Lords Sitting of 8 February 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have appointed a Committee of six members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Wednesday last, to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and that they have made the following Orders: That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; that three be the quorum.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
SALTBURN AND MARSKE-BY-THESEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
CHICHESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
DUDLEY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GATESHEAD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVERS BOARD AND GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LEE CONSERVANCY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
WEST YORKSHIRE GAS DISTRIBUTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PATENTS, ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1 [Mention of inventor as such in patent]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved to insert the following new subsection:
"(11) The mention of a claimant in a patent in pursuance of this section shall not confer, or derogate from, any rights under the patent."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, representations have been made that it is open to doubt whether a person who may be mentioned as the inventor in the patent under the provisions of this clause thereby obtains any rights in the patent itself. This has never been the intention, and the purpose of the new subsection is to make clear that he obtains no such rights.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Amendment of s. 5 of Merchandise Marks Act. 1887.
11. Section five of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall have effect as if there were inserted after subsection (2) thereof the following subsections—
"(2A) Goods delivered in pursuance of a request made by reference to a trade description contained in any sign, advertisement, invoice, wine list, business letter, business paper or other commercial communication, shall, for the purposes of paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, be deemed to be goods in connection with which the trade description is used."
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, after "Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," to insert "which relates, among other matters, to the application of a trade mark or trade description to goods by the use of the mark or description in a manner calculated to lead to the belief that the goods in connection with which it is used are designated or described by the mark or description." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely drafting. It is thought that comprehension of the clause will be facilitated by this description of the relevant provision of Section five of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.
Amendment moved—
Page 8 line 2, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the last three Amendments on the Paper deal with a single point. It has been represented that trade marks should be mentioned in this clause as well as trade descriptions. The provision of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, which is here in question, deals with trade marks and trade descriptions without distinction; and it is therefore suggested that a reference to trade marks should be included in the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 7, after ("a"), insert ("trade mark or").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out ("contained") and insert ("appearing")
Page 8, line 13, after ("the") insert ("trade mark or").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of powers of education authorities with regard to courses of instruction]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: On Clause 1 of the Bill perhaps I might give a reply to the question addressed to me on the Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Addison. He asked whether it was the fact that in some cases public assistance committees did deduct the cost of school meals given to children from the amount of public assistance given to the parents. At that time I told him that this question was not one which concerned entirely my right honourable friend at the Ministry of Labour, but I have been in communication with the Ministry of Health and I understand that while, strictly, all resources (other than those statutorily excluded) should be taken into account in computing public assistance, an informal inquiry made some years age as regards the practice of public assistance authorities in the case of school meals showed that a majority did not in fact take such meals into account when assessing relief. I hope that that reply will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask one question arising out of the noble Earl's reply? The account he has given relates to public assistance committees, but not to the administration of assistance by the Unemployment Assistance Board, which takes into account those receiving relief under the means test. Does his reply cover that case as well?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes, I think it does.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Certain employments to be insurable in like manner as employment in agriculture.
2.—(1) The employments specified in the Schedule to this Act shall on and after the fourth day of April nineteen hundred and thirty-eight be insurable employments for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, and those Acts and any regulations made thereunder before the commencement of this Act shall on and after the said date have effect as if the said employments were employment in agriculture, and references therein to employment in agriculture shall be construed accordingly.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words down to and including "those Acts" and insert "Every employment specified in the Schedule to this Act that is an employment specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall, on and after the fourth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, be an insurable employment for the purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, unless it is an excepted employment." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a purely drafting Amendment, which is necessary to make it clear that the employments mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill will not be brought into insurance if in any particular case they are barred from insurance by one of the general exceptions in the unemployment insurance scheme.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the second ("and") in line 18, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Treasury advances to Unemployment Fund.
(3) All sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section shall be repaid to that fund by the Treasury out of moneys borrowed by them for that purpose by means of terminable annuities created for terms ending on the thirty-first day of March nineteen hundred and seventy-one.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), after "under," to insert
620
"the foregoing provisions of". The noble Earl said: This Amendment confines the effects of subsection (3) of this clause to advances under subsection (1) and subsection (2), as has all along been the intention.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 34, after ("under") insert ("the foregoing provisions of").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Amendments as to discharged seamen, marines, soldiers and airmen.
