HC Deb 15 April 1920 vol 127 cc1929-51

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. TOWNLEY

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

I do not move this Amendment in any spirit of opposition to the very laudable idea of the Minister of Agriculture in improving the drainage of the country, but because I understand that this is the only opportunity there will be to bring this matter to the attention of the House, as the Bill will be sent to the Private Bill Committee after Second Reading, and it will not be open to us to discuss it there. Therefore, I have taken the step of bringing it before the notice of the House now. I do so fully realising that I am open to the charge of taking up the time of the House on a matter which may be looked upon as parochial or, at any rate, a small affair. I sincerely hope that that is not the case. I hope that this is the beginning of very big action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. It is a very big departure in connection with the drainage system of the country and the liability of carrying away the water. I believe I am correct in saying that hitherto it has been the unwritten law of the land that a man living in the lower reaches of a river is responsible for the conveyance to the sea of the water that comes down to him from the upper reaches. The power which is sought to be enforced by this Bill will do away with that, and will bring in an entirely new principle, and for the future those living in the upper reaches of a river will have to contribute to the cleansing of the lower portions as well as doing out in their entirety their own portions, for which they will receive no help from those residing lower down the stream and occupying lands on both sides. I am quite aware of the fact that this Ouse Drainage Board has been asked for by the seven county councils that are affected—Norfolk, the Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, part of Suffolk, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. The county council of Huntingdon is now petitioning against the Bill. I make no remark as to the county council of Bedfordshire beyond saying that I have reason to know that it passed its resolution to support this Measure without realising what had taken place. Therefore, I discount at once the charge that may be levelled against me that I am opposing a Measure which has been asked for by the county council of the county for which I have the honour to sit in this House.

This is not a river which rushes down to the sea from a high bed, in which people may be fortunate enough to catch salmon. It is one of the slowest flowing rivers in the country, but it is a river which is the means of draining one of the most healthy, fertile and prosperous districts of this land. In ancient days this river passed down through high land, and when it arrived at the place, Earith, which to my mind is somewhat important, at the boundary of the counties Huntingdon and Cambridge, it spread itself over the marsh land, the fens, which lay below, the river itself in various streams passing away to Ely on the right and Wisbech on the left. It did not matter to the men on the other reaches of the river what happened to the water when it got down to Earith The great point to them was to have the lands above drained and have free access to the water, and from that point of view it was for the men below to take charge of the water. They realised that here were great open fields, a plain of land which was useless for the purpose of cultivation and the production of food, though valuable indeed as a resort for those who were fond of shooting wild fowl and, possibly, fishing the coarser sorts of fish. They realised that there was a great potential future in this land, and so they set to work to reclaim it.

So as time passed on we have seen the reclamation of these fens. We have seen what was a barren marsh converted into fertile fields of the most productive land probably in this country. How was it done? That river in the old days meandered in various directions before it got to the sea. It was like one of the hon. Gentlemen whom we sometimes see in this House leaving the Treasury Bench, finding their way to the Back Benches on this side and then crossing to the other side. These men wished to develop that land. They took the straight course that has been taken by certain Members on the Treasury Bench of going straight to the Bench opposite. It is the quicker way to get there, the quicker way to get the waters from the upper reaches to the sea. So they cut two large streams. They cut one first in the old Bedford river and then they cut the other. Between these streams were left fertile stretches of grass land called "washes." These are valuable lands. They were then converted to what were known as summer lands. People only looked forward to using those lands in summer for the purpose of grazing cattle. When they found the great success attending their work they set to work and turned this into winter land as well. It is now producing fine crops of food, potatoes, various vegetables and corn. These washes are naturally kept under grass, valuable grass, which has been let at up to £6 an acre.

The men who did this had allotted to them what was known as adventurers' land in payment of what they had done. It was no mean thing and they did well, and I believe that I am right in saying they carried out well the work which they undertook to do. I know that there was a law case and there was a fight as to whether the old Bedford river and the river which adjoined it had been done out properly and the matter was, I believe, left to the judgment of the King, Charles II. All that was long ago. Time has gone on and nothing has been done since, and it looks as if nothing would be done and the fens are undoubtedly now in a very dangerous condition. I have ventured to trespass on the time of the House as I am more interested in this matter, and more associated with it than perhaps any other gentleman on these Benches. I happen to be Chairman of the Company that has charge of the river from Lynn to the sea. I have been accused of being the evil genius of the fens, inasmuch as I have not done my duty to the river at Lynn. At the proper time and place I am prepared to defend the action of the Company, though possibly not to justify the huge expenditure that they made to make Lynn into a port which, without that expenditure, running approximately to £100,000, it never could have been. It also fell to my lot for many years to seek to represent in Parliament a division through which the Ouse passes, a division with which I have associations extending over many generations, and I reside on the higher reaches of the river. I tell this to show that I have personal knowledge, poor though it may be, of what I put before the House.

