« ZurückWeiter »
19° Julii, 1927.] Captain JOHN COUCH ADAMS ROSEVEARE.
£85,830 for other than agricultural land, multiplying the one by the 23.29d. and the other by 7.76d., I make it that King's Lynn will be expected to pay on that Now basis £3,465. a penny rate in King's Lynn produces £320, therefore it means that the actual rate in King's Lynn, by reason of compounding, and so on, would be something nearer 11d. than the 7.73d. ?-That might be so.
1818. If you please. That, of course, is a very material fact and figure to be considered, is not it? That £3,465 on your calculation is something like onesixteenth of the total cost, is it not? It is just rather more than one-sixteenth of the £52,784 that is shown in Column 9, which is the annual cost ?-I have not worked that out. I will accept your statement that it is.
1819. Can you give me the area of King's Lynn, or will you accept it from me as being 3,175 acres?-Yes, I have the area here as 3,067.
1820. I think the actual area is 3,175 acres; we need not quarrel about that?— You have a little more.
1821. The total area of the proposed Ouse Drainage Board over which the rate would be levied is 420,926, is not it?— The area is 430,907 according to Column 4 of the Table.
1822. 430,000, is it ?-430,907.
Mr. Campbell.] May we ask where these figures are being taken from?
Mr. Jeeves.] I am working on this Table which my learned friend calls the panorama Table. That is the second day.
Mr. Macmillan.] He is applying some of his own figures to this Table.
why it should not be so. I do not admit it would be unfair if it were so.
1828. Particularly, does it strike you as a fair proposition when, as we have heard from Mr. Binnie, King's Lynn is amply protected by its own works and has no problem of drainage to solve?Are you putting it to me that that is the fact?
1829. That is Mr. Binnie's evidence. In the light of that evidence, does the proposition I am putting to you look as though it were a fair one?-No; 1 do not admit that it is unfair if that is the case. As a matter of fact, the fraction works out at 1/140th, does it not?
1830. That is the figure I gave you?— I thought you said 1/14th.
1831. It does not stop there, does it, because being part of Norfolk County we shall have to pay, according to this, the additional rate of 1.092d. in the £ of the County rate, should not we?— You would have to pay your share of the County contribution.
1832. That is put for the County as a whole at 1-092d.; is not that the figure? -The figure that I had.
1833. 1.091d. in column 23?-Not only that, having sought to charge us with something that would work out at something like 11d. rate, a further rate of 1d. for County purposes in respect of an area which Mr. Binnie has told us is amply protected, you then seek by further provision to say that if there is any benefit to King's Lynn in the way of benefit to the trade or the port, the Borough Council are to pay a capital according to what somebody or other estimates the benefit to King's Lynn to be?-That is so.
1834. Further than that, it does not even stop there, does it, because you are asking that not only should the King's Lynn Corporation pay, but that the Conservancy Board and the Dock Board should also pay, and there again the Corporation are interested, having found capital moneys for those bodies?There is such a provision that the Conservancy Board should pay, I think, in the Bill. It is a joint contribution as I understand it.
1835. Of course, if King's Lynn were to be omitted then the burden on the remaining area would be proportionately heavier? That is so.
1836. In considering the desirability of these works or otherwise, you would
19° Julii, 1927.] Captain JOHN COUCH ADAMS ROSEVEARE.
agree, would you not, that an important factor is the ability of the districts sought to be charged to bear the burden sought to be put upon them?—That is exactly what is provided for in the Bill. 1837. That is a question. You gave certain percentages as the increase of population as between 1871 and 1921?—
1838. As a matter of fact there has been very little in King's Lynn, has there? I have not considered King's Lynn particularly. I have not the individual figures here of the parishes, although it would have been counted in the total.
1839. We have a population to-day of 20,000; in 1871 the census population was 16 562. Since then there has been an extension of area which had a population of round about 2,000, so that that would bring the original population of the area to about 18,562, and to-day 20,000. We are very much as we were in 1871, are not we, on those figures? -That would appear to be the case.
