally tried to reassure me on that point, but I venture to think, with all respect, that if he had spoken as a late Financial Secretary, he would have emphasised the appallingly loose position in which the Government are in this respect. We are being asked 1529 to-day to consider the financial position of the various local authorities. As a Member of Parliament, I am sent here to consider the financial position of the State as a whole, and when we are asked to make contributions of this sort, I cannot help remembering that the financial position of the State as a whole is at least as bad as that of any local authority from a purely financial point of view. Therefore, I do think it is an absolutely false argument to say that we must only consider this question from the point of view of the local authorities themselves.
12 n.
The Minister himself said that in certain cases the contribution of the local authority would be small, and he gave as an instance the case of the Ouse, the percentage of which on a £100,000 basis would be only a halfpenny rate. The curious point is that as the debate has proceeded, we have been told that in this wealthy area, as the Minister said—I am not accepting it as a wealthy area, but he told us it was a comparatively wealthy area, though I take no part in that particular controversy—the proportion of the £4,000,000 that was to be granted by the State was £1,250,000 or about 30 per cent. at least. That is on the assumption of a total of £4,000,000 being expended. If we may carry on from that, then where is a halfpenny rate, apparently, the cost is going to be 30. per cent. If any line of proportion is taken on the figures given to-day, it is quite clear in the case of the Romney Marsh that the whole cost of construction will have to be paid by the State, and also the cost of upkeep for all time. The only argument we can assume from the Minister's speech is that you have got to pay in many cases the whole grant if you are to be fair both to the wealthy and to the poorer districts. There is a further point. The Minister informed us that under this scheme there would be also a contribution from the unemployment grants. May I inquire whether the figure mentioned of £1,250,000 is a direct Exchequer contribution under this Financial Resolution, or whether it comes partly from an Exchequer contribution and partly from an unemployment scheme of drainage? If it comes from both, I think that we are entitled to know the proportion which comes from the unemployment scheme, for, unless we know 1530 the proportion, we have absolutely no guide of any sort as to what amount is to be paid under this Bill.
I have raised these points because I think it is essential on these occasions that, at any rate, one Member of Parliament, if no more, should take the point of view, which has always been the point of view of the House, that we must know what we are voting under a Financial Resolution. I would have liked to have seen an Amendment put down limiting the annual cost under this Bill to some reasonable sum, say, up to a maximum of £500,000 which would have been a fair and reasonable contribution for the Exchequer to face at the present time. We know that the Thames Valley scheme and the Ouse area are larger schemes which run into many millions of pounds, and if I remember the approximate figures, the Romney Marsh scheme is nothing like the same amount. The smaller places would need a comparatively small amount of money, even if we gave them them the whole sum to do the work. It does seem typical of the laxity of the Treasury control which has applied far too long. I do not wish to be invidious. There has been a laxity of Treasury control in this House ever since the War. We have never got back to the proper system of absolute financial control by the Treasury.
This Money Resolution is the worst example that we have had in all these years, for no fixed sum is mentioned, and the Minister has said that he cannot give us a rough idea of what it may be. I know that he cannot give us the figures for the various schemes which have still to be settled, but he could tell the taxpayer that he would limit it to £500,000 or £1,000,000 and not go beyond that without another Financial Resolution. I do not wish to hold up these schemes, because there is much good in them, but this loose system is wrong. By this Resolution the Treasury are dropping their control, and we are setting up an entirely new system of grants and adding complication to an already complicated system. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade shakes his head. All I can say is that his battle is with his own side, and with the hon. Member who brought forward that point. At times such as this, it is essential that the whole financial system of the country 1531 should be preserved with the greatest resolution on the part of the Treasury to see that money is not spent unless it is absolutely necessary. With that in my mind, I protest very strongly against this Resolution.
In case there should be any doubt or misrepresentation about the attitude which I take, I would point out that I say this without any desire to hold up these works, but because I am sure that this is not the right way to do it. With this kind of Resolution, we shall sooner or later have the House suddenly turn round and stop expenditure everywhere regardless of consequences. The Minister knows what that means better than I do. I do not oppose the individual schemes, because I have no knowledge of them, but the way in which we are being asked to pass this Financial Resolution without any form of check as to the amount which is to be expended. In the interests of employment in particular, we should take the strong line, and not allow so many of these Financial Resolutions to pass without any protest or discussion.