When these lands were reclaimed they were liable to certain rates and taxes for the maintenance of the drainage of the country, but unfortunately the drainage authorities were many, and they were diverse. Some were large and were wealthy, and some were small, and those were poor. I am not sure of the exact number of authorities that there were, but I believe that there were something like 28 authorities who had charge of the different portions of the river. So diverse were the authorities that, at least in one place, one body had control of the bed of the river and one of the banks. In the old days we have had exciting stories of men sitting up all night watching the banks to see whether they would break up on their side of the stream or on the other. It is no bogey of the past, but is a very present danger now, that these banks may burst and that these floods may occur. Only a very few years ago a certain section of most valuable land in the Isle of Ely was flooded in the most disastrous manner. You will realise the effect of that flood when I say that I myself saw houses turned round in the course of the flooding. The crops, of course, were entirely destroyed. All this points to the absolute necessity for the formation of a Board somewhat similar to that which is sought to be formed by this Order, which I am opposing now.

In 1915 there was formed a Lower Ouse Drainage Board. The title of the Bill confirming that Order was the same as the title of the Bill we are dealing with now. That Board was formed for a lower and a smaller area than the present Order proposes to deal with. That Board met, elected its chairman, talked, and ordered an inquiry. That inquiry was held, and they put forward a scheme which no doubt would have been most satisfactory, but which would have required some millions of pounds to carry it out, and in those days prices were much lower than they are now. What has happened to that Board I do not know. The Ministry of Agriculture is now seeking to form a larger Board. I support its action up to a point. I support its action to deal with these lands approximately to Earith, the boundary of the Isle of Ely and Huntingdonshire. It is absolutely necessary that from there to the sea should be under the control of one Board and one authority. But there comes a hard dividing line at that point. If I could do so, I would have two systems, one of drainage by gravitation and the other of drainage by pumping, because it is absolutely essential, in order to drain these fen lands, to do so by pumping. Many of these acres are below sea level, and the sea is kept out by means of sluicing and pumping. I ask that this Order shall be divided into two sections, one of them being from the sea to Earith. The fall from Earith to the sea is about three inches to the mile, a practically impossible level to drain without artificial means. As soon as you get to Earith a totally different aspect comes over the scene. From Earith, through parts of Huntingdon, the fall is 12 inches to the mile. When you come to the upper reaches of the river and into Buckinghamshire, and up to Buckingham itself, you find there is a fall of 48 inches to the mile.

I ask hon. Members to consider what in the world it can matter to the men living up in Buckinghamshire, 60 or 70 miles away, what happens to the water right away down by Earith. This is the first time it has been sought to put the responsibility to carry that water to the sea on the backs of the men who live in the upper reaches of the river. It may be a right principle, but I say it is wrong. It is a principle which is going to be enforced throughout the other rivers of the country. This is the beginning of a great scheme. The Ouse is not the only river which empties into the Wash. There are two other rivers with equally fertile land. There is the other Ouse running through Yorkshire. I was told recently that the Ridings of Yorkshire would not coalesce to deal with the matter. They are canny men in Yorkshire, and they will not be so anxious to pay for other men's water. I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he cannot divide this into two portions. The Order deals with 480,000 areas of land; 400,000 of those acres lie between Earith and the sea, and include great fine rolling fen-lands full of money; 80,000 acres are between Earith and Buckingham, and they are poor land. I do not believe for one moment that the men of the Fens, amongst whom I have very many personal friends, would ask, for one second, that the men up above should pay to meet the liability that they fully realise falls upon themselves.

I ask whether it is not possible to look upon these main arteries of drainage in the light in which you would look upon the road system of the country? Is it not possible to deal with these main arteries as though they were main roads, and put the responsibility for them upon the county, and make a grant from the Imperial Exchequer to help in clearing them up? Roads carry traffic from one end of the country to the other, and these arterial drains should carry traffic, even if they do not. It is not that so much as that they carry away the water from the Fens, and enable the fertile land to produce food for the nation. I know the Minister of Agriculture thinks it is of the greatest importance to us now to produce every possible ounce of food. You cannot produce food from water-logged land. It is a national question as much as a local one. Therefore I ask that these main arteries should get a grant from the Development Board or elsewhere. This Board has been formed. It consists of 42 members, and there are certain safeguards put into the Order by which the men living in the upper reaches cannot be overridden by the men in the Fens, and no work can be carried out below Denver Sluice except by a two-thirds majority of the Board. Of those members there are 31 that represent the lower reaches from Earith to the sea. The Fen majority would always, if it wished, be able to override those who lived up above. There is, therefore, no safeguard.

