HC Deb 02 May 1929 vol 227 cc1859-62
Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that any expense which the Central Board may incur, by reason of the exercise by the Board of any powers conferred by such sub-section 1 (1) (a) of the Land Drainage Act, 1926, with respect to any drainage work under the control and jurisdiction of any district drainage board, may at the option of the Central Board be recovered direct from the district board as a civil debt. I move this Amendment because of the experience we have had of drainage legislation in the past, where the power of the drainage committee has proved to be futile when they were called upon to undertake work for a defaulting district board. The words of the previous Act are, approximately, as follows: where, in the opinion of the Board "— as will be the case under this Act— any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flood or inadequate drainage which might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act, or an Order having the powers of an Act of Parliament, or by an award made under any Act which are not being exercised, or in the opinion of the Board are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such powers,"— If the reference remained there, the Clause would be very good, and the power would be practicable and useful— and also any powers conferred by any such Act or Order, or award or commission for defraying the expenses incurred or for any purposes incidental to the exercise of such powers In actual practice, it has been proved that the power to recover money expended on an undertaking from a defaulting authority is absolutely useless. Take the Don Drainage Act. In this area the rates are highly differentiated. In some cases it is one or two coppers per acre, in others one or two shillings. The number of assessments may be hundreds, or they may be thousands. The Central Drainage Board, under the terms of this Bill, will have neither a register nor powers to obtain a register, and the Board, in order to collect £50 which it may have spent for the purpose of preventing the flooding of a farmer's land, would have to spend more than the £50 in order to send out demand notes for the collection of the money. County boroughs and the West Riding County Council have found the Act of 1923 a dead letter. So far as the repayment of money expended from defaulting authorities is concerned it is useless. The right hon. Gentleman might reasonably give them power to recover these debts, as is suggested in the Amendment as a civil debt. That would simplify matters. It would encourage the Board to see that the work was carried out, because they would know that repayment would be comparatively easy. It would not embarrass the District Board. They make up their annual budgets upon this in advance, issue their demand notes to the ratepayers in the ordinary way, and if the Central Board drained any land or incurred any expenditure they would intimate to the Drainage Committee to include the sum in the next year's budget. It would not embarrass the District Board at all, and they would be sure of the money being paid. There is one corporation in this area where there are two separate rates, one which is called the old rate and the other the moor drain rate. Obviously, it will be impossible for the Central Board to ascertain the chargeability of each small area, and I suggest that it would be a real improvement of the Bill if the Amendment is accepted.

Mr. GUINNESS

The case which the hon. Member has in mind is apparently where an internal authority has failed to carry out its function. In such a case obviously the best way is for the central authority to recover the money direct. If the district authority has failed it will mean that it had not the money to carry out the work, and that there is no way of recovering it. You cannot distrain. It is much better to let the central authority do the work when, by the failure of the local district board, the work has broken down and has had to be transferred to stronger hands.

Mr. PALING

Surely if the Central Board does the work it has to claim upon same one?

Mr. GUINNESS

They get the money from the ratepayers.

Mr. PALING

That is not our point. If the central authority can get it from the ratepayers, we hold that it is easier for the lower authority to get it from the ratepayer, because they have the books, they know who the ratepayers are, and they have levied rates for years. There is the Don Drainage Board in my district. It has thousands of ratepayers on its books, and payments ranging from two-pence to pounds a year. It knows the proportion that each ratepayer has to pay. Suppose that this new Central Board with new powers decides that the Don Drainage Board has not carried out certain work. It is not because it cannot collect the rates but for other reasons. The central authority then does the work, and, instead of collecting from the lower authority, it has to go to each individual ratepayer. It does not know what proportion each ratepayer has to pay. It has no power, I understand, to make the lower authority say what the proportion is, or to inspect the rate books and assessments or any thing of the kind. It means that they have to go round to thousands upon thousands of people and get to know their apportionment, and then collect the money. It will cause chaos. As a member of the West Biding branch Board, I know that it is held up time after time because of the lack of this power to get the money direct.

Mr. GUINNESS

Under Clause 1 (1a) of the Bill it may arise that an authority is moribund and the Central Board has taken over their powers. If an authority has not been able to carry out its work it may not be able to collect this money. One has found a good many cases of these inefficient authorities. In those cases, obviously the way is for the Central Authority to act, and collect directly and not through the inefficient agency of the authority which has failed.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that wherever a district board has defaulted the Central Board must undertake the duty of draining the area because the district board have not the money with which to do that work? That is a weak argument. Under the terms of the Bill all the district boards in the Doncaster area are to continue. If the Central Board is to bear the burden of any defaulting district board which claims that it is unable, owing to financial stringency, to do the work, will any district board do any work at all when the Bill becomes an Act? If the right hon. Gentleman's argument means anything, it means that the district boards will remain in existence but will never do any work. The Central Board will have to do the work, but will never have the power to demand payment for it from the district board.

Mr. GUINNESS

They can demand payment from the ratepayers. They have full power. I see no reason to assume that these district boards will shirk their duty and abrogate their functions in favour of the Central Board.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The right hon. Gentleman treads on a very delicate matter there. He suggests that the Central Board will be enabled to carry out the work and expend the money—

Mr. GUINNESS

The hour is growing late, and there is nothing much in this point—

Mr. WILLIAMS

Oh yes, there is.

Mr. GUINNESS

I am anxious to meet hon. Members, if they feel that some local difficulty will arise, but I do not think it will make any difference. I think probably that in these cases the Central Board will find it better to rate "on their own", but in order to shorten these proceedings I am prepared to accept the Amendment.