§ Mr. WELLS
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that there should be some limit in the Financial Resolution before the Committee, for the amounts on these schemes vary so much. We get a little information from the Minister from time to time; we had a little information on Tuesday, and we have had just a little more to-day. I understood from the Minister that he had a list showing the probable expenditure for a great many areas. I do not ask him to give any details, but I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the total which it is expected to spend on drainage. This Bill is called a Land Drainage Bill; to my mind it is more a flood prevention Bill. With regard to the River Ouse, the Minister told us the other day that the cost of the scheme in that area would be £4,000,000. In 1924 the cost was estimated at £1,500,000; in 1927 a large area was included, and the estimate was £2,500,000; in 1930 we have an estimate of £4,000,000. So it goes on, and I suppose that in another two years, especially if the work is started, the estimate will be increased to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000
1532 I understand that the money is to be spent on the Ouse mouth, and that draining walls are to be carried out into the Wash for five miles. They will be carried out into shallow water, but at the end of the walls there will still be shallow water not deeper than one foot and a half at lowest tide. The Minister told us that King John lost his baggage in the Wash; how much baggage will we lose in the Wash before we are finished with these works? I remember reading some time ago of certain gentlemen adventurers who, in the 17th Century, risked an enormous sum of money to drain the Fen area of the Ouse; I believe that it was £100,000. They spent their money, and they got nothing for it. We are asked to-day to spend enormous sums of money at the mouth of the Ouse, and I do not think that we shall get anything for it either. There was a scheme at one time for taking a bank right across the Wash——

§ The CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not dealing with the Bill now. We cannot improve the Bill on the Money Resolution, and these questions must be raised on the Committee stage.

§ Mr. WELLS
The Minister has spoken of a sinking fund. I was trying to find out where the money was going to be sunk. I am sorry that the first Amendment was not accepted, because it deals with work and maintenance, and I thought that it might appeal very much to the Minister——

§ The CHAIRMAN
It cannot be accepted; therefore it is not in order to discuss it.

§ Mr. WELLS
I hope that we shall be able to raise that point in Committee in due course. I understand that the work in the Great Ouse area will need only a halfpenny rate for each £100,000 spent. It is proposed to spend £4,000,000, and I am sure that that will need for the whole catchment area a much larger rate. In regard to the general expenditure of the local authorities, Parliament is always increasing their burdens. The Government give as little as possible, but, even if they give a great deal, the expenditure only comes out of another pocket. We are putting a heavier burden on the taxpayer by this Bill. We hear a good deal about depression in 1533 industry, and yet Parliament keeps on increasing the burdens and making it more difficult for industry to revive.

§ Mr. MARCH
One or two questions arise in connection with this Money Resolution, and the finance to be supplied to the catchment boards, and I should like a little further information. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) said that he thought this would be a flood prevention Bill. I wish it were, but I rather doubt it. By the drainage of the areas that it is supposed to drain, it will make the flooded areas, especially in my district, worse than they are at the present time. Is provision made for catchment boards in the lower reaches of the Thames?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We cannot discuss the Bill at this stage. The hon. Member must raise that question on the Bill. The question now is the charge upon the Treasury and that alone.

§ Mr. MARCH
But there is a charge on the Treasury in respect of the grants to the catchment boards. The catchment boards operate over certain areas, and I want to know whether those areas are properly covered by the catchment boards. It does not seem to me that they are.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member thinks the areas are not properly covered he can put down an Amendment to the Bill, but the point cannot be discussed at this stage.