I maintain that it is impossible to expect men living right away up in Buckinghamshire to come down and attend these meetings, which will probably be held at Cambridge. The area is very large. The 400,000 acres of the lower reaches extend practically over the whole area, whereas the 80,000 acres from Earith to Buckingham are confined within a very narrow channel. It is only land which is 8 feet above flood level which is liable to be taxed for the purposes of this Bill. I shall be interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary on what basis and for what reason he takes this 8-foot level. I am told that the greatest authorities have said it is necessary. So be it, but I do not agree with those authorities. I understand it is urged that there are ceitain agricultural plants, such as lucerne, with roots that go down 8 feet, and that it is therefore necessary to drain their roots. If that is the contention, I can assure the House from practical experience that the roots of lucerne go far lower than that to where they can find water. By taking that arbitrary line of 8 feet above flood level, you are making a very small acreage which has to contribute to this cost. The farmers and the owners who live along the upper reaches of the Ouse have joined in opposition to this Order They look upon it is disastrous to themselves, and many men who recently purchased farms came to me lately and implored me to try and stop this injustice being committed. They tell me, and I know I shall be contradicted, though I believe the statement will be substantiated, that they will be liable, or would under the original order, to 25s. 6d. per acre for 50 years for the carrying out of this scheme. That, I believe, was based on the idea that the expenditure would be something like £2,000,000. Where they would pay 25s. 6d. in the upper reaches, they would only pay half a crown in the fertile lands of part of the Fens, or ten times as much whatsoever the amount may be. The Ministry were evidently fright- ened at the idea of such a tremendous outlay, and since the Order was first printed they have put in a new Clause limiting the expenditure to £200,000 in the first five years. What possible use will that sum be in scoring out these rivers below the Earith, which was estimated before the War to cost £2,000,000. Surely the thing must begin at the bottom, and if it was necessary to spend that money now, it is still necessary to do so. The reduction in the amount to be expended is only trying to throw sand in the face of those who have to meet the cost. This £200,000 will be utilised before you get to the depth of the sluices, and the works below the Earith will not help the dwellers in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire by one penny piece. It is very hard indeed on the smaller men in this district, and I submit it is a very simple matter to alter it. The Parliamentary Secretary tells me it is impossible to do so, but I urge that it should, and I shall continue to do so. Surely he can divide this Order and can glorify and enlarge the old lower Ouse Drainage Board. He can divide the area into two. By all means have one Board to drain the great lands and fens of Earith, but I ask him above that to leave this question of drainage to be dealt with by the counties. Let each county be responsible for it. Let him, if he can get a grant to help the cleansing out of these rivers, but let him leave it to the counties to do their own work. If he will do that then I assure him he will immensely relieve the feelings of the occupiers throughout those lands. It is quite true that this Bill has been before the House and the Order has been before the public for some considerable time. But we all know men in the country know but little of what is going on in London. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that they have had plenty of opportunity to prepare their case, but that is not so. It takes a very great deal of time to glean evidence bearing on these matters. In my remarks, for instance, I have had to travel back to the Stuart time. There is a lot of data to look up, and therefore I would ask him whether he cannot see his way, at any rate, to postpone the Committee stage, if he gets the Second Reading, to such time as will enable these men to have a full opportunity of getting up their case. I most certainly hope that this is the beginning of the systematic undertaking by the Board of Agriculture of the arterial drainage of the country.

Captain BOWYER

I beg to second the Amendment.