(2) In subsection (7) of the said Section ninety-six the words "or who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil court" shall cease to have effect; and Section thirty of the principal Act (which relates to miscellaneous disqualifications for benefit) shall have effect as if at the end thereof there were inserted the following subsection:—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2), after "court," to insert ", or to any person who is discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of some importance. As the Bill now stands ex-Service men who have been discharged on account of fraudulent enlistment, receive no credit of contributions. It appears that the offence of fraudulent enlistment, as defined in the Army Act and the Air Force Act, is not more serious than some of those for which, under Clause 5 of the Bill, a six weeks' disqualification from benefit is provided. For this reason it is proposed to put fraudulent enlistment on the same footing as other offences on conviction for which men may be discharged from the Forces. Accordingly, a man discharged in consequence of proceedings under the Service Acts mentioned in the clause or by a Civil Court (whether for fraudulent enlistment or other cause) will receive a credit of contributions corresponding with the number of weeks of his service, but will be disqualified for the receipt of benefit for six weeks following the date of his discharge.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, after ("court") insert (", or to any person who is discharged on

621
account of fraudulent enlistment."—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("benefit") to ("during") in line 32.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
"Provisions as to Northern Ireland.
7.— (1) Any seaman, marine, soldier, or airman who is discharged or dismissed in consequence of having been convicted on any proceedings under the Naval Discipline Act, the Army. Act, or the Air Force Act, or by any civil court, shall be subject to the like disqualification for receiving benefit under the enactments relating to unemployment insurance in force in Northern Ireland as is imposed in relation to benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, by subsection (3) of Section thirty of the principal Act; and the provisions of the said subsection (3) as to evidence of such discharge or dismissal shall apply for the purpose of such enactments as they apply in relation to claims for benefit under the said Acts.
(2) The provisions of this Act other than this section shall not extend to Northern Ireland save in so far as they affect the provisions of the principal Act which extend to Northern Ireland."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really practically drafting, and the one following it is consequential on your Lordships accepting this new clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
"Short title, citation and extent.
8.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1937, and this Act and Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 and 1936, may be cited together as the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1937.
(2) Save in so far as it affects the provisions of the principal Act which extend to Northern Ireland, this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland"
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This is the consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[The Earl of Munster.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

GREAT OUSE FLOODING.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to ask what steps His Majesty's Government are taking or propose to take to safeguard against inundation in the Great Ouse area; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be within your Lordships' knowledge, as reported in the Press, that a short time ago the catchment board of the Great Ouse River came to the conclusion that they were unable to proceed with the major scheme necessary for that area because they were unable to raise the contribution of 25 per cent. of the total cost which His Majesty's Government were asking them to make. I should like to take this opportunity of asking your Lordships' House to review this matter because this marks another year of postponement, another year of dangerous drift in this very critical matter. It will be remembered that it was as lately as last March that we were sitting up at night listening to the bulletins from the British Broadcasting Corporation giving an account of the struggle of the people with the banks of the River Ouse, and of the imminent danger of inundation to that extremely valuable and important area. I have here on account, which seems quite recent, from the Daily Telegraph of March 16 last year, and it records the struggles by night and day which were going on for some considerable time in that place, and which, unless the present fine weather continues, may easily be repeated, perhaps 'with worse consequences, next March.
I would like to take this opportunity of asking your Lordships to review this case a little more closely. What is it that is in dispute all this time? The fact is that in this district, in which there are about 2,000,000 acres, good land, in the watershed of the Great Ouse, some half a million acres or more are more or less below the level of the river and need continual pumping to keep them free from water, and in some cases for miles beside the banks the land is five, ten, fifteen, and even eighteen feet below the level

623
of the river. The more efficient the drainage is—and great improvements have, of course, been made in that district in the internal drainage during the last twenty-five years—the greater is the danger, because the course of the river across the shallow waters of the Wash, for about four miles from King's Lynn outward into the sea, has been silting up gradually more and more until the channel across the shallows to the deep water of the Wash is insufficient to carry out water from the river. Therefore the more water is poured into the river by increasingly efficient internal drainage, the greater is the danger.