1840. That is right, is not it? That would appear to be so.
Cross-examined by the Hon. EVAN
1841. The latest change in the Bill saves me asking you a number of questions, and therefore I will confine my cross-examination to the general points on which you gave evidence yesterday. You gave evidence, did not you, before the Royal Commission which is now sitting on this very question?—I did.
1842. Had you at that time given much study to the Ouse?-I had, yes.
1843. Am I right in saying that before the Royal Commission you advocated, amongst other things, Drainage Boards with jurisdiction over the whole catchment area?—I did.
1844. And did you also say with regard to the level this, on page 72, Question 1594. You were asked by the Chairman "I on your evidence this question: gather that you do not think that on the usual interpretation of the word ' benefit' as applied to drainage a drainage rate could be charged on land over 8 feet above flood level. Is that your view? (A) That is so, my Lord." That was the view you expressed to the Royal Commission?-That was.
1845. Then was it your view before the Royal Commission-and this was only
six weeks ago, was not it?-I will express it again now if you wish.
1846. I was sure you would?-Perhaps it might save questions.
1847. I was sure you would. not suggesting for a moment you would not. Did you also suggest before the Royal Commission that owing to the works that were proposed under the Bill which is now before this Committee, you anticipated that there would be accretion at the mouth of the Ouse, and that that land should be subject to acquisition by the State?-Under certain conditions, yes. What I said was, I think, that the works proposed to be carried out and it was not necessarily applied only to the Ouse-would have the effect of accelerating accretion.
1848. This is what I see you said in your memorandum : "In view of the fact that considerable sums of public money are expected to be expended in extending the training walls of the Ouse and Welland into The Wash in the near future, and that these works are likely to accelerate the rate of natural accretion along the southern shore of that great estuary, I think steps might be taken to retain for the State some of the benefit of those works." Then you anticipate that there will be along this shore an accretion which will benefit the area?-Benefit what area, Sir?
1849. You go on to explain that in the ordinary course- ? I think my statement is perfectly clear.
1850. I am not suggesting for a moment- -?-That is what I exactly believe. You said "benefit this area." Which area?
1851. Please understand I am not putting this to you by way of criticism in this sense at all. I wish to bring out before this Committee what were the things you advocated before the Royal Commission and to show they are not in this Bill before them to-day?-That is your object?
1852. Yes. In that I shall refute those statements that I say anything different. What I said you read correctly; that is the position. You say that therefore those lands will be benefited. I wish to know which lands you refer to which will receive benefit.
1853. What I am saying is that you in this memorandum suggest that there will be an accretion?-Certainly.
19° Julii, 1927.] Captain JOHN COUCH ADAMS ROSEVEARE.
1854. At the mouth of the Ouse?Certainly.
1855. Which will be of value?-Yes, certainly.
1856. And your suggestion is that the State should have a claim to it?-Certainly, under certain conditions.
1857. I do not mean value to lands in existence, but there is going to accumulate as the result of those works an accretion which will be of value?Certainly.
1858. And as at present the law provides that will be acquired by the frontagers?-Certain of it.
1859. Certain of it, yes?-I made that clear in the evidence.
1860. Those are the three main topics which I think you dealt with before the Royal Commission, Captain Roseveare, and I only want to suggest this difficulty, that if the Royal Commission adopt the suggestions which you made, their Report will differ from the provisions which are in this Bill before this Committee?---No, I think not.
1861. Let us see again. You suggested, first of all, a Drainage Committee for the whole of the catchment area?-Yes.
1862. Is there any provision of that kind in this Bill?-Certainly.
1863. A Drainage Board for the whole area?-A Drainage Board for the whole
1867. But I want to take the Bill as it is before the Committee. That is fair both to you, to me, and to the Committee?-The only difference, let me say the only possible difference, could be in what you define as lowlands.
1868. As lowlands?-As lowlands.
1869. What do you mean?-Exactly what I say. The only difference in anything in this Bill and anything I advocated could be in what might be called lowlands here, and might be called lowlands in any general measure.
1870. Then am I to take it that your view is that the Ouse Board as constituted on page 31 of this Bill is a Board
for the whole of the drainage area?—It says so, certainly.