§ Mr. MARCH
I will put down an Amendment.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
In my constituency there is a considerable area of low-lying land which has suffered terribly in the past from the absence of the provisions in this Bill. On hundreds of acres of land lying in small districts alongside the rivers Lune and Wyre submersion has taken place as a result of inadequate drainage, and the districts affected are quite unable to protect themselves because, apparently, difficulties have arisen at the river mouth, and with the wash from the roads, and so forth. I think these provisions will go a long way to remedying what has been an intolerable situation. For that reason I am a supporter of these proposals, though not perhaps such an ardent supporter as the hon. Member who sits below me, because 1534 I am affected with the parsimonious tendencies of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).
There is a point in connection with the expenditure which I should like to put to the Minister of Agriculture. I quite appreciate that he cannot at this stage estimate what we are in for; in a big scheme of this nature it is impossible to forecast accurately the commitments of the State; but it seems to me that we might impose certain limits, and one should be that such grants as are to be given by the State should be confined to the benefiting of existing agricultural areas and not devoted to reclamation work with the idea of bringing more land into a condition in which it can be cultivated. Such a limitation would affect a considerable saving, and until the right hon. Gentleman has taught us how to make farming pay we ought to concentrate upon the existing agricultural land and not seek to bring more land into cultivation at a time when farming cannot be made to pay. I will not touch on the question of unemployment, because I think that would be out of Order, but I would like to know whether under this money Resolution it would be competent for the Minister to make grants for smallholdings the occupants of which could be guaranteed work in connection with drainage schemes.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is obviously outside the scope of the money Resolution. This has nothing to do with smallholdings.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
Possibly it may not have occurred to the Minister, but in certain areas there are smallholdings on which willows are planted. The effect of planting these willows is conducive to the good drainage of the land. Would it be in order for my hon. Friend to follow up the point on those lines only?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We should have to see whether it is for the catchment boards to encourage that work.

§ Mr. RAMSBOTHAM
I will not pursue that point any further now, possibly I shall have an opportunity to do so later. I will merely repeat that I support the Bill and that I think it is a good one, and I congratulate the Minister on having at last taken a step towards benefiting the agricultural community.

§ Mr. A. SOMERVILLE
The Minister has given us some interesting figures, but has left out the most interesting one which was asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) and that is the minimum proportion of the expenses of the work in the various districts which will be found. The Minister has mentioned a scheme for the Thames Valley the interest and sinking fund for which would cost £100,000 for 50 years and involve a rate of 1/10th of a penny. He has also said that certain works are urgently needed in the Thames Valley, in the Ouse district, and so on. What we need in the Thames Valley is, as far as possible, to prevent flooding. Any scheme for the prevention of floods would cost £9,000,000, and on the basis given by the right hon. Gentleman that would mean a 9d. rate, which is alarming to the counties affected. If we were given 75 per cent. of the annual cost of the scheme that would mean that this catchment area would bear a rate of 2¼d. One can very well understand now why the Minister refuses to accept the limit which was imposed by the House of Lords. The late Minister of Agriculture raised the important point that there is no mention of inland drainage boards in this Money Resolution. That is a very material point. These inland drainage boards will have the power to levy an unlimited rate, and the expenses of the works they undertake may amount to a very considerable sum. I regret that their expenses are not included in this Money Resolution. The counties are not at all happy about this subject. Here is an extract from a letter which I have received from the Clerk to the Berkshire County Council: I venture to hope that it still may be possible to persuade the Government to accept a limitation of the amount for which a catchment board may precept. This seems now the more important, in as much as I gather that the amount of grant is to vary between counties. I believe that the heavy expenditure said to be required in the Ouse district is the reason for the objection to the limitation of the precept, but surely the River Ouse must be exceptional in the expenditure required? At any rate the removal of a limitation, coupled with uncertainty as to the amount of the grants, must make every county council very apprehensive as to the amount which they may have to provide. I urge the Minister to press the Treasury to allow the proportion of expenses to 1536 be as large as possible. As far as this Bill will benefit agriculture I support it, but I doubt whether it will bring a real benefit to agriculture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) has said, it is more a Bill for the prevention of floods than the draining of waterlogged land. I think the Bill is too indefinite. I would conclude by urging the Minister to make the proportion of the cost borne by the Treasury as high as possible.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. SMITH)
I think that this is a convenient moment to reply to the discussion which has taken place. The sympathetic tone of the speeches which have been made in this debate are very welcome to the Minister in charge of the Bill, although I am afraid that many of the arguments which have been put forward cancel themselves. The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has asked that a minimum should be fixed in the Bill so far as grants are concerned, while, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has asked that a maximum should be fixed. Of course, it would be difficult for the Government to meet both those points, and the mere fact that those two opinions have been expressed rather indicates that the line taken by the Government is right, and that each scheme should be determined upon its merits. I think that will be the soundest and the wisest course to pursue.
There will be a very great difference in the cost of the different schemes, not merely in relation to the rateable value which may be connected with them. Some of the schemes may be much more costly than others, and, therefore, there must be some elasticity in order that any grants which are made may approximate fairly to each particular scheme which must be considered upon its merits. I think that is the answer to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who raised the question of the position of Surrey and Middlesex in regard to schemes which have been sanctioned. Those schemes will be continued on the basis upon which they have been granted, and I do not think that this Bill will affect them in any way. There has been an 1537 agreed basis in regard to the cost of those schemes, and that will continue without alteration.