There is nothing new about this. This has been before the country for a very long time, and I remember that when it was my honour to introduce the Land Drainage Bill in another place several years ago I relied on the finding of your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may repeat it. This was the finding of the House of Lords in 1877:
"The Committee consider that if the channels and outfalls of rivers"—
I would call your Lordships' attention to that—
"were properly cared for, any water flowing into those rivers from their respective catchment areas might reasonably be expected to be discharged by them in sufficient time to render unlikely any serious damage to agricultural land by floods. We are cordially in agreement with this view."
And fifty-three years after that finding that extraordinarily sensible recommendation was embodied in an Act of Parliament. It shows how much sometimes your Lordships' House is in advance of the time. But I wish His Majesty's Government had been inspired by that example because the record of this case is most deplorable.
In 1921, when I was myself a member of the Government, this case was considered, and it was reported then that—
"there is no doubt that the Ouse and its tributaries are in a precarious state as the result of long-standing neglect."
That was the finding in 1921, and the Government of that day were considering making a large grant from national funds to deal with the business. But that Government came to an end shortly afterwards. There was a thing called the "economy campaign," and the result was that nothing happened. The case
624
came up again in 1926 and in that year the Government were considering a grant of £625,000 towards enabling this necessary scheme to be proceeded with. That passed out like several of its predecessors, and in 1928 there were very bad floods. The Commission on Land Drainage under Viscount Bledisloe made the recommendations which were subsequently embodied in the Land Drainage Act, and a catchment area board for the whole river was set up. The case in 1931 was regarded as so urgent that the Treasury found the money for the employment of the best engineers they could get and for the necessary plant. The best British engineers were employed together with a very eminent Dutch firm, and a scheme was finally approved by the Board which had just been appointed, and certain recommendations regarding it were made.
May I just say what the chief ingredients of that scheme were and still are? The first section, the vital section, is to deepen the channel across the shallow water so that the river can take away the waters that are discharged into it. It is not the slightest use improving pumping and all the rest of it unless that is done. It only makes matters worse. Another section was to clear the river from King's Lynn up to a certain place. A third section was to clear it from a point above the Denver sluice, cutting off the dangerous bend known as Magdalen Bend. Another section was to deepen the mid-channel at what is called the Hundred Foot River with a sluice at its lower end. Without giving particulars which it would be improper to disclose, I can say that—giving a figure which is not the correct figure but is within the mark—the estimates were that these schemes together would cost about £5,500,000. In addition to that, it is necessary that the higher lands of the River Ouse should be better drained than they are because an immense extent of valuable land stands to benefit, and the cost, unless prices rise very highly, will amount to £1,000,000 or more. Let us exclude that for the moment. This detailed scheme of 1931 was considered by the Government at that time. I was myself responsible for expressing certain views which were unanimously supported, and are still supported, by everybody, I should think, who has considered this case. We said that if this scheme were carried out in its entirety, because it is no use doing

625
it piecemeal—if you do one piece you may only make the position more dangerous in another place—it "will definitely remove the danger of widespread damage from flooding over some of the most valuable agricultural land in England." That is a statement which cannot be challenged.
There have been other schemes, but as far as I know, in the main, this is still accepted as fully necessary. But what has happened since 1931? The Government of that day cased to be, and since then there have been nibbles at this scheme. I shall tell your Lordships what they are. There have been four pieces undertaken on the river:—The repair and extension of certain training walls near King's Lynn at a cost of £115,000; two other parts at what is known as the South Level, one at a cost of £103,000 and the other at a cost of £236,000; and another small scheme costing £39,000. Notwithstanding this, unless Providence should assist us, the danger is as great as ever, and it will continue to be so. In fact it must get worse every year. The reason for the delay is the dispute between the Treasury and the authorities as to how much they should respectively pay. May I ask your Lordships to consider whether this case should not be treated on quite different lines from other cases? Under the Land Drainage Act, rates may be levied on the counties in the catchment area up to twopence—not more than that without the consent of the counties—and certain charges may be levied on the internal drainage authorities, generally up to a maximum of one shilling an acre.
