HC Deb 14 July 1926 vol 198 cc560-81
Mr. RILEY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from the word " land " to the word " is " in line 31.

As the Clause stands, provision is made for making the occupier or owner liable to put into proper order agricultural land the drainage of which may be in such a state as to result in injury to land occupied or owned by some other person, but there is no obligation on the owner or occupier of land which may he in a waterlogged or bad condition, though in possibly may not be directly injurious to other land, to put his land into a proper state as regards drainage. The effect of this omission from the Bill is that the major purpose of the Bill is very largely defeated. In support of that statement I want to quote the testimony of Lord Bledisloe, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in regard to the importance of drainage as referred to in this Bill, but before doing so I want to point out that the words which are covered by this Amendment were not in the original Bill as submitted by the Government in another place, but were put in in another place. The Bill as it was originally drawn; made it obligatory upon the occupiers and owners of agricultural land, where the drainage was deficient and resulted in injury to other land, to remedy that deficiency. When the Bill came from another place the owner who may have water-logged land if it is not injurious to contiguous land is under no obligation whatever to put it in order. Upon that matter on the Second Reading Lord Bledisloe made the following statement: The efficient drainage of our agricultural land would probably increase its average productivity by at least 7 per cent. Out of 27,000,000 acres of cultivated land in England and Wales, at least 1,000,000 are to-day waterlogged and another half-million acres are badly drained, and these areas include sonic of the richest land in the kingdom, comprising, of course, a good deal of alluvial land contiguous to the estuaries of our larger rivers. Upon these the food output might be trebled by efficient drainage.

Captain CROOKSHANK

On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to read out speeches made in another place?

Mr. SPEAKER

It is the speech of the Minister, I understand.

Mr. RILEY

It is a statement of the Minister on the Second Reading. He continues in these words: It is estimated that the lack of such drainage involves a loss to the nation food value of £18,000,000 a year at least. The effect of inadequate drainage is to check germination and delay the ripening of crops, it induces rushes, sedges, mares' tails, and other useless weeds to abound on potentially fertile soils, and it also aggravates the effect of drought—which is nut generally known—owing to the shallow rooting or grass and arable crops. It not only produces mists, arid thereby adversely affects human health, but it also produces liver-fluke, foot-rot, and other diseases among our livestock, and fungoid and insect pests among our economic plants. The Minister may reply that there is no obligation on the part of the owners or occupiers of land unless the effect is injurious elsewhere, but the testimony of Lord Bledisloe is that while it is injurious directly by the choking of channels it is also detrimental to public health. What is more to the point is that surely we have the right in a Bill of this kind to see that the national resources of the land arc used to the utmost. An owner who may have very large tracts of land Odell possibly owing to consideration may not be directly injurious to adjoining lands but which themselves may be waterlogged may be obviously as detrimental to efficient food productivity as to the best output of the land. I submit, therefore, that this Amendment serves a useful purpose by making the Bill effective. As it now stands it is only half a Measure. It is only asking a certain portion of occupiers and owners to carry out what is admitted to be an urgently necessary piece of agricultural reform. I noticed that the late Minister of Agriculture, Lord Ernie, speaking in 1924 as to the need of effective agriculture land drainage, said owners must realise that, unless this matter was attended to, nationalisation would ensue as a matter of course. Until the resources of the land could be made productive the country must demand better control and better organisation.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I beg to second the Amendment.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that a Bill of this kind, introduced for the improvement of land drainage, ought to tackle the whole question and not only a part of it, as will be the case unless the Government accept our Amendment. Although we may be the Mother of Parliaments, and although many other countries may have based their Parliamentary systems upon the precedents we have established and the experience that, we have give to the world, there is no other Legislature in the world that would have dreamed of introducing a land measure which was not directed to improving the whole process of the land of their country, and not confine it only to those cases were land was at the time being used in such a way as to to be injurious to other landowners. The explanation is that we have another place in which the land interest is so exceedingly powerful. I would remind the Minister that when this Bill first left the Ministry of Agriculture the words which we propose to leave out were not in it. It was obviously the intention of the technical advisers of the Minister that the Bill which he is now asking the House to pass through its Report stage should be a piece of constructive legislation in regard to the drainage of land as a whole and should not be confined only to those pieces of land which were being allowed to be so water-logged as to be injurious to other landowners When this Bill had been debated on Second Reading in another place, because of the very powerful landed interest there, the Government apparently used discretion as the better part of valour, as they are normally supporters of the peers in another place and calmly gave way and have taken away the main dynamo from the Bill and the purpose for which it was introduced.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) has quoted a speech of Lord Ernie, a former Minister of Agriculture, as to the position of water-logged land in this country at the present time. I do not think he quoted the whole of it. I remember that Professor Orwin, in a book which he has published, referred to the statement by the late Minister of Agriculture, that so serious was the position of having some of the richest land in the country water-logged, so that it was not producing to its full capacity the food that the nation required, unless it was tackled in a serious way. There was only one solution, and that was nationalisation of the land. That was a statement made by a former 'Conservative Minister of Agriculture.