§ Mr. EDE
Does that mean that those schemes will remain the liability of the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils, and not the liability of the catchment board? That will mean that those county councils will have to bear the expense of draining their own area, and of helping to drain other areas.

§ Mr. SMITH
It is difficult to answer that question without having an opportunity of looking more closely into the circumstances of the case. No doubt an opportunity will arise to see whether any adjustment can be made, and there will be no disturbance of the agreement which has already been made. The position of the Surrey and Middlesex County Councils will not be worsened in regard to those schemes. I do not know how far those schemes come within any general proposals which may be made in regard to the Thames catchment area, or how far they are connected with the internal drainage board. Consequently, it will be impossible for me to give any more definite answer than to say that, so far as those obligations are concerned, they will be met, and, if any further point of difficulty arises, that must, be a matter of consultation and examination. The Thames area is a special case, and it is impossible to discuss it now as far as the obligations arising under this Bill are concerned. Undoubtedly, any financial obligations that may arise so far as the Thames catchment area is concerned will have to be dealt with on special lines, and subjected to very careful examination and analysis before anything can be done.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) put forward some claims on behalf of the internal drainage board, and in a very large measure I think the hon. Member answered his own case when he described with some amount of gratitude the help and assistance that had been given after appeals had been made by the board with which he is associated. I think that the question of support to the internal drainage board must wait until we see how far a real problem arises in that respect. The fact that this Bill and this Financial Resolution make what, I think, is a generous provision for 1538 financial assistance in regard to drainage schemes must be taken as an indication of the attitude of mind which will be adopted towards the problems which may arise in the various areas.
I would like to put one or two points in justification of that contention. I am persuaded that, when the catchment area authorities function fully and completely under this Bill, it may be that many of the obligations that now rest upon the internal drainage board will be considerably lessened. I will give an illustration. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that during the sittings of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage the members paid a visit to the Middle Level area, and they were convinced that the expenses of that Board were increased because they had to maintain a, level of water for navigation purposes which, if not obsolete, was very nearly so. I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields will agree that this is a question which can be dealt with. It will undoubtedly happen that in many areas the financial obligations of drainage boards will be materially reduced, because some of the difficulties which now exist in regard to their financial obligations will disappear. Until we see how far the operations of this Bill will result in material assistance to the internal drainage board, it is impossible to say how far it is desirable or necessary to give any more assistance than has previously been given to those bodies in regard to the Middle Level area.
In other areas the cost of draining the land has been very heavy and constitutes a burden almost too great to bear, because the operations have been confined to a narrow area, and because the work beyond that area has, in some cases, been neglected. As soon as that neglect has been repaired, I suggest that the obligations resting upon the internal drainage boards will be materially reduced, and the results of their work will be more effective. In those circumstances, the land will be much better drained than it is at the present time, and the chances are that there will be better results in those particular areas of the internal drainage boards and less cost than was the case in the past. I think there is contained within my observations an answer to the points which have been raised. The general financial obligations 1539 provided for in this Resolution must be based upon a certain amount of elasticity. No doubt there will be some variations in the different catchment areas. In some of those areas, good work has been done while in others the work has been neglected. With these varying circumstances and conditions, it is impossible to fix a definite limit so far as financial grants are concerned. They must be different, and, therefore, the question will have to be dealt with on its merits as each scheme is presented for consideration.

Mr. GUINNESS
Would the honourable gentleman deal with the point that I mentioned, as to why this Resolution is limited to catchment boards, and does not cover all drainage authorities?