At the present time, as compared with the other great rivers which are strictly comparable with the Ouse, these are the facts. The acreage in the Ouse area is a little over 2,000,000, and the land standing in danger of flooding is 554,00o acres. A penny rate in the area of the Ouse, which is almost entirely agricultural, yields £14,000 a year. There are three other rivers of similar extent, and these are the figures relating to them. The Thames has an area of 2,460,000 acres, of which 250,000 acres are in danger of flooding periodically; but a penny rate in the Thames area, which does not come below Teddington, yields £60,000 a year. The next is the Yorkshire Ouse. It has 2,600,000 acres, and a penny rate in the region of that river yields £80,000 a year. The only other area of similar
626
extent is the Trent with 2,500,000 acres and a penny rate which yields £88,000. In other words, you have got this case of a highly expensive scheme—more expensive than any other—in a district which is practically agricultural throughout. The cost, of course, bears no relation to the bank balances of the people who live upon its banks. Let us say the cost is £5,500,000 as a minimum. I suggest that it is foolish—nothing less—to wait for years and years haggling with the inhabitants and asking them to do the impossible.
It is not possible for this lowly-rated area to contribute on the same basis as, for example, you might fairly expect in the district of the Trent or the Thames or the Ouse in Yorkshire. This case stands by itself, and the dispute all along is over this single matter: Shall we allow an expenditure in proportion to the contributions demanded from the catchment area board? The most generous contribution hitherto made is 75 per cent. Some of these little schemes that I have mentioned are on the basis of 75 per cent. That leaves the authority to find 25 per cent. Let us say the scheme would take ten years to complete. The interest and sinking fund at 4½ per cent. would be £225,000 a year. What is the position of this hoard now? It levies at the moment the maximum rate upon the counties of twopence, and that yields about £28,000 a year. The whole of the counties are paying their maximum under the Act. They levy on the internal drainage authorities more than we anticipated in 1931. It was anticipated then that the maximum charge on the internal drainage authorities would be £22,000 a a year. At the present time it is £31,000, so that the rates levied by the board now bring in a revenue of £59,000 a year. What are their charges? The maintenance of the banks and their works—about which we heard so much on the wireless last year, as may easily occur again at any time—are exceedingly expensive. The maintenance charges and the administration of the works throughout the whole length of the river, as the accounts of the board show, are now £40,000 a year, in addition to which they have the loan charges on these and other capital works which have already been performed. Loan charges are £22,000 a year. At the moment, therefore, the authority is levying rates

627
to the maximum allowed under the Land Drainage Act. It is levying charges on the internal drainage authorities greater than were anticipated, and its costs this year are £62,000 and its revenue is £59,000.
I suggest that in those circumstances it is folly to hold this case up whilst we continue to interchange criticisms and animadversions with the authority year by year as to whether they are or are not able to contribute 25 per cent. of the interest and sinking fund charges which really would be required on the necessary scheme. It is impossible. I suggest that what ought to be done is that the scheme should be treated as was intended, as a national matter. I myself proposed a grant of 95 per cent. It has been regarded as a national matter for many years past, and I hope the spokesman of the Government will be able to tell us, in view of the exceptional character of the case, in view of the imminent danger to some of the best land in England, and in view of the fact that it is quite impossible to expect the local authorities to be able to pay this maximum sum towards what is required, that the Government have relented and are prepared to bring Papers before your Lordships to say they are willing to regard the case as an exceptional one, to make the large contribution that ought to be made, and to see that the work is got on with. I beg to move.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I trust you will give very careful consideration to the question which has been raised this afternoon before you approve of any grandiose, costly and expansive scheme of drainage, because we want to be assured if our money is spent—if in fact it is thrown into the sea, which it will be if the scheme envisaged by the noble Lord is carried out—that we shall get an adequate return for that vast expenditure. I hope your Lordships will view this question with open minds, and that great caution will be exercised to see that the money is not wasted. I venture to say this with great respect, because it fell to my lot many years ago to be Chairman of the Ouse Board. The Ouse Board was the largest drainage authority of its kind in the country at that time, and out of the Ouse Board there developed the catchment boards which, we all recognise, have done very useful administrative
628
work in draining the land of our country. This question, as the mover of this Motion said, is not by any means a new one. It has been debated for many years, even for generations, and the more closely it is studied the more difficult it is to find a solution which will really guarantee the results that we are out to attain.