1871. I shall have an opportunity of dealing with that later. Then with regard to the 8 feet level, that is the level which you suggested to the Royal Commission should be of universal application?-Yes.
1872. Therefore if the Royal Commission ? What I said was I considered it was a reasonable line to take as an average throughout the country.
1873. Perhaps it would be fair that 1 should read exactly what you said, Captain Roseveare, because after giving the answer which I have just read at Question 1594, at Question 1595 you said this -the Chairman again asked you; I think he was Lord Bledisloe?—Yes.
1874. "Is there any particular virtue in your opinion in 8 feet as universally applied"? and you said, "When I say that is my view, I think I have made it clear that it is considerably harder to prove benefit to lands which lie 8 feet above flood than those which lie 5 feet above flood."-Certainly.
1875. You think I am putting this by way of criticism. I assure you I am not:" than those which lie 5 feet above flood or those that lie at flood level. I will not say that it is impossible to prove benefit above 8 feet above flood, but I do distinctly say that I think that 8 feet above flood level is a reasonable line to take for the purpose of rating lands under the existing law."-Yes.
1876. That was your view before the Royal Commission?-Exactly; I say it again now.
1877. I put it to you that if the Royal Commission adopt the view which you expressed, they will come to a conclusion which is inconsistent with the provisions of this Bill?-No, I think not.
1878. You do not? Why not?-Because I say I am not particularly wedded to that, although I think it perfectly reasonable.
1879. I do not know about being particularly wedded to it, but you say here -?-Surely it is only a matter of degree?
1880. You definitely laid down before the Royal Commission that 8 feet-? -Is a reasonable line.
1881. No is the line which should be adopted? Is a reasonable line, surely, from that evidence?
1882. Did you put it forward as being a reasonable line that it should be
19° Julii, 1927.] Captain JOHN COUCH ADAMS ROSEVEARE.
adopted, or that it should not be adopted? It is not for me to say that it should.
1883. But you put it forward as a line which should be adopted?-Which might be adopted.
1884. Which should be ?-It had been adopted ever since 1918, and therefore I consider it is a reasonable one, and I said so, and you have read the evidence.
1885. We will leave it. At any rate whether it is reasonable or should be adopted, it is not adopted in this Bill?— No, this Bill is, if anything, below that certainly.
1886. Now I come to the question of contribution from the Uplands, and I have one or two questions only to ask you. The works that are proposed here I think we are all agreed are for the purpose of benefiting the Fen Lands?-They are for the voiding of the water which it is necessary to void from the whole catch
1887. Yes, but for the benefit, I suppose, of the Fen country really?—The direct benefit would undoubtedly be on the area which is defined as the lowlands.
1888. May I put it in another way? If there were no Fenlands would these drainage works be necessary?-That is an hypothesis that would be rather hard to answer. The Fen is there, and that is the problem we have to deal with.
1889. The Fenlands being there are these works necessary for their improvement? They are necessary for the maintenance of the whole area.
1890. I cannot accept that answer. want to know whether if the Fenlands were not there-there was a time when they were not there?-Oh, no; the Fens always existed there.
1891. You know what I mean?—They were true Fens then.
1892. This was a derelict area. If it was again a derelict area would these works be necessary?—Necessary for what purpose? They would be necessary for draining the area, certainly.
1893. I think you must appreciate what I mean.-They would be necessary for draining the area.
1894. For draining which area?-For draining the whole area properly.
1895. Why? Because I cannot imagine that the rest of the Counties round would
like that area an inland lake, a swamp, to exist in their midst.
1896. But it is because the land is there and it is to prevent it becoming a swamp that these works are necessary? -Exactly what I am saying, but it also is for the voidance of the water from the whole cachment area.
1897. Are these works, or are they not, necessary for the improvement of the Fenlands? They will improve the Fenlands.
1898. Have you made any calculation as to the extent to which they are going to improve the value of the Fenlands?No.
1899. You have not?-No.
1900. Should I be right in saying they will improve the Fenlands to a difference between 5s. and 10s. an acre and 30s. to 40s. an acre?-I am not expressing an opinion on that. I do not think I am in a position to.