§ Mr. SMITH
I thought that I had just answered that question; I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was out of the House at the time. I pointed out that my right hon. friend suggested that the question of internal boards might have to be left to a later date, when more exact consideration could be given to it. I am inclined to the opinion that the operation of this Measure, when it is properly established for the effective treatment of catchment areas, leading to the removal of the obstacles and difficulties which exist in internal drainage areas, will have the effect of lessening the costs of existing internal drainage boards and all other drainage boards that may be set up, so that the result of the operation of the Act will be to make the work more effective, and thus to reduce the financial obligations that fall upon internal drainage boards. In that case there will not be the same claim for the making of financial grants as would otherwise be the case.
I speak as the result of experience as a member of the Royal Commission, which did come up against instances in which the work of an internal drainage board was made more difficult, and costs were higher than they would otherwise have been, because of certain obstacles and difficulties existing within the area. Provision is made in the Bill for dealing with such obstacles, and, therefore, I suggest that the Bill ought to be given a chance to operate in that regard before the Government are asked to commit themselves to any definite scheme of finan- 1540 cial contribution towards internal drainage boards. As the hon. Member for Leominster said, grants have already been given and, although such grants have been given on another ground, and perhaps from another consideration, I do not think that there will be any departure from the policy. At any rate, until the Act, when it is on the Statute Book, has had a chance to operate, and we are able to see how these problems will more or less solve themselves, I do not think it is wise or desirable that the Government should be asked to commit themselves to financial obligations in that regard.

Mr. GUINNESS
I quite agree. I do not ask that new powers should be given, but, in view of the fact that this is a Consolidation Bill, and that a certain financial discretion is being asked for, I should have thought that it would be wise to amend the expression "catchment boards," and to make it evident that, even if the existing practice is not widened, the present discretion of the Ministry to give these grants to the internal authorities will not be interfered with. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech rather sounded as if he wished no longer to give these grants to internal authorities, and thought that they would be sufficiently dealt with by giving money to the catchment boards; but at the end he suggested that there would be no change. If there is any necessity for legislative sanction for the expenditure of this money, would it not be wise, in a Consolidation Measure, to make it plain that you are not interfering with the discretion of the Ministry to give grants to the internal authorities in the way in which they have received them in the past., while at the same time you are making provision for the new authorities which are to be set up?

§ Dr. ADDISON
As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have power under the law as it stands to make grants to these internal boards for the purposes of their work, and we are in fact doing so. The law is not to be altered in that respect in any way.

Mr. GUINNESS
This is a Consolidation Bill, and surely we are being given to understand that this power will be repeated. If this Resolution is going to cover the whole Bill, ought not this exist- 1541 ing power in the Consolidation Bill to be repeated in the Resolution which covers it?

§ Dr. ADDISON
The point here is that the Financial Resolution is for the purpose of making grants towards the works which will be undertaken by these new bodies, and that is as far as it goes.

Mr. GUINNESS
But the Bill is a Consolidation Bill.

§ Dr. ADDISON
It does not in any way discontinue the existing Acts, and, so far as they are concerned, we have already powers, and we exercise them. It is not proposed in any way to limit them in this Financial Resolution, which gives us power beyond existing Acts to give grants in payment for new work.

§ Viscount WOLMER
Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to reconsider this matter before the Report stage, and take legal opinion upon it?

§ Dr. ADDISON
Certainly.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Arising out of the Minister's assurance that no transferred labour will be employed on these schemes—that there will be no such condition attached to the schemes—I should like to ask the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) whether he wishes to move his Amendment—in line 16, at the end, to add the words (iii) no such grants and advances shall be conditional upon the employment of a percentage of imported labour.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I was going to make that point myself, because, having listened to what the Minister has said, it appeared to me that this Amendment might now be unnecessary.

§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member thinks it is unnecessary, there will be no need for him to move it. I thought that it was unnecessary, but, after the statement of the Minister with reference to transferred labour, I thought that perhaps the words "imported labour" in the Amendment might have a different meaning.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
May I formally move the Amendment, in order to make the situation absolutely clear?

§ Lieut. Colonel ACLAND -TROYTE
May I not have an answer to the question which I put?

§ The CHAIRMAN
We are not departing from the Resolution. I have allowed a general discussion for some time before taking any Amendment, in order to safeguard that position. We will take the hon. Member's Amendment now.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
I beg to move, in line 16, at the end, to add the words: (iii) no such grants and advances shall be conditional upon the employment of a percentage of imported labour. My reason for putting this Amendment on the Paper is simply that, from my experience in the past, when grants have been applied for from one department or another, and particularly from the Unemployment Grants Committee, we have been met with the condition that a certain proportion of imported labour from other areas where there is unemployment shall be employed. The proportion generally stipulated for is 75 per cent. It was in order to remove what I might term this restriction against efficiency of work in the drainage districts that I put down this Amendment. I would remind the Minister and the Committee that this labour from other areas is not particularly efficient for drainage work. Drainage work is rather a skilled kind of work; at any rate, it requires a considerable amount of muscle; and the men put to work on these drainage schemes—artisans, perhaps, or other classes of men—are physically unable to put forth what is termed a full day's work, while at the same time they have no special interest in the work. They come into it for a period, until they can, quite rightly, get work at their own jobs, and, therefore, they are not as interested or as efficient in that work as local people would be; and it has been found, as a matter of practical experience that the cost of imported labour for this work is something like 50 per cent. more than the cost of local labour. The object of my Amendment is to save that increase of cost. I understand that the Minister gives an assurance that that condition will not apply in these cases, and in that case there is no such grievance as would necessitate this Amendment, but I should like to have that assurance.