To me it is somewhat strange that complaints should be made now of drift and postponement—I think those were the words used—by those who ignored the spacious opportunities of their period of office and refrained from doing anything themselves. It is they who have since become the principal protagonists of immediate and costly action. It has been suggested in some quarters that there is some kind of disagreement between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ouse Catchment Board. So far as the catchment board for the area and so far as the local authorities are concerned, I think I can say with complete confidence that there has been no disagreement except on financial grounds, on which of course there will always be disagreement. There has been no disagreement or unpleasantness between headquarters in Whitehall and the local authorities. They are working in the closest co-operation and in complete harmony to try to develop a scheme which will be really efficacious and will not be utterly ruinous either to the local ratepayers or to the nation as a whole, whose pockets it is our duty to study in this matter.
Major difficulties arise under several heads. As I have said, there is first of all the question of finance—where the money is to come from, who is to pay, and how is the burden of repayment to be borne and distributed. But over and beyond that there is also the engineering side of the question. By that I mean the question of deciding what will be the best possible scheme, one that will unquestionably and undoubtedly achieve the desired results and give immunity and protection from future floods. At present, so far as I am aware, there is only one scheme which has ever reached anything like a complete proposal, and that scheme has been prepared by a Dutchman. There are, however, engineers who criticise that scheme, and say that if carried into effect it will provide no guarantee as to the future safety of the fen districts. I would like to point out

629
that time has not been against us in this respect, because the Great Ouse Catchment Board, who have only limited resources, have accomplished much, and I think their work will greatly reduce and minimise the probability, although there must always be a possibility, of devastating floods.
If I may I would like to recite just one or two of the things they have done even during this last Coronation year. The main channels of the river have been scooped out and cleaned, the flow of the river is more rapid and more swift, and the very fact that the flow of the river is rapid and swift tends to scour out the bed of the river and keep it normal and gives it a better discharge. As to the banks they have been greatly strengthened since the anxious days of last year. They have been raised in places which were considered dangerous as much as a foot or even more. Pumping plant of exceptional capacity has been installed, and, although it may perhaps seem a small matter, elaborate schemes and plans have been prepared to control telephonically the weirs and sluices up and down the river so that the discharge of water shall take place as helpfully as it is possible to arrange. As the noble Lord has said, a large amount of money has been spent since the last floods. In the Middle Level something like £40,000 has been spent on strengthening and raising the height of the banks, in the South Level £200,000, while at the outfall £115,000 has been spent in order to carry out the training walls or banks which have to be made artificially further on from King's Lynn towards the open sea.
I would ask the permission of your Lordships to remind you of a few of the main features of this problem. At high tide the sea rushes up the channel from King's Lynn as far as Denver Sluice, which is closed against the tide, and the inland water is then, so to speak, stored or diverted into large lakes or basins where it is retained until the tide recedes and the sluice is again opened. One proposal is that of cleaning out the river bed from Denver Sluice down to King's Lynn, and I think most people who have studied the question are in sympathy with this. Undoubtedly it can be done with considerable advantage. There is, however, a major question and that is the construction of training walls to make a channel through which the landwater may
630
reach the deep sea and get away as quickly as possible. If I may, I would like to describe the method of building these training walls. You have to make a kind of mat like a wattled hurdle, of great size, reaching dimensions of 30 feet by 90 feet. These mats are made on the banks of the river and when a high tide rushes up they are floated off and anchored in the right position, where they are weighted down by heavy stones placed on them. The anchored mat quickly becomes covered with mud and then another mat is floated on top of it until gradually the walls are built up to the required height and carried out several miles where deep water is reached.