The constituency I have the honour to represent is that of Buckingham, and it is through my constituency that the upper reaches of this river Ouse flows for a considerable number of miles. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is not looking upon me as an adversary of his scheme or of the Ouse Drainage Board, because I am not that. But I am an adversary of the principle which it seems to me he is working upon in the Bill, and it is because I want to ask some questions of the Parliamentary Secretary as regards this principle and because I think it is a good thing when a new principle is being introduced in a matter like drainage that public attention should be concentrated on it, that I support my hon. and gallant Friend in opposing formally the Second Reading of this Bill. May I start by enunciating the principle which I think is the true one, and I will ask him finally whether or not the principle is correct, and whether the Bill is going to work on that principle. The principle is this, that you shall not be made to pay if you derive no benefit and if you escape no danger. This Bill refers to the Act of 1861, and the Act of 1918. I think this principle did run through the Act of 1918. Section 8 of that Act deals with the power of a drainage authority to execute works outside their area. If the suggestion that was hinted at by my hon. Friend, that from Earith to the sea should be made into one area was adopted a very interesting result would follow. That Section 8 provides— A drainage authority desiring to execute drainage works for the benefit of their drainage area in lands outside that area shall have the like powers in that behalf as are conferred by the Land Drainage Act, 1847, or Part III. of the principal Act on persons interested in land which is capable of being drained or improved, and desiring to execute drainage works for such purpose, and any expense incurred by a drainage authority under this Section shall be defrayed as if the expense had been incurred in the drainage area of the drainage authority. So that if the drainage area from Earith to the sea had wanted to put up works or to affect the river above Earith they could have done so, but the expenses of such work, as it was for the benefit of the district from Earith to the sea, would be paid by the Earith to the Sea District Authority. So that the principle is clear; they were to get the benefit, and they are to pay the rate. Section 16 of the same 1918 Act makes it even clearer. The words I refer to are at the end of Subsection (5) of Section 16: The Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works. Let us look for a moment at Section 10, which deals with the rating under the present Bill. Sub-section (i) of Section 10 refers to maps and schedules, but Subsection (iii) says: Any expenses incurred by the Ouse Drainage Board in the execution or maintenance of works for the exclusive benefit of any lands within any area or' sub-area shall be declared by the Ouse Drainage Board to have been incurred for the exclusive benefit of such lands and any expenses so declared shall be defrayed wholly out of rates levied in respect of such lands. Again my principle is coming true, but what is exclusive benefit when one is dealing with drainage? If any drainage work is done, can it be said that one area alone is affected? If you affect by works the drainage of a river, surely you must affect both those who live above you, to a certain extent, and those who live below you, and so it seems to me that where the benefit is not exclusive, as must be the ease in almost every instance, you come in with Sub-section (i), which says: Save as hereafter in this Article provided, the expenses incurred by the Ouse Drainage Board in the execution and maintenance of works on the sections of the said channels and banks referred to in Column 1 of Part II. of the Second Schedule (other than works to which paragraph (iii) of this Article applies) shall be defrayed out of rates levied with in the areas and in the proportions set out in Columns 2 and 3 of the said Part II. or out of reserve funds to be formed by means of rates so levied. You get a reference" in Sub-section (4) to "shall be defrayed out of rates levied equally within the whole district." I would like for a moment to compare the advantages gained by a drainage scheme under this Bill by those reaches by the sea and those reaches on the high levels in the county of which I am a Member. You take the river between Bedford and Northampton, which runs through that part of Buckinghamshire. All the land by the river is meadow grass. Every year, three, four, and even six times, the flood comes. It is annually improved by these floods, and every flood, unless it is a very late flood, means that the fields are manured, the crop is bettered, and the land is made richer. The damage is almost infinitesimal compared with the gain to be derived from the result of the river water going over these grass meadows. There is no arable land, or very little, which might be hurt. If a flood comes very late, the hay harvest may be affected, but that is the exception and by no means the rule. "What benefit, therefore, do the people in Buckinghamshire, in Northamptonshire, and in Bedfordshire for the most part derive, what danger do they escape? Is the landlord or the tenant to pay who happens to have land within the 8-feet level? Again, if the principle is laid down in Sub-section (iii) of Section 10 that the exclusive benefit is to guide the incidence of the rates, surely it means that in any part where work has got to be done the work has got to be done very slowly. If in any area you can only pay for the work done within that area by the rates levied on that area, you have got to make your work go as slowly as the money comes in, and that would be too slowly probably. You have got a tremendous number of works to put up, and a great deal of drainge to be done, so you have got to broaden the basis of incidence of your rating. If you cannot prove that the rating is exclusively enjoyed by one district, then you can fall back on Subsection (i), which says that you can draw on a general fund, to which presumably the occupants, the owners, of all the length and breadth of the river will con tribute every year. You will get your annual levy of rates, and the districts such as those in the constituency which I have the honour to represent will gradually year by year be swelling this reserve fund, and from that fund we shall derive no benefit, and the money will be spent in the works, probably most of it between Earith and the sea.