Let me impress upon the House the very great importance of the point with which we are dealing. As I pointed out in the Debate on the Ministry of Agriculture Vote last year, we are in a critical position in this country because of the tendency of the trade balance to move more and more adversely against us, largely because of the fact that we have to import year after year an increasing amount of the food we consume. The values of imported food go up year after year. One direct way to correct that tendency and improve our adverse trade balance is to take such steps in our agricultural policy as will ensure a larger production of food at home.

Yet we go on allowing hundreds and thousands of acres to remain waterlogged which might well be made of a high food-producing capacity. After the Minister has introduced a Bill to deal with the problem so strongly emphasised by his predecessor, his Parliamentary Secretary in another place calmly gives way to the vested interested concerned and takes out of the Measure a large proportion of the water-logged land of the country. It is absolutely unjustifiable, and I cannot imagine that the Minister, with all his ability, can make a logical case for including these words in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary in accepting these words said that he intended to adhere to the local maxim that you should so use your own property so as not to damage that of other people. That is the reason why the Government accepted this Amendment. Surely when we are in such an increasingly difficult position with regard to our food supplies, the position of the Government is not tenable. I hope at this late stage—we support some provisions of this Measure, we agree with it in principle—that the Government will accept this Amendment which is moved solely to secure a larger supply of food in the national interest.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON

I should like to associate myself with every word that has fallen from the two hon. Members opposite so far as they relate to the need, the absolute necessity, of adequate drainage of land used for arable and agricultural purposes. -Unless land is properly drained it is perfectly useless to try and get the best out of it, and unless a farmer gets the best out of his land it is quite impossible for him to pay the wages which the Wages Board rightly require should be paid. Land drainage is a matter of paramount importance. There is one question I want to address to the Minister. No question of framing a scheme under Section 16 of the Land Drainage Act, 1919, can arise under Clause 2 of the Bill. A scheme can only be prepared by a county council under Clause 1; Clause 2 relates to other circumstances and another situation. It empowers county councils to bring to book any person who allows his drains to get into a bad condition through default. What is the position where you have six persons concerned all of whom have been served with a notice to clean out their drains? Five of them are willing to do the work, but the sixth person stands out and refuses to clean out the drain. and, apparently, under Clause 2, Sub-section (5), he would escape. By his action or inaction he might block the whole of a drainage scheme which is of the greatest importance. Does the default in that case fall on the other five persons If so, and if they then object to cleaning out the drain, can they be legally forced to take up the burden of cleaning out the drain 1 It is important to have a clear understanding on the point. The advantages which may be derived from this little Bill, which envisages schemes under £5,000, arc very real and great.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Does this Bill apply to Scotland's There is no mention in the Bill of its being limited to England and Wales. If the Bill applies to Scotland can the right hon. Gentleman give us any figures to show how many acres of land will be exempted from the provisions of the Bill as a result of the Amendment inserted in another place? I have repeatedly mentioned the extraordinary instance of a great area of Scottish land which lies waterlogged precisely in the circumstances that the last speaker described. I have seen that land all my life. There are miles and miles of it, and it is no one's business to drain it. There are three rivers joined together. They are being filled gradually with coal sludge from the pits. It is no one's business to lift out the sludge and to throw it on the embankment. The trouble extends right down to the outfall of the Clyde. I cannot see how, under this Bill, any pressure can be brought to bear upon any individual landlord to deal with it. Can the Minister say whether a state of affairs like that can be dealt with under he Bill?