LORD ADDISON: May I ask whether the noble Lord can tell us how much that part of the scheme will cost? Is it a fact that it will cost £2,000,000?
LORD ELTISLEY: I am not prepared to talk in millions myself, but it will be costly. One of the difficulties is that it has not yet been definitely established beyond all doubt that these walls will have a really good life, nor do we know what will happen as the result of the tide coming in at a different angle. In fact, more data is required. That is why I venture to urge that we should go slowly in the matter so far as it means putting into effect a very costly scheme for making these training walls. We do not know enough to guarantee that the results will be such as we wish. I would also like to emphasise what the noble Lord has said as to the resources of the districts concerned. The people there cannot pay any more money. As the noble Lord pointed out, a penny rate only produces 14.cioo and we have reached the limit imposed by Parliament under the recent Act, which provided that not more than a twopenny rate should, except by general agreement, he levied. The rate now brings in £28,000, and another £31,000 is also raised from the district boards. Even so the total income is very small and more than two-thirds of it has to be spent on administration and on the ordinary work which is in hand and which must be done from year to year. Only some £20,000 is left for loan charges, which is insufficient, of course, even to begin to deal with a loan of the magnitude contemplated. Therefore there is no doubt that if a big scheme is to be carried out the whole burden ought to be, and

631
must be, borne by the taxpayers of the country as a whole.
One happy result of the great floods of last year—if such a thing as a happy result can be said to follow from a great flood—is that at any rate the risks of future flooding have been minimised because the banks have now been built higher and strengthened. I am glad to say too that in the small area where the river did break through the crops grown subsequently in that area were in most cases quite satisfactory. By no means all the food-producing value of that flooded area was lost. I would suggest incidentally that on many thousands of acres of land on the uplands a great stimulus would be given to larger production if there was more tile and mole draining; we should then get assured production on the land so drained. I venture to hope that your Lordships' House will not decide right away upon any scheme without giving further consideration to the huge expenditure entailed in building these training walls out into the sea. The old training walls have recently been extended. Let us see the result of that extension. It cannot perhaps be said that the training walls will be useless, or that it is a wrong policy to continue building them, but before more money is spent we want to know whether the policy is right. Therefore, I suggest that we should go slowly until authoritative engineering opinion has crystallised definitely in favour of the ambitious and very costly scheme now envisaged.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, the House will, I am sure, appreciate that the noble Lord who moved this Motion has broached a subject upon which he is qualified to speak with authority and with very great knowledge. As the noble Lord has told us, he was responsible for the task of piloting through Parliament the Land Drainage Act of 1930. In view of the severe floods that occurred in the district last March your Lordships will doubtless share the noble Lord's anxiety regarding the future of that area, and the possible risk of further inundation, and for that reason I am glad of the opportunity of making a statement of the Government's position.
632
The noble Lord has pointed out the great importance of the Great Ouse catchment area. He has told us that its total area is over 2,000,000 acres—one of the largest in England—and it is unique in some respects. Not only is one-quarter of the area known as lowland but the greater part of that lowland area lies below the high tide level. Therefore if all the drainage works fell into disrepair the area would revert to a swamp as it was originally. This lowland area, as the noble Lord has said, comprises some of the finest agricultural land in England. This is a result of the work some 300 years ago of an eminent Dutch engineer by the name of Sir Cornelius Vermuyden. Unfortunately the work begun by him 300 years ago has not been maintained in the way in which it should have been maintained, with the result that the main drainage system, on which all the minor drainage systems depend for the release of their flood waters, has become more and more inadequate.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with a detailed survey of the history of land drainage in the Great Ouse area for the last seventeen years. I do, however, wish to refer to a Bill that was introduced into Parliament in 1927 for dealing with the peculiar conditions of this area. After a protracted fight, that Bill appeared before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and was rejected. The reasons for its rejection should, I think, be more readily understood when it is realised that the Bill contained proposals relating to the raising of money for drainage purposes which were quite new to the then existing drainage legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has said, a Royal Commission had at that time been set up to investigate the question of drainage generally, and it was about to issue its Report at the time the Ouse Bill was rejected. The recommendations of this Royal Commission, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was a member, were adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, when he was Minister of Agriculture and were passed into law by the 1930 Act, as a result of which the Ouse Catchment Board was set up.