9.0 P.M.

If I am correct in thinking that the purpose of bringing in the upper reaches, which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, are affected only by 80,000 acres as compared with 400,000 acres below Earith, if we have been brought in to widen the basis upon which rates may be levied, then the principles with which I started have gone by the board, because we are going to contribute to this reserve fund for a benefit which we shall not derive, for a danger which we do not escape; and indeed, so far from that, the fact that we may lose the flood altogether would actually do us harm. It is inconceivable to my mind that this principle is not correct. I see that in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bill it is pointed out that the construction of new works below Denver Sluice for the improvement of the outfall of that river shall not be executed by the Ouse Drainage Board, except with the consent of two-thirds of the members thereof. The members of the Board are set out on page 5 of the Bill. I am anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether my hon. Friend was correct in saying that of the 42 members which composed the board, no less thanu 31, or roughly two-thirds, represent the area from Earith to the sea, and only 11 the area of the upper reaches, of which I am at the moment speaking, so that my first question to the right hon. Gentleman is: How many members of the first Ouse Drainage Board represent the upper and higher reaches, and how many the lower? Are the figures 31 and 11 correct? My second question is, what is the broad principle of fixing the incidence of rating? My third question is what is the proportion of the total rate which will be levied in one year, and if he can tell me roughly the proportion of the total rate to be paid by the upper reaches as compared with the lower reaches; that is to say, by those above Earith compared with those below Earith? Fourthly, if no benefit is derived in any area, will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that no rate will be levied? That is to say, if the owners or occupiers on the river banks can prove to the satisfaction of the Board that they derive no benefits, and that they are saved from no danger, will the right hon. Gentleman say that in that case they shall not have a rate levied on them? I know the right hon. Gentleman, from the courteous answers he gave to certain questions of mine before the Bill came on, is convinced that those who are interested in this question have had plenty of time. Nevertheless, I am assured even up to to-day that those who are interested along this river have not had time to consider fully the matter. Anybody who looks at the Schedule will see references not only to maps but to the colours and letters on maps. These maps, I believe, can only be seen at the County Council offices in each county. Time is important, and I do beg the right hon. Gentleman to give as much time as possible, because those who are interested are hampered and embarrassed and will be grateful if he could see his way to meet them on this point. After all, it is a really important scheme, and makes a really important change in the principles of the drainage of this country.

Captain COOTE

The speeches of the hon. Members who preceded me have been rather like the River Ouse, very charming and very beautiful, and also very long. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Townley) in his historical reminiscences, nor do I intend to deal with all the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), but what I want to insist upon, first of all, is the principle underlying this Bill. That is one of the points the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last asked about. We have to remember that navigation, and particularly river navigation, has fallen into a very bad state in this country, and this Bill is the first step to put a navigable river into a fit condition, so that it shall be a means of communication and assistance to those who live along its banks, and to commerce generally. It seems to me the opponents of this Order are making two mistakes. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham admitted that the authorities who now oppose this Order had petitioned the Board of Agriculture, as it then was, in favour of somesuchprovision as this Order lays down, and the fact that they did so is the answer to my hon. Friend who asked what benefit they would get out of it, because they would not have petitioned the Board if they thought they would not get some benefit out of it. It is obvious that, in spite of the fact that the high lands may in certain instances benefit from the flood, we must get the water down to the sea somehow, and it is right that the high lands should bear their part. There is the point as to the time allowed for the discussion of this proposal. The matter has been very fully and adequately gone into. There was a very full and complete inquiry at Cambridge, at which all views were fully represented. The whole matter was then discussed, and very generous concessions were made to the representatives of those counties who now object to the Bill. Their objection was founded, I think, on the totally wrong supposition that it was proposed to put in hand the whole work of improvement at once, instead of which it is perfectly obvious that it will have to be spread over a very largo number of years.

Captain BOWYER

As the hon. and gallant Member says my principle is all wrong and I have nothing to complain of, may I ask him how is it the people for whom I have been speaking, who live in Buckinghamshire, will have to pay 25s. 6d. an acre for no benefit that they can see, whereas the people in the constituency which he represents are to pay, I think, something like 2s. or 3s.

Captain COOTE

In the first place, I do not think they will pay anything like 25s. 6d. an acre, because that pre-supposes the whole money would be spent at once.

Captain BOWYER

It is not spent; it is levied.

Captain COOTE

In the second place, there has been a promise that if this Bill is given a Second Reading there shall be a reconsideration of the rating, and their views will be again taken into consideration. It is from these points of view, and the point of view of putting this river under one single authority, that I would ask the House to give a favourable consideration to the Second Beading, because it seems to me that nobody, except those who are actually in the neighbourhood of the river, can realise the state into which it has got. In the Fenlands the banks have sunk and the channels are rapidly blocking up. It is absolutely imperative that the work should be undertaken on the watershed of the Ouse, and that under the direction of one central authority, for it is no use separating a watershed like that and putting it under different authorities. You must treat this as a whole.