Sir JOSEPH NALL

I would like to add to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). It is important that we should know whether a frontager is to escape if he neglects entirely to do his share of drainage work. There are certain schemes up and down the country where one out of many owners absolutely refuses to do what is his obvious duty. I know of several instances where one recalcitrant frontager refuses, in season and out of season, to carry out any of the ordinary duties which fall upon him. It is unfair that the other owners should have to shoulder the whole burden. These schemes are proving to be extraordinarily costly in many instances. If my right hon. Friend would indicate that, as a result of the operation of this Bill, some of these recalcitrant and negligent frontagers would be required to perform the duties which fall upon them, it would relieve some of the misgivings which arise.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness)

The Amendment raises a very small issue, but hon. Members have since asked questions affecting the whole of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) asked whether the Bill applies to Scotland, and what can be done in the case of a river where the banks are in the possession of several owners who do not keep the watercourse clear. That is a case which would probably not come under Clause 2. Clause 1, Sub-section (1), enables local authorities—

HON. MEMBERS

Does it apply to Scotland?

Mr. ALEXANDER

On a point of Order. Had we not better adjourn the Debate until the Minister knows to what the Bill applies?

Mr. SPEAKER

We can read the Bill for ourselves.

Mr. GUINNESS

There is no exemption for Scotland in the Bill. The hon. Member will find that the necessary powers are contained in Section 16 of the Land Drainage Act of 1918, under which local authorities can be empowered by the Minister and now will be -empowered without any authority, to institute small drainage schemes for putting such cases into proper order.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Do I understand the Minister to say that in such an area. as I have described, where five authorities are concerned, one of these authorities can act?

Mr. GUINNESS

No. I thought the hon. Member spoke of five owners. This Bill does not deal with drainage authorities at all. We hope to be able to deal with that subject in a larger Measure. I am sorry I did not catch the hon. Member's question correctly. This Bill merely deals with areas where no drainage authority has been set up or where a drainage authority is not carrying out its duties. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) asked whether one recalcitrant owner could refuse to clear his drain, and so cause his neighbours inconvenience and loss. The whole object of the Bill is to exercise compulsion in these cases and unless the owner is able to make good his claim to exemption on the various grounds given in detail in this Clause, he Can of course be compelled to carry out his obligations

. Now I come to the Amendment, which relates to a email paint and one which probably would never arise. It is true that in the Bill as originally introduced the words were or general application and there was nothing to prevent notices being served on owners who wasted their own land. But there was no idea in my mind that local authorities should or would attempt to control owners in the management of their own land, providing those owners did not interfere with their neighbours by default in keeping drains clear. If a man, by failure to remove obstructions, injures his own land, surely we can trust self-interest to induce him to remove the obstruction? (HON. MEMBERS: "Not always."] It is not our intention to cause local authorities to go round exploring to find what land, in theory, can be drained. We only want to see land drained where it is economically sound to drain it.

When land is in one occupation, we trust to the ordinary financial incentive to induce the landowner to do what is best for his land.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 62.