In spite of the rejection of the 1927 Bill dealing with the Ouse area, it must not be thought that no work was proceeding in the area before that date. Up to 1930 no less than £740,000 had been,

633
or was in the process of being, spent in the Ouse catchment area. Of this sum the Government found some £414,000. Since 1930 the Ouse Catchment Board have initiated some seven schemes, estimated to cost £584,000, with grants varying from 5o to 75 per cent. A grant of 75 per cent. is the standard grant promised in 1935 in respect of future schemes in the Ouse catchment area. It was natural to hope that the constitution of the catchment board, arising out of the noble Lord's Drainage Act of 1930, with all the new powers of raising revenue, would have led to a comprehensive scheme being started. We have heard from the noble Lord that to assist the catchment board the Ministry of Agriculture had obtained a definite scheme of work prepared by a large firm of contractors in Holland, and it was estimated at that time that the cost of those works would be approximately £6,000,000. The purpose was to put the main rivers of the area in an effective condition to take away flood waters.
The catchment board expressed their willingness to carry out that scheme on condition that a grant of 95 per cent. was forthcoming from the Government. The noble Lord has recalled to mind that he himself advocated a grant of that percentage, but I am given to understand that he failed to obtain the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day. He will remember that the proposal to make this large grant was finally rejected after the Labour Government had been succeeded by the first National Government; but, of course, I would remind the noble Lord that that Government had the same Chancellor as the Labour Government.
LORD ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Earl on a point of history? The statement that my proposal was rejected is not correct. The matter was still under discussion between the Departments when the Government passed out of existence, and had not been before the Cabinet at all.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said. I said that he did not obtain sanction for his application and it was finally rejected when the Labour Government was succeeded by the National Government. But that is past history. What is the present position? As the
634
noble Lord has said, at a meeting held on January 27 the catchment board decided that their resources did not allow them to carry out a comprehensive scheme unless a Government grant of more than 75 per cent. of the total cost was made. I should here say that this decision was not intended to affect the carrying out of certain specific work in what is known as the Marsh Cut, which is estimated to cost £250,000.
In considering the attitude of the Ouse Board one should refer to the revenue of that board. My figures are approximately the same as the noble Lord's, but not exactly. From precepts on internal drainage boards some £31,000 is obtained. The product of a twopenny rate from the county councils is £28,000, and with miscellaneous receipts of approximately f 6,0o0 the total is £65,000. Of this total revenue some £10,000 is earmarked for administration and nearly £34,000 for maintenance. I believe the noble Lord mentioned the figure of £40,000.
LORD ADDISON: Yes, I gave the two together.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg your pardon. The balance is available for loan charges. Although the catchment area is almost wholly rural and its assessable value must therefore necessarily be low, it must not be assumed from the figures we have discussed in this debate that the Ouse Catchment Board is unable to tackle a comprehensive scheme. I think there can be little doubt that with a united effort by the various interests which are represented on the catchment board—namely, the uplanders, the fenmen and the county representatives—a great deal might have been clone and a comprehensive scheme might at least have been got under way. The chief difficulty seems to have been the objection to raising the rate in excess of twopence from the county councils.