Captain FALCON

I only rise for a very few moments, because I am a member of a county, a very considerable part of which is affected by this Bill, and I therefore interpose to urge the House not to accept the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend opposite. The passing of this Bill will confer a very great benefit on a great deal of land in a county for which I am a member, and, incidentally, by improving the productivity of the land in that area, it will benefit the community as a whole, and at this time, of course, anything that can be done to increase the productivity of our land, and consequently the amount of food we grow here, is of vital importance. I have listened attentively to the obections to this Bill raised by my hon. Friends opposite, but I am glad to understand that to a certain extent they agree with the principle of it. Their objections in the main amount to Committee stage points.

Mr. TOWNLEY

I take exception to the principle upon which it is based. For the first time, the upper reaches are asked to pay for the lower reaches. Hitherto the lower reaches have been required to take the water down to the sea at their own cost.

Captain FALCON

Apart from that objection, most of the objections that have been raised can be dealt with in the Committee stage. What is the history, shortly, of this movement which has brought about this Provisional Order? The Land Drainage Act, of which this Order is the result, was brought in in 1918, because the necessity at that particular time of food production was very insistent. The predecessor of my right hon. Friend who sits on the Front Bench brought to the notice of the House at that time the enormous amount of land which was being spoiled and which was not producing as much as it might because of the want of action of the authorities who were then and who are now in charge of these areas in the matter of drainage. This Provisional Order Bill is the first of its kind, and it seeks to put the whole of the watershed under one single authority. In the past they have failed, because in one instance the Commissioners of Sewers did not know what were their particular boundaries. There are bodies under Local Acts who are restricted to a very small area, and others with such limited powers of expenditure that owing to the present rates for labour and material they are incapable of carrying out the work that they wish and ought to carry out. This Order was therefore brought in to put the whole of the watershed or the main channels of the whole of the watershed under one single authority. Past history has shown that the separation of the drainage of the watershed into different areas has failed. The House, therefore, ought to pass this Order, which establishes the principle of putting the whole of the watershed of an area under one authority, because, after all, they know when and where to start work so as to benefit the whole of the area better than separate authorities. There are other similar schemes and Bills now afoot. There is one in particular which deals with the watershed of the Bure and Waveney and other rivers in Norfolk which more vitally concerns me. The fate of that Bill will be very materially affected by the fate of this Bill to-night, and therefore, if for no other reason, I urge the House not to accept the Amendment but to give this Bill a Second Beading.

Mr. ROYCE

I want to support the principle of the Bill. I am not particularly concerned in this area, but I have had very considerable experience in drainage matters. I have nothing whatever to say with regard to the rating of the respective portions, but I do hold most strongly that the river concerned, or any other river that flows through a level country at its outlet, should be under the control of one authority from the source to the sea. The question whether lands at the higher level should be subjected to rates seem to me to be a very fair one, for, after all, the provisions made for the drainage in the fen districts have relation to the passage of the water from the uplands. They have made certain provisions, and, if the water comes with any degree of regularity, in all probability the provision made is sufficient for the water to pass to the sea, but, if the water does not come with some degree of regularity—if there are impedents in the stream, even at its source—it may affect the suitability of the works that have been constructed on the lower reaches. Consequently, it is of the very utmost importance that the whole of the stream should be under the direction of one authority. It is absolutely necessary that those works should start at the outlet of the river and that there should be sufficient provision to take any water from the outlet. I know that it has been argued for very many years that these lands which it is now proposed to rate were immune at the time when the low-lying lands were under water. I agree, but that is no reason why their water should not come to the lower levels in a proper manner, and it can only come in a proper manner if the channel be kept open. Neglect of the upper reaches of a river is a source of great danger to the lower reaches, and it is because it is necessary to take the upper reaches into consideration that the stream must be under one authority.

