Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury state what business will be taken on Monday?

On Monday, the Vote for the Ministry of Health will be put down in Committee of Supply, and, if time permits, opportunity will be given for discussion of a Motion dealing with the question of the Channel Tunnel.

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 the Ministry is giving grants of 50 per cent., or on some other basis.

"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."

Is that halfpenny on the precept in the upland area, or including the whole area?

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.

Is that for 30 years?

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 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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In asking the Minister to withdraw the Resolution, may I not mention the reasons why I should like him to withdraw it?

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

They do not apply at all.

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.

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- 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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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——

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

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 industry, and yet Parliament keeps on increasing the burdens and making it more difficult for industry to revive.

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?

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.

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.

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.

I will put down an Amendment.

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 I am affected with the parsimonious tendencies of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

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

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?

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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?

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.

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- ing power in the Consolidation Bill to be repeated in the Resolution which covers it?

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.

But the Bill is a Consolidation Bill.

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.

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

Certainly.

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."

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.

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.

May I formally move the Amendment, in order to make the situation absolutely clear?

May I not have an answer to the question which I put?

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.

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."

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.

"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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

I do not think we have had an answer.

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 rising in turn asking about the 50 per cent. The hon. Member is the third who has done it.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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- 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.

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?

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.

I should like to ask a question in regard 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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

I am asking for an assurance.

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

If that is so, I frankly accept your Ruling.

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.

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.

I desire to ask the Minister one or two questions on this Resolution. I put to him just now two very simple questions, but he did not answer them, and I should like now to ask him how it is that we have three or four Scottish harbours which are getting tremendous remissions of debt, while it is almost impossible for any English harbour to get such remissions. It is no use saying that this is done simply in the ordinary course of public business because these debts cannot be collected. I know that many of our West Country harbours are just as badly off, and I think we are entitled to know why it is that the harbours in this list are getting these remissions. Is it, possibly, that the Secretary of State for Scotland takes a tour round Scotland and says that this harbour and the other harbour must have a remission? I ask because I feed sure that the Secretary of State will be desirous of helping me in this matter. I am not attacking him, but we do want an explanation. I ask him partly because I have already tried and failed to get an explanation, and partly because a particular harbour in which I am definitely and clearly interested has been extraordinarily badly treated in this respect, while many other harbours in the West Country, of which I have considerable knowledge, are in a very difficult position. We get no other chance of approaching the Treasury in a friendly way, as I am doing at this moment, and asking how it is possible so to approach this body that we may get definite relief as well. If these questions can be answered for me, either by the Financial Secretary or by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I shall not oppose the Resolution.

I do not think that it rests with me to suggest to the hon. Member how he can get money remitted by the Treasury. I can only say that, if he wants any particular place to have some remission which seems to him to be in the public interest, he must make application. I cannot go beyond that. If I knew some royal road, it obviously would not be my duty to tell him what it was, but I do not know of any royal road, and, therefore, although from his own point of view I wish him well, from the point of view of the Treasury and of the public purse I am bound to with that he will not succeed in getting a remission.

Perhaps the royal road will be declared to me by the Secretary of State for Scotland, seeing that these are all Scottish harbours, and, accordingly, I would put the question to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him how it happens that all these Scottish harbours and no English harbours are included. If he will give me some idea as to how it is that they all happen to concern his Department, I will then endeavour to let him have the Resolution. I feel sure that he can give me an answer.

I assure the hon. Member that these remissions are not brought about by the Secretary of State for Scotland, but are given on the definite recommendation of the Treasury. The remissions have all been very carefully considered, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated that the Public Works Loan Board are satisfied that these debts are not likely to be recovered before they are scheduled for remission. As my hon. Friend has already pointed out, a fairly long explanation is given, in the Financial Statement attached to the Bill, of the reasons why the Public Works Loan Board find it necessary to remit the debt in each of these cases. I can assure the hon. Member that not a single one of these remissions has been made without the most careful consideration and without very good reasons. I could give the reasons if it were necessary to elaborate them, but I do not think it is, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish me to do so. I hope, because some harbour on the west coast of England has not got the remission of debt to which the hon. Member thinks it is entitled, he will not make that a reason for preventing us from getting this Resolution.

I am afraid the reply of the Financial Representative of the Treasury is of such a nature that, between now and the Committee stage of the Bill, I shall have to go through these things with very great care, and may have to omit the whole of them.