Division No. 368.] AYES. [11.30 p.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Price, Major C. W. M.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. Raine, W.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Gunston, Captain D. W. Ramsden, E.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Rees, Sir Beddos
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Hanbury, C. Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Ropner, Major L.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Harland, A. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Harrison, G. J. C. Salmon, Major I.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Haslam, Henry C. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Bennett, A. J. Headlum, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. Sandeman, A. Stewart
Betterton, Henry B. Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Dxf'd, Henley) Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle) Sanderson, Sir Frank
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P. Savery, S. S.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Henn, Sir Sydney H Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Rentrew, W)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard Shepperson, E. W.
Briscoe, Richard George Holt, Captain H. P. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hopkins, J. W. W. Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smithers, Waldron
Bullock, Captain M. Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Burman, J. B. Jacob, A. E. Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward King, Captain Henry Douglas Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Campbell. E. T. Knox, Sir Alfred Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Strickland, Sir Gerald
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Christle, J. A. MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Macdobald. Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Styles, Captain H. Walter
Clayton, G. C. Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. MacIntyre, Ian Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) McLean, Major A. Thomson, Rt. Hon, Sir W. Mitchell-
Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) MacRobert, Alexander M. Tinne, J. A.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Makins, Brigadier-General E. Tichfield, Major the Marquess of
Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Curzon, Captain Viscount Margesson, Captain D. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Meller, R. J. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Davies, Dr. Vernon Merriman, F. B. Watts, Dr. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. Wells, S. R.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark) Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Dixey, A. C. Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. While, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Edmondson, Major A. J. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s-M.) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fairlax, Captain J. G. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury) Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Falle, Sir Bertram G. Nelson, Sir Frank Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Fielden, E. B. Neville, R. J. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Finburgh, S. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Wise, Sir Fredric
Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Nuttall, Ellis Withers, John James
Forrest, W. Oakley, T. Wolmer, Viscount
Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Oman, Sir Charles William C. Womersley, W. J.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Pennefather, Sir John Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Ganzonl, Sir John Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstabple) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Goff Sir Park Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Sir Harry Barnston and Major
Gower, Sir Robert Preston, William Cope.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
NOES.
Adamson, Bt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Charleton, H. C. Gillett, George M.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Crawfurd, H. E. Gosling, Harry
Barr, J. Dalton. Hugh Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Batey, Joseph Day, Colonel Harry Greenall, T.
Bromfield, William Duncan, C. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Grundy, T. W.
Buchanan, G. Gibbins, Joseph Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Henderson, T, (Glasgow) March, S. Townend, A. E.
Hirst, G. H. Paling, W. Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Potts, John S. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield). Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Riley, Ben Welsh. J.O
John, William (Rhondda, West) Sakiatvala, Shapuji Westwood, J
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Scurr, John Wiggins, William Martin
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Sexton, James Williams, David (Swansea. E.)
Jones, J J. (West Ham, Silvertown) Shiels, Dr. Drummond Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Kelly, W. T. Slesser, Sir Henry H. Windsor, Walter
Kennedy, T. Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Kirkwood, D. Stephen, Campbell
Lunn, William Sullivan, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
MacLaren, Andrew Sutton, J. E. Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. SPEAKER

With regard to the Amendment standing next on the Order Paper, it seems to me a surplusage.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

rose—

Mr. SPEAKER

The Amendment had better be moved.

Mr. RILEY

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the wood "act" to insert the word "omission."

If there be any reason for the insertion of this word, it is sufficient, I think, to point out that it was in the original Bill, and there must have been a reason for putting it there. I should like to hear the Minister's expianation for taking it out.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS

It is quite true that as the Clause was originally amended in another place the word "omission" was included, but it was omitted on the advice of an eminent legal lord on the ground that the word "default" was the better one to use. Upstairs we created a duty in the first part of Sub-section (2), and because of this insertion the word "omission" is unnecessary.

Mr. ALEXANDER

It is just a little late for such an explanation to be given as lint of the Minister of Agriculture, especially in view of the attitude adopted by the Government. Nothing could be more clear than the case for retaining the word " omission." The case put forward, and endorsed Jay the Minister, which in effect means the restriction of the obligation to the particular class of landowner, and not to make it apply to the whole of the people concerned, shows the bias in the matter. Therefore it is better that the law should be made perfectly clear and for the word "omission" should be included. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than any of us that this form of words including the word "omission" is the common form of words in the whole range of private Acts. There seems to be some sinister intention in definitely omitting this word, and if the Amendment of the other place is to be accepted and so restrict the operation of the Bill to particular landowners, it will defeat the object of the full obligation. For these reasons, I submit that we should not accept the Amendment of the other place, but that of my hon. Friend to restore the word.

Mr. JOHNSTON

My attitude towards the omission of the word "omission" will depend upon whether or not Scotland is omitted from the Bill. A moment. or two ago the Minister assured us that Scotland was in the Bill, will he tell us whether or not the governing Act of 1861 specifically excludes Scotland? If it does, what becomes of his answer a moment or two ago?