I wonder that there can be any opposition at the present time to a measure of drainage, and I have often wondered why this was a Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. I know now the reason of its amphibious nature. It is because half of the land with which it has to deal is under water at certain periods of the year. Anyone passing along the Great Northern Railway during the past week must have noticed the amount of land under water. It is a scandal, and it is time that this question of drainage was taken in hand and a Board constituted to have full control of the drainage arteries from the source to the sea. This particular scheme does not interest me, only in a general way, but knowing the principle of drainage, knowing the necessities of the country, and knowing that what is true of the Ouse is true of the Welland—with which I am intimately connected—I do hope that this Bill will be permitted to pass. You will never please everybody, and you will never please any of the people upon whom it is intended to impose the rate, though I do assert that they will receive vast benefit. Lands now used for pasturage purposes can be brought under arable cultivation, and the value of it vastly increased. Of course, the farmer does not want to pay. It is about as difficult to get rates out of a farmer as it is to get butter out of a dog's throat. He will oppose everything. I do earnestly beseech the House to pass this measure so that a start, at any rate, can be made in removing that which in this country is a scandal—namely, the periodic flooding of these lands.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)

I hardly think it is necessary for me to say much after the excellent speech to which we have just listened. There can be no doubt that if ever there was a case for allowing a Provisional Order Bill to go to Committee, in order that the details may be considered, this is a case in point. I cannot quite understand the meaning of the opposition to the Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Townley) finished his speech by saying that he hoped that this Bill was a systematic beginning of arterial drainage in this country. That is precisely what it is. It is not very encouraging to the Ministry of Agriculture when we make this systematic beginning that the very thing hon. Members do is immediately to move that the Order be rejected on Second Reading.

Mr. TOWNLEY

I am sorry to interrupt, but surely it cannot be a Committee point, but a grave question as to whether limits are to be placed over the water from the highlands. It is a complete reversion of the old principle that waters that come from the highlands were taken by the men from the lowlands down to the sea at their own expense. This is a reversion of that principle, and I cannot see that it is a Committee matter.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

There is no doubt that the land in the neighbourhood of the river will benefit, and the financial proposals in the Bill will be made strictly proportionate to the benefit which is given to each particular part of the river. The point is this: Here you have a very important river, a river which drains a very large piece of the most valuable agricultural land in the country. It has been, as my hon. Friend says, much neglected. The present position is absolutely chaotic. There are on the lower river no less than 100 authorities—he spoke of 28—dealing with drainage. There is no one body which can co-ordinate what they are doing. On the upper river there are no authorities at all. The flow of the water from the upper river profoundly affects the drainage of the lower river. Under these circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture passed an Act in 1918 in order to institute this arterial drainage. My Noble Friend now desires, as has just been said—and quite rightly—by my hon. Friend opposite, to bring in this Order to constitute one authority to deal with this most important river. Although we have had opposition from hon. Members to-night representing two counties', the fact is that right through these proceedings we have had practically no opposition, but petitions from the whole of the district drained by the river in favour of this system. Let me just inform the House how the matter stands. In the first case the Royal Commission on Canals and Waterways studied the matter as a whole. Dealing with the question of the Ouse they said: It is essential to have one authority for the whole of this river. No sooner is our Act of 1918 passed than practically every single county, including the counties of the upper river, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Huntingdonshire, petition for systematic drainage of the River Ouse. That is not all. This thing has not been rushed, as some hon. Members seem to think. The hon. Gentleman for Bedford asked for more time. I really do not know how much more time we ought to give. I have only to tell the House that a public inquiry was made as long ago as last October, and that the present Order was deposited before Christmas. Every kind of opportunity has been given for hearing objections. Really if we are not going to get on quicker than that we shall be accused of flowing even more slowly than the Ouse, and our system of arterial drainage for the whole of the country will take several centuries to complete. If hon. Members in the country have been unaware of what has been going on, and have not taken advantage of the opportunities they have had for lodging objections, that is not the fault of the Board of Agriculture nor of this House. Every opportunity has been given. I must really decline to consider any appeal for more time.

Let us see how far the hon. Members who have spoken against this Bill really represent in this matter the counties-for which they are Members. Take Bedfordshire. There was a public inquiry. The county of Bedfordshire objected to a certain technical point. They asked for amendment. We agreed to make that amendment, and then found that the clerk of the county council spoke very strongly at the inquiry in favour of the Order. There was an objection by one landowner, and that objection was met. We have, it is true, received memorials from 16 persons in Bedfordshire owning 5,000 acres of land. We have had a memorial from the borough. We propose to meet the objections of the landowners by an additional clause limiting both the capital and revenue expenditure on works in the upper part of the land. As regards the objection of the borough, we have also proposed another amendment which, I believe, gives satisfaction. As regards the clause limiting the expenditure, I really think my hon. Friend does not quite understand what is proposed. He averred that £2,000,000 was said to be necessary, and that we are only proposing to spend £200,000. That is not the case at all. All we say is that the money should be expended gradually, and that not more than a certain sum should be spent in the first five years. But the works cannot be carried out as rapidly as my hon. Friend seems to think. We provide sufficient expenditure to carry them out in a way they can be carried out in practice. Therefore the figures of my hon. Friend were entirely wrong. No undue burden will be put suddenly on Bedfordshire or any other part of the river. Take Buckinghamshire. I have shown that Bedfordshire practically agrees with the scheme. Buckinghamshire petitioned for the scheme in 1918. There was an inquiry, and at that there were certain objections. These were all met. No further objections were raised. The Buckinghamshire County Council wrote on 14th January to the Ministry of Agriculture to this effect: The Rivers Committee of the County Council are generally satisfied with the Amendments which have been made in the Draft Order, and express their thanks to the Board of Agriculture for the manner in which they have met the objections of the County Council. I really ask what further objection can there be? Not one single memorial has been received from anybody or authority in—