§ Dr. ADDISON
This is not a condition which has been applied except so far as they have received unemployment grants hitherto, and we do not propose to apply it, but I take it that where works have been started under arrangements with the Unemployment Grants Committee, no doubt the terms of agreement will be kept. At all events, if they give rise to difficulty I shall be willing to consider cases that are brought to my notice, but generally it is not our intention to apply this condition.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
"Imported" is a very wide term. Labour has been employed in connection with certain subsidies from outside the country entirely. Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be absolutely no people employed from outside the country?

§ Dr. ADDISON
The conditions attaching to all these schemes will apply to this, but it is very undesirable to insert an Amendment on these lines. The present policy will be continued.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, but I am sorry that it is not a little more definite.

§ Sir E. SHEPPERSON
In view of the Minister's statement that this will not be a condition in future and that he will sympathetically consider it as applied to this work, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON
I should like to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to give an undertaking that any grants given under these proposals to catchment area authorities should not be less than 50 per cent. of the cost of work being undertaken.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This is the third time that this question has been raised.

§ Sir D. NEWTON
I do not think we have had an answer.

§ The CHAIRMAN
It does not matter whether the hon. Gentleman has had an answer or not. I think he has had an answer. I cannot have all the Members 1544 rising in turn asking about the 50 per cent. The hon. Member is the third who has done it.

§ Viscount WOLMER
On a point of Order. If an hon. Member is not satisfied, surely he is entitled to ask a question.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I quite realise your point, Sir. I asked a definite question on the figures——

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am not concerned with what the hon. Member asked. I am concerned with the matter of fact. The hon. Gentleman is the third person who has asked about the 50 per cent.

§ Sir D. NEWTON
I was going to follow that modest request up by asking if, in cases where land drainage is undertaken as a relief scheme, more than 50 per cent. might be given, in view of the fact that the labour to be employed would probably not be as efficient as the authority undertaking the work would normally employ. I was going to base my request on the fact that the catchment area authorities are charged with the maintenance of the main channel. Main road authorities receive 60 per cent., and I fail to see that in the case of a main channel that is an unreasonable request, in spite of the number of times the question has been asked. I hope we shall be able to get some kind of assurance in regard to this important matter.

§ Mr. STRACHEY
There is an important point as to the relationship between the new grants and the Unemployment Grants Committee grants which we should have cleared up right away. Will catchment areas or other authorities be eligible for both these grants, and will they be alternative? I presume they cannot get both grants for the same piece of work, but will different sections of the work be eligible for the two forms of grants? There will be administrative confusion unless we have some clear statement as to what the relationship of the two systems will be.

§ Mr. W. R. SMITH
I have already answered the point which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) raised. One Member opposite asked for a maximum and another for a minimum, and we have to disappoint one if we con- 1545 cede it to the other. The better line, perhaps, would be to disappoint both. The amount will vary as between catchment area and catchment area, and it is inadvisable to have any limitation of the character the hon. Gentleman suggests. On the point raised by my hon. Friend, I do not think there is any difficulty. There will be no overlapping, and it is obvious that, in regard to grants in relation to schemes of this description, you must in the main have them related to the Department that is competent to deal with them. Some grants have been made by the Ministry of Health and some by the Unemployment Grants Committee, and now these grants will be made by the Ministry of Agriculture. Obviously, in regard to schemes of work related to drainage, it must necessarily and naturally be in the hands of a Department that is qualified to express an opinion. In regard to the other point it is exceedingly difficult to state definitely under which heading grants will be made. The question is open. If, in regard to all the circumstances of the case, it might be deemed desirable to deal with it by an unemployment grant, possibly it will be dealt with under that head, but, if it is inadvisable to deal with it in that way it will be better to deal with it under the provisions of this Measure through the Ministry of Agriculture in conjunction with the Treasury. In any case, the first consideration will have to be by the Ministry of Agriculture but, in so far as there may be any variation, the only answer that can be given is that it will entirely depend on the circumstances of the case. The chances are, in a general sense, that the matter will be related to the Ministry of Agriculture unless there are very special circumstances which might warrant it being dealt with on another basis.