Mr. GUINNESS

If the hon. Member has looked it up and finds that it does ex-elude Scotland, I have got no answer to him; but my own examination has failed to disclose any Clause which does exclude Scotland.

Mr. JOHNSTON

Is it not the case that Clause 2 of the Act of 1861 specifically says that this shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland or the Metropolis? I will give the Minister time to look at it.

Mr. GUINNESS

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I apologise to him. I had not seen that reference before. It was a new point to me. Quite clearly, on that, Scotland is excluded.

Mr. MACLEAN

Is it not a fact that Section 2 of the Act of 1861 says it shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland on to any part of the Metropolis as defined by the Metropolis Management Art, 1855. and does not the Act of 1918 refer to this Act as the principal Act, and does not the Bill that we are how discussing refer to the Act of 1918 and the principal Act and, if so, is it not the case that Scotland and Ireland must be excluded? Will it be in order to ask the Government to postpone consideration of this Bill till they know just where they are?

Mr. GUINNESS

It is quite clear from the very learned dissertation to which we have just listened from two Scottish Members that the Bill does not apply to Scotland, therefore their objection to it, from the point of view of active watchers of Scottish interests, must fall to the ground.

Mr. MACLEAN

But is there not something more here If the Government have

brought in a Bill which they imagine applies to Scotland, surely they must have had something in their minds?

Mr. GUINNESS

No, we most certainly did not imagine it.

Mr. MACLEAN

But that does not get away with it. The Minister of Agriculture has been making out that it did apply to Scotland and I should imagine the Government have been labouring tinder some kind of delusion or allusion. In that case it would be better to postpone further discussion of the Bill till they find whether they cannot bring in some Clause will be beneficial to Scotland.

Question put, "That the word 'omission' he there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided; Ayes, 51; Noes, 158.

Division No. 369.] AYES. [11.5 a.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Henderson, T. {Glasgow) Scurr, John
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hirst, G. H. Sexton, James
Barr. J. Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield) Slsser, Sir Henry H.
Buchanan, G. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Heath) Stephen, Campbell
Charleton, H. C. John, William (Rhondda, West) Sullivan, J.
Crawfurd, H. E. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sutton, J. E.
Dalton, Hugh Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) Tinker, John Joseph
Day, Colonel Harry Kelly, W. T. Townend, A. E.
Duncan, C. Kennedy, T. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Kirkwood, D. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gibbins, Joseph Lunn, William Welsh, J. C.
Gillett, George M. Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) Westwood, J.
Gosling, Harry Paling, W. Wiggins, William Martin
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Potts, John S.
Grundy, T. W. Riley, Ben TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) Sakiatvala, Shapurji Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Agg Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Harland, A.
Ainsworth, Major Charles Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Harrison, G. J. C.
Albery, Irving James Cunliffe, Sir Herbert Haslam, Henry C.
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W Derby) Curzon, Captain Viscount Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Dawson, Sir Philip Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Dixey, A. C. Holbrook. Sir Arthur Richard
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Edmondson. Major A. J. Holt, Captain H. P
Betterton, Henry B. Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Westom-s-M.) Hopkins, J. W. W.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Fairfax, Captain J. G. Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton) Falle, Sir Bertram G. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Fielden, E. B. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Finburgh, S. Jacob, A. E.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Forestier-Walker, Sir L. Kindersley, Major Guy M
Briscoe, Richard George Forrest, W. King, Captain Henry Douglas
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Knox, Sir Alfred
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. Lamb, J. O.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newby) Ganzonl, Sir John. Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Bullock, Captain M. Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Burman, J. B. Goff Sir Park Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Campbell, E. T. Greene, W. P. Crawford MacIntyre, Ian
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John McLean, Major A.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J. Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Christle, J. A. Gunston, Captain D. W. Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Clayton, G. C. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cope, Major William Hanbury, C. Margesson, Captain D.
Merriman, F. B. Ropner, Major L. Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Tinne, J. A.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Salmon, Major I. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Sandeman, A. Stewart Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Sanders, Sir Robert A. Watts, Dr. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank Sanderson, Sir Frank Wells, S. R.
Neville, R. J. Savery, S. S. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W) White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Shepperson. E. W. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Nittall, Ellis Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton) Slaney, Major P, Kenyon Wilson, R R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Oakley, T. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Smith-Carington, Neville W. Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl
Pennefather, Sir John Smithers, Waldron Wise, Sir Fredric
Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Withers, John James
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.) Wolmer, Viscount
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H. Womersloy, W. J.
Preston, William Streatfelld, Captain S. R. Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Price, Major C. W. M. Strickland, Sir Gerald Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Raine, W. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Ramsden, E. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Rees, Sir Beddoe Styles, Captain H. Waiter Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. Frederick Thomson.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Mr. ALEXANDER

