LAND DRAINAGE (SHEERNESS). (Hansard, 13 December 1937)

§ Mr. Maitland
I have finished my observations. I am afraid that I have made myself somewhat of a nuisance to the Ministry of Agriculture by the many calls that I have made upon their time and patience, and I hope they will forgive me for this further intrusion. With their assistance, I hope that we shall be able to reach a satisfactory solution of a matter which is causing great concern to a large body of my constituents.

§ The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham)
The House will agree that my hon. Friend has put the case for his constituents with very great moderation and great clarity. As he has indicated, it is not the first time that he has been in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture on this rather difficult subject. His intervention has always been very friendly, taking the form of letters, interviews and conferences, culminating in tonight's statement on the Motion for the Adjournment. The problem arises under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in respect of the town of Sheerness, owing to its geographical position, as far as drainage is concerned. As a result of that position it is clear that the Isle of Sheppey and consequently the town of Sheerness came within the catchment area, and the defences of Sheerness, in so far as they can be regarded as land drainage works, became the responsibility of the catchment board. One of the first duties which the catchment board carried out was to set up two internal drainage boards, one for the Upper Medway and one for the Lower Medway, the latter including the town of Sheerness. This proposal to set up a board for the Upper and Lower Medway evoked a certain amount of opposition, and in 1933 the Minister directed a public inquiry to be held. This took place, and as a result the area within the Lower Medway district was considerably reduced. The reduction did not affect the Isle of Sheppey. In due course the Order became effective.

§ Mr. Maitland
Indirectly the Isle of Sheppey was affected because it took out of the area a large proportion of rateable value which up to that moment had been included.

§ Mr. Ramsbotham
Yes. When the drainage board was first constituted a number of ratepayers were disturbed because their area was called upon to pay a drainage rate based on Schedule A annual value, with which they were not familiar, and which they had not been called upon to pay before. Then the hon. Member quite rightly came into the picture on behalf of his constituents, and if I am correctly representing the numerous conversations and letters which have passed between him and the Minister of Agriculture he wanted either to remove Sheerness entirely from the catchment area, to put it outside the scope of the Land Drainage Act, or remove it from the internal drainage district, and at least two deputations led by the hon. Member made representations to that effect. As regards the first proposal, the exclusion of the area from the catchment area, I think it was pointed out that this really was impossible because the catchment area is a geographical area bounded by the watershed, and it was impossible to defend the exclusion of Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey from that area.
As regards the proposal for removing Sheerness and the Isle of Sheppey from the internal drainage district, this can only be done if the catchment board submitted another scheme for altering the boundaries of the district. I understand that the catchment board are not prepared to do that, and under the Act there is no method by which they can be made to do it if they do not desire. That was pointed out at the public inquiry. Therefore, the only remaining possibilities are for the internal drainage board to exercise such powers as they possess under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Ministry has done its utmost with its powers to alleviate the position. In fact, the Internal Drainage Board has availed itself of certain provisions in the Land Drainage Act and has made a differential rating order to which the hon. Member has referred, with the result that the town of Sheerness pays only 11–36ths of the full rate payable by the highest-rated part of the drainage district. I know the hon. Member's point is that even so the figures show what a large contribution they make to the rates of the district. At the same time, there is no other action the Ministry can take, nor, 953 indeed, the drainage board can take, short of making an order decreasing still further the fraction of the full rate levied in Sheerness or an order exempting Sheerness from the payment of rates altogether. Short of that I do not know that there is anything more that the Ministry can do.

§ Mr. Quibell
Could not the Ministry get over the difficulty by asking the Internal Drainage Board to make a precept on the local authority of Sheerness itself, and incorporate the rate in the general rate, specifying that it is for drainage purposes.

§ Mr. Ramsbotham
If I understand my hon. Friend rightly, that is the suggestion he puts. The real trouble is that this is the payment of a new rate by a body of persons who have never paid such a rate before; and the rate being on an annual value basis and first imposed without any differential rating orders having been made, it means a considerable burden on a smaller class of householder. I can understand the position not only of the hon. Member but of his constituents. The first suggestion he has made, I understand, is that the inquiry should be held. In regard to that, first of all, I am not sure that it can be, but even if it is, it must be borne in mind that the matter was very fully thrashed out some years ago. His second suggestion appeals to me with considerably more force. I think my right hon. Friend in a letter to my hon. Friend touched upon that suggestion some time in March last. It is that the Sheerness local authority should pay the Lower Medway Drainage Board a certain sum in lieu of drainage rates and in return the drainage board should make an order exempting them from the 954 rates. It has been done in other cases and I believe the arrangement has worked well. My right hon. Friend will be responsible for confirming the order, but he cannot initiate it. It must be put forward by the internal drainage board. At any rate what we are saying to-night will indicate that the method has worked elsewhere, and it does get over the difficulty of a rate-payer in a certain area receiving demand notes, not only from the local authority but also from the drainage board. We know by experience that leads to a number of complaints. But my hon. Friend must understand we cannot initiate that procedure although our duty will be to confirm such an order or otherwise. I am sure this discussion tonight has been profitable to that extent, and my right hon. Friend will have indicated to my hon. Friend some time ago that this method of procedure has worked to satisfaction, and might work to equal satisfaction if repeated in this case. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied to leave the matter as it stands at the present.

§ Mr. Maitland
May I be permitted to say that the Minister of Agriculture not having been able to be here to-night, I appreciate the reason for his absence, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions for his statement. Perhaps they can in some other way help me in this rather difficult matter.