§ Mr. WELLS
Can the hon. Gentleman give us the total amount that it is anticipated will be spent on the different drainage areas which have already been formed?

§ Dr. ADDISON
There is a provisional figure in the paper circulated to the House of £15,000,000, but it is most conjectural. It entirely depends on all sorts of contingencies. I should be extremely reluctant to give an estimate.

§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE
I should like to ask a question in regard 1546 to grants. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the grant will be as low as 10 per cent. and in some cases 25 per cent? Does he think that 25 per cent. will be the lowest which will be given? The County Councils Association regard this matter with very great anxiety, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will give an indication as to what he considers is likely to be the lowest grant, it will be a great help to the county councils.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I am sure that where a scheme is required these matters will always be dealt with and made the subject of negotiations. My particular experience is that the County Councils Association and their representatives are seldom unable to tell you what they think. If they want to get work done, I am sure that they will come to terms about it. I can scarcely imagine a case where the percentage will be as low as stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am certain that in practical administration it would really be a mistake to impose any hard and fast figures.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
There is one question which I put to the Minister which he has not answered. I think that it must have been an omission on his part. The Minister used certain figures in connection with schemes in other places, and we have had the information that probably £250,000 would go to the Ouse. On the basis of that figure and the figures which the Minister has used, will not the proportion be, not on the basis of 50 per cent., but on the basis of the figures of the Minister. We have not had a reply to this question. I want to know what will be the basis with regard to the Romney Marsh scheme. Will there be a heavier burden upon the rates? We ought to have some information on that point.

§ Dr. ADDISON
I only mentioned the figure in connection with the Ouse because that figure has for some years past been the subject of public discussion. I have here, of course, the estimates of the Department as to what the different schemes would involve in the different areas. I am sure that anybody with any knowledge of public business will recognise that it would be most undesirable 1547 to publish any figures as to how much in regard to particular schemes the Ministry is going to contribute, I cannot imagine anything that would be more disastrous.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I thank the Minister for his answer. It is exactly what I thought it would be. I am aware that the figures he gave at the beginning of the day are absolutely misleading and will have no effect whatever as far as this House is concerned. I am sure that he did not realise or understand the position until I put pressure upon him. I say, frankly, that these figures have no meaning at all if the position which he has just built up is the correct one, and I believe it is. There is one point which has not been raised, and that is that the Government decline entirely, as far as this matter is concerned to set a limit to the amount of money to be expended under this Resolution. I should like to draw attention to an entirely fresh fact. On this Resolution, we have been dealing with the finances of the country on a very large scale, and we have not had a chance of putting questions to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a matter of great regret to many of us, and it has limited the discussion upon the Financial Resolution in an extraordinary way. I wish to make my protest at not having been permitted to see the Financial Secretary on the Front Bench this morning. He appears to have hidden his light under the very dim shadow of the Minister of Agriculture
1.0 p.m.
There is also another point to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister. On Financial Resolutions we are nearly always given an assurance by the Government of the day that with regard to the construction of new works and to operations on existing works involving the use of a considerable amount of material. All such material should be British material. If we give the Minister this Resolution to-day, will he put into the Bill, or introduce at the proper place a definite Resolution, that in no circumstances are the works to be constructed of other than British material?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman has been sufficiently long in this House to know that, if he wants an 1548 Amendment of that kind, the Bill is the place for it and not the Resolution.

§ Mr WILLIAMS
I am asking for an assurance.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman seems deliberately to be going outside the Money Resolution in regard to these matters.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
If that is so, I frankly accept your Ruling.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have pointed out out to hon. Members several times that the only thing with which we are concerned to-day is the charge upon the Treasury in relation to the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I accept the Ruling entirely that the charge on the Treasury is the only matter with which we are concerned. It is for certain purposes which can be gone into in considerable detail. In those various details and in regard to the amounts involved various questions are raised in connection with catchment boards, but I will refrain from referring to them at the present time. I merely wish to remark that once again we have had a Resolution from the Government of the day which is entirely unsatisfactory from the financial point of view.