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out Subsection (8).

This Sub-section has been inserted in another place to provide for a further appeal from the decision of the county councils and the borough councils. After negotiations in a court of summary jurisdiction there is still another appeal to Quarter Sessions. It is perfectly clear that the landed interests, in dealing with this Bill, desire to lay every possible obstacle in the way of making any real progress with land drainage in this country.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. Member must move his Amendment on its merits and not refer to the debate in another place.

12 M.

Mr. ALEXANDER

I will observe your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for transgressing. This Amendment was accepted by the Government in another place as well as a very long Amendment on Clause 1, which provides very fully for an appeal, and it is because of the attitude of the Minister when that Clause was accepted that I want to delete this further right of appeal. When opposing the insertion of this Sub-section the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that once we begin to allow appeals to be made for local authorities, county councils and borough councils to the Ministry, the tendency will be to carry that objection to the Ministry as against the county council. Therefore it is obvious that the Government foresaw that in this Bill which lays the duty upon county councils of proceeding with land drainage schemes is going to cause a good deal of unnecessary trouble and provide too many obstacles by allowing too many rights of appeal. It is conceivable that in such a simple case as where a tree has fallen across a stream, and a county council orders it to be removed, the owner of the land, if he is recalcitrant, can go on objecting right through the process of appeal which has now been laid down, because, after exploring through the court of summary jurisdiction, he is still to have a further light to hold up this simple process by appealing to quarter sessions. That is not a fair attitude to adopt when one considers how important the county councils are, and the position that they have established for themselves in the country. That a county council, invested with the full authority of the suffrages of the electors, with nearly 40 years experience behind it and with full knowledge of what is necessary to meet the local situation, should be held up on quite small drainage matters through three or four avenues of appeal, is derogatory to their prestige and influence, and I think that on reflection Members on the other side who have had experience of the work and duties of county councils will see that to retain such a provision in a Bill of this kind is not conducive to progress in local government. I feel certain that the object of this provision is only that it may be used as an additional means of holding up progress in land drainage where the owners do not think it is in their own interests.

Mr. RILEY

I beg to second the Amendment.

This Sub-section is a most extravagant demand. It. must he borne in mind that the county councils are representative, not only of the ordinary electors in the county areas, but also of the landed interests.

Mr. GUINNESS

I think it is reasonable that there should be a power of appeal in these rather complicated matters. It is not a general power, but is carefully guarded by the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Clause 2. The procedure is that the person on whom the notice is served has a choice of going to an arbitrator or to a court of summary jurisdiction, and he or the county council can appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions. The power of appeal is not solely in the interest of the owner or occupier, but is equally in the interest of the county council. I cannot see any reason to fear unfairness in these matters. In any case of this kind it is the duty of this House to take reasonable steps to see that no injustice is done.