Mr. Riley.] In annual value?
1904. May I read this passage from page 49 of the Report: Any failure of efficient drainage practically destroys the letting value of Fen land for agricultural purposes." It is about halfway down: Properly drained Fen land has at the present time a rental value of from 30s. to 40s. per acre, whereas lands badly drained and subject to the risk of summer flood, and devoid of a clay subsoil, will not realise more than from 5s. to 10s. per acre." Are you able to give the Committee any figures showing the amount of land which at present realises from 5s. to 10s. an acre, and which, by the result of your works, will reach the value which is indicated in that paragraph?-No.
19° Julii, 1927.]
Captain JOHN COUCH ADAMS ROSEVEARE.
1905. I just want to get clearly in my mind, if you will assist me to do so, exactly what the grounds are on which you advocate the payment by the Uplands of a contribution. Would you
enumerate them?-I am not sure that that is a matter for me to deal with.
1906. I would have hesitated to ask the question unless you had dealt with it before the Royal Commission, and unless you had dealt with it in your evidence-in-chief here yesterday? Of course, anything that I dealt with in evidence here I shall be pleased to carry on with.
1907. Then I propose to carry on with it, if I may, and if you would tell me precisely so that I may know exactly what it is that you have in your mind, what the reasons are on which you advocate the Uplands paying a contribution. You have not them in your head? --I think I had them in order here.
1908. Could you give me them in this order without looking at that paper?In what order.
1909. In any order?-As regards the heading under which one might ask for contribution I do not attach any importance to what you call it, whether you call it one thing or another.
1910. Contribution or rate, you mean? -Yes.
1911. Let us call it contribution if you do not mind?—Yes. I say that it
is fair that all lands which drain by the channels in any catchment basin should contribute something towards the maintenance of the main drains of the area-the main rivers, that would be.
1912. That I quite understand as general answer to the question, but now would you give the reasons which led you to come to that conclusion?-One reason I put forward was that the water which comes down from a catchment area at the present time is not coming in the natural way, and I quoted figures, I think, to show there had been alterations in the natural conditions in the catchment area; therefore there should be a contribution on that score.
1913. That the water which is coming down is not coming down in the natural order of things; is that it? Yes.
1914. I follow. Now let us pause there for a moment. Let us take the county which I am dealing with at the moment -Norfolk. What is there going on in Norfolk which suggests that the water is not coming down in the natural order
of things. Is it as you put before the Royal Commission-?-I did not go into Norfolk particularly.
1915. No, that is just why I want to whether this applies to Norfolk areas? It was general evidence.
1916. This is what you said before the Royal Commission: "Further, as a rule, the towns in every catchment basin are within the Uplands, and it has already been pointed out that the run-off from towns is very much greater than from agricultural land."-Yes.
1917. "All these considerations would point to uplands paying more than lowlands "?-On the score of rainfall and run-off only, that was.
1918. Would you show me any area in Norfolk which is included in the Uplands which corresponds with the reason which you there give for including Uplands as the proper source of contribution?-It is quite probable that Norfolk is a case where there are not many towns of that description.
1919. Are there any?-In fact there not. I question whether there is any other than King's Lynn in the catchment basin.
1920. Would it be correct to say there is not one?-I should say probably that is so. There is Thetford, but whether that is actually in Norfolk or not I am not certain.
1921. You are quite right; there is Thetford and there is Swaffham?-Yes, Narborough, of course, is not very large.
1922. What would be your idea of the population of Thetford ?-I do not know; I know the size of it very well, but I do not know what you would call it in population.
1923. If we take the urban area of Thetford, would you have any idea of what the population per acre is in that area? I have certain particulars here.
1924. Would you take it from me that it is nearly two acres to a person?-I have the acreage of the Municipal Borough of Thetford about 7,000 acres, and the population unfortunately not stated.
1925. The population to-day is 4,700? -Yes.
1926. Do you call that an urbanised area in the sense in which you were dealing with it before the Royal Commission as a reason for justifying the inclusion of the Uplands?-I should say so.
1927. Is that the sort of thing you had in your mind?-I had in mind all the