With your Lordships' permission perhaps I may explain to the House the significance of this figure of the twopenny rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Addison, has already informed the House, the Land Drainage Act lays down that a county or county borough council in the catchment area cannot be precepted for anything in excess of the product of a twopenny rate except with the consent of the majority of their representatives on

635
the catchment board. The noble Lord in his speech said that the twopenny rate was the maximum under the provisions of the Land Drainage Act. The noble Lord, I know, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the rate in question is being exceeded at the present time in the case of no fewer than four catchment boards—namely, the Rother, the Waver and Wampool, the Derwent and the Ancholme. Other areas have exceeded the rate in the past, and in several others, so far as the financial position of the boards can be forecast, the twopenny rate will have to be exceeded when works now undertaken are in full operation—for example, the East Norfolk rivers, the Witham, the Cuckmere, the Nene and the Essex rivers, all of which will have to exceed the twopenny rate when their schemes are in full operation. We may wonder, therefore, why it is found impossible to exceed the rate in the Greater Ouse catchment area, where, as both noble Lords have said, land drainage is such a vital service. Failing an increase in the twopenny rate which is obtained from the county councils, the internal drainage districts are the only other source of supply, and, as your Lordships are aware, these districts are already shouldering a very heavy burden, the total rates sometimes amounting to between 10s. and 20s. in the pound. Whether, therefore, a slightly larger burden can be placed upon these districts or not, I think it would be quite impossible to contemplate such a burden unless the county councils are willing that the amount of the precept on themselves should also be increased.
Finally, I would like to deal with a suggestion which has been made that the State should increase its grant above 75 per cent., and thus undertake to meet practically the entire cost of a comprehensive scheme. In the first place the noble Lord, Lord Addison, will agree that the Land Drainage Act, 1930, clearly imposed land drainage as an essentially local service on the local authorities constituted under that Act, including the new catchment boards. Nevertheless the State, recognising the obligations which had been imposed upon the Ouse Catchment Board, were willing to draw on the general taxpayer to the extent of a grant of 75 per cent. of the total cost of the necessary works. This is the highest percentage
636
offered to any catchment board, and I would say that it would be quite improper for any local authority to refuse to carry out its statutory duties because they were dissatisfied with the rate of the Government assistance which is provided. Your Lordships are aware that land drainage is not the only local service which attracts Government grants. I can instance the assistance derived from the purse of the general taxpayer for education and for highways, and, my Lords, surely an impossible situation would arise if there were a general, refusal on the part of the statutory local authorities to carry their work out on this account.
Secondly, as I have already pointed out, the Ouse catchment area is unique in certain respects in that it contains some of the finest agricultural land in the country. Without an adequate land drainage service this land, of which the noble Lord made specific mention, could not be cultivated at all, and the comparatively few towns scattered throughout the area to a large extent owe their existence to the industry of agriculture. I think it is going farther than justice to allow it to be implied from this debate that the agriculturists represented in the area of the catchment board cannot go further than that contribution which they have already made to the revenue of the board. Further, without an effective land drainage service we recognise that in that area other public services would be rendered absolutely ineffective. A part of the 500,000 acres to which the noble Lord referred is below the high tide level of the sea, and it is recognised that if drainage is not maintained the place will become an entire swamp. Cambridge itself is largely dependent on the University, but it is to some considerable extent dependent upon the agricultural interest, and it would suffer immensely if inundation on a large scale were to take place in that area. Therefore it would seem proper that the boroughs, as well as the country districts, should be prepared to exceed the twopenny rate in order to safeguard not only the agricultural interest but the whole interests of the area.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture feels that the recent decision of the catchment board is ill-advised, and he is not prepared to raise the percentage beyond 75 per cent.; but

637
having said that I would add that he would be extremely sorry to see work in the catchment area brought to a standstill, and steps have already been taken, in the last few days, to invite the Ouse Catchment Board to co-operate with the Ministry in exploring how far work of a substantial nature can continue without the catchment hoard being forced to commit themselves to the extent of any final total sum. In this way every effort will be made to secure that the work is continued, and not brought to a stop. I regret that I can hold out no hope to the noble Lord that the existing grant will be increased, but I rather think that this reply will satisfy my noble friend Lord Eltisley, when he remarks that from his point of view he is anxious that the
638
development of drainage should be on a steady scale, not progressing too far until the work that has already been accomplished has shown the value it can be to the full and comprehensive scheme.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am of course exceedingly disappointed at the reply of the noble Earl, but it was exactly what I expected. He said it very graciously, and presented a very bad case with much charm. I know it is quite useless to divide your Lordships' House on my Motion and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.