Mr. MACLEAN

May I point out that the Amendment which has been put in in another place tends to increase expenditure upon any question that arises? Those owners or occupiers who think themselves aggrieved, and who think their claims have not been fully considered, even though they are wrong in so thinking, can add expenses which may make it almost impossible for an individual who has received a verdict in the court of summary jurisdiction to appear

when the case comes before the court of quarter sessions. I fail to see why this House should give further legal advantages to people whose claims have been considered and decided, by giving them the right of appeal to quarter sessions. The net result will be that lawyers will pocket fees, and I submit that, in view of the added legal expenses, the Government might see their way to withdraw this Amendment of the Lords and send the Bill forward without it. If they accept that, we have no objection to the Bill going through, but otherwise we shall be forced to carry the matter to a Division.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS

Hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is a provision that will act entirely in favour of the landlords. It seems to me to have exactly the opposite effect. The landlord, if he feels aggrieved, can either go to the petty sessions court or he can go to an arbitrator. If he goes to an arbitrator, this Clause does not apply. If the petty sessions court gives a decision, not only can the landord appeal against it, but the county council can appeal against it as well. The advantage of the appeal is quite as much in favour of the county council who want the drainage clone as it is in favour of the landlord, who, hon. Members opposite seem to think, does not want to get the drainage done.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes,153; Noes, 32.

Division No. 370.] AYES. [12.10 a.m.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Campbell, E. T. Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T. Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.) Ganzonl, Sir John
Ainsworth, Major Charles Christle, J. A. Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Albery, Irving James Clayton, G. C. Goff Sir Park
Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Gent'l) Cope, Major William Greene, W. P. Crawford
Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby) Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Applln, Colonel R. V. K. Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe) Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Crookshank, Col. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro) Gunstan, Captain D. W.
Balfour, George (Hampstead) Cunliffe, Sir Herbed Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M. Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry Hanbury, C.
Beamish, Captain T. P. H. Curzon, Captain viscount Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Betterton, Henry B. Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. Harland, A.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman Dawson, Sir Philip Harrison. G. J. C.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) Dean, Arthur Wellesley Haslam, Henry C.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Dixey, A. C. Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Edmondson, Major A. J. Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Briscoe, Richard George Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.) Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Falk, Sir Bertram G. Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. Fielder', E. B. Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) Finburgh, S. Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y) Forrest, W. Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Bullock, Captain M. Foxcroft, Captain C. T. Holt, Capt. H. P.
Burman, J. B. Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E Hopkins, J. W. W.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald Oakley, T. Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William Strickland, Sir Gerald
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Pennefather, Sir John Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Jacob, A. E. Perkins, Colonel E. K. Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Hindersley, Major G. M. Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Styles, Captain H. Walter
King, Captain Henry Douglas Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Knox, Sir Alfred Preston, William Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell
Lamb, J. O. Price, Major C. W. M. Tinne, J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Raine, W. Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman Rees, Sir Beddoe Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint) Watts, Dr. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Ropner, Major L. Wells, S. R.
Macintyre, Ian Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
McLean, Major A. Salmon, Major I. White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
MacRobert, Alexander M. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Makins, Brigadier-General E. Sandeman, A. Stewart Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Sanders, Sir Robert A. Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Margesson, Captain D. Sanderson, Sir Frank Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Merriman, F. B. Savery, S. S. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.) Wise, Sir Fredric
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) Shepperson, E. W. Withers, John James
Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) Wolmer, Viscount
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) Slaney, Major P. Kenyon Womersley, W. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph Smith-Carington, Neville W. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Nelson, Sir Frank Smithers, Waldron
Neville, R. J. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden,E) Sir Harry Barnston and Mr. Frederick Thomson.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge) Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro) Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Barr. J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) John, William (Rhondda, West) Stephen, Campbell
Buchanan, G. Johnston, Thomas (Dundee) Sutton, J. E.
Crawfurd, H. E. Kelly, W. T. Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Dalton, Hugh Kennedy, T. Welsh, J. C.
Duncan, C. Kirkwood. D. Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M. Paling, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gillett, George M. Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) Colonel Day and Mr. James Hudson.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Riley, Ben

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed "that the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. PALING