Captain BOWYER

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman like me to tell him why?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Certainly.

Captain BOWYER

The whole point is this; neither I nor the county council, nor anybody in the county, are against the Bill. What we are up against is the principle of levying the rates. The reason why people are only just waking up to it on the river banks is, that they have only heard of it, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary says. I have lived there from my boyhood upwards, and I know they did not know.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

It is not our fault that these people have just awakened to the fact. I have done all I could to wake them up earlier. We cannot be responsible for the fact that about six months after public inquiries have been held the people of Buckinghamshire only wake up to the fact! That is the case with regard to Buckinghamshire. Certain points of detail have been put to me, all of which can properly be discussed in Committee, and they really do not arise on the Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire wants the scheme divided, one board for the upper river and one for the lower. I believe that administratively and from the point of view of physical arrangement that is impossible. In any case, it would merely be a very undesirable and complicated way of accomplishing what you can achieve by a simple method. We are told that a division should take place at Earith, where there is a sluice regulating the water from the upper to the lower river. We are asked, who is to take charge of that?

Mr. TOWNLEY

One of the largest authorities recommended the removal of that sluice.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

That is a point which one authority could decide and two could not. Then I have been asked a question in regard to the incidence of rating. The principle is that it must be in proportion to benefits received, and the river has to be divided into sections and areas, and they are rated in proportion to benefits received by the different sections. My hon. Friend put the question, "Supposing somebody received no benefit, would he be rated?" The Order makes no change in the law, and only those benefited can be rated, and if any person proves that he is not benefited, he will not be rated under the Order. Another point was raised about the composition of the Board, and it was suggested that it was a great hardship that the lower river should have two-thirds of the representatives and the upper river only one-third. The membership of the Board has been fixed entirely in accordance with the acreage. I know we might have taken population or rateable value, in which case Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire would have got a smaller representation, and it would also make it more difficult and harder for the counties which my hon. Friend represents.

I do not propose to go further into this matter, because these are really Committee points. This measure is a great step forward. It is the first time under this new Act that we are making a really large systematic attempt to drain a big area, and I suggest to the House that it would be unwise to throw out such a proposal on the Second Reading. I will give this promise, however, that every reasonable grievance or objection to this proposal made in Committee will have careful consideration.

Mr. TOWNLEY

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the Private Bill Committee is likely to sit?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I am afraid that is in the realm of prophecy. It will sit as soon as possible, but I cannot say when.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time and Committed.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I beg to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider whether by amendment of the Bill or of the Order to be thereby confirmed provision should be made with a view to improving the drainage of the district under their jurisdiction for authorising the Ouse Drainage Board and any navigation authority to enter into arrangement for—

  1. (a) the transfer to the Ouse Drainage Board of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of such navigation authority, and also of all property vested in such authority or authorities for the purposes of navigation;
  2. (b) the alteration or management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or
  3. (c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates;
and to amend the Bill or Order accordingly. I hope this Motion will not be opposed. Some of the existing drainage authorities on the lower Ouse also have navigation powers. If the Bill is carried, and no steps are taken to transfer their navigation powers to the new body, they will continue in existence merely to exercise the navigation powers which they now exercise. It is thought by the Ministry of Transport that it would be ridiculous to maintain these bodies with their naviga- tion powers alone, and the new board ought to possess the navigation powers now possessed by some of those boards. For that reason I ask the House to adopt this instruction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to consider whether by amendment of the Bill or of the Order to be thereby confirmed provision should be made with a view to improving the drainage of the district under their jurisdiction for authorising the Ouse Drainage Board and any navigation authority to enter into arrangement for—

  1. (a) the transfer to the Ouse Drainage Board of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of such navigation authority, and also of all property vested in such authority or authorities for the purposes of navigation;
  2. (b) the alteration or-management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or
  3. (c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates;
and to amend the Bill or Order accordingly."—[Sir A. Boscawen.]

Forward to