Before the Bill is read a third time I want the right hon. Gentleman to explain what happens under Sub-section (1) of Clause 2. It reads as follows: Where any drain within the meaning of this section is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, then unless the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of surface due to mining operations, it shall be the duty of the person having control of the drain, or of the part thereof where the impediment occurs, to put the drain or such part thereof in proper order if by reason of such impediment agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water, or in danger of being so injured. It appears to me that a subsidence due to mining operations is entirely excluded. Two years ago when the Bill promoted by the West Riding of Yorkshire was going through Parliament dealing with drainage matters, an at- tempt was made to get powers to deal with the drainage of areas which had been lowered through mining operations. It was cut out of the Bill on the promise that the Government would deal with it at the earliest opportunity. I have not heard the question mentioned since, and nothing is done in this Bill. I realise that Doncaster has been recognised as an abnormal area and the Government have appointed a special Commission to go into the case, but I want to know what is going to be done in those areas which are normal and where mining subsidences have taken place. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Government in the Bill which is to be brought in next year are proposing to deal with this question. If he can tell that it is their intention to do so, I do not think there will be any objection to this Bill. The people who live in these areas, in view of the definite promise given two years ago, expect the Government to deal with this matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. GUINNESS

We cannot deal with a question like this until we get the report and advice of the Committee which is inquiring into it, and whatever legislation may be found necessary will be introduced into Parliament.

Mr. PALING

Does not that apply only to the Doncaster area, and are there not scores of other areas where the land is flooded and where mining subsidence has taken place? What is going Co be done in regard to the other areas? If my memory serves me aright the Commission only applies to Doncaster.

Mr. GUINNESS

There is a Royal Commission inquiring into the whole question and as the matter is being considered by them, it is obviously impossible to say now what course is to be taken.

Sir D. NEWTON

I take the opportunity of pointing out to the House that this Bill is but a. short step in the direction of the better drainage of the land in this country. It only deals with cases where an expenditure of £5 per acre is involved or a total expenditure on a scheme of £5,000. It is an imperative necessity however that the position of the highlanders and the lowlanders should be definitely made clear. It is also very important that such questions should be solved as, for instance, whether a whole watershed should be taxed, and whether drainage rates should be based on acreage, or on benefits received, or on rate-able value. These are questions of great urgency, particularly in the district in which I reside, and I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that he will introduce, at the earliest moment, a comprehensive Measure to deal with the whole question of the drainage of agricultural lands.

Mr. ALEXANDER

It is a matter of regret that the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind should be taken at this hour. It is also a. matter of regret to me that the taking of the Bill at this time has made it inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Norfolk (Mr. N. Buxton), who is so intimate with this matter, to be present. In his absence I heartily support the point put forward by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) that this Bill must be regarded as only a short step in the direction of land drainage reform which is so urgently required in the interest of agricultural development in this country. It is to be regretted that, even in the case of such a short step in the right direction, the Government should have been so complaisant as to withdraw from the Bill many provisions which would have made it more workable. The way in which the Bill was handled in Committee showed clearly that the Amendments accepted from another place had made such a great change that even the Minister himself was not able to follow clearly the Bill in its amended form. We have had another illustration to-night of how imperfect in the absence of expert advice at the moment, is the Minister's knowledge of the Bill to which we are now giving a Third Reading. It is obvious that the Bill was so emasculated in another place as to make it far less useful than it would have been, had it been taken through all its stages in the form in which it was originally drafted. We on this side think that in measures of reform of this kind, the House should always make quite certain, where steps are taken to improve land in the interests of the nation as a whole, that the increased value of the land should not accrue to the landowner, but should become the property of the community.

We have been told that it is contemplated that the whole cost—at any rate in theory—of schemes promoted under this Bill will be recoverable from the owners. That has never been very clear to me, but, in passing the Third Reading, we ought to say here and now that any increment in value as a result of these schemes, is not to become the property of the landowners but is to be credited to the whole community. That point was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Northern Norfolk during the Committee stage, and I do not think he got a satisfactory answer. It is much to he regretted that the Amendments accepted provide so many avenues for obstructing the legitimate action of local authorities in securing improvements in land drainage, and I wish to place on record, on the Third Reading of this Bill, that in our view it was unnecessary for the Government to give way, as they have given way, to those who take the landowners' view in these matters. They should not have allowed it to be made so easy for interested persons to check and delay, at every stage, the action of local authorities for improving drainage, and to do so at the expense of the local authorities and ratepayers. While we make these points we agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge that th.7, Bill is a short step in the direction of reform and we emphasise the request which he has made that the Government should introduce at an early date a more comprehensive Measure but we do not propose to divide against the Third Reading.