CLAUSE 14.—(Land drainage.) (Hansard, 20 March 1940)

§ The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is inserted to make it clear that drainage works to be carried out by catchment boards shall be confined to agricultural land. This was the intention of the Clause, but the Amendment makes it absolutely clear.
Question put, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 10, line 16, agreed to.
Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 6, at the end, insert new Sub-section: (6) Where, on the termination of the tenancy of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in respect of which any sum has been paid or is payable to a Catchment Board by virtue of a scheme under this Section, the landlord proves to the satisfaction of an arbitrator appointed under that Act that any works executed in pursuance of the scheme were rendered necessary by the neglect of the tenant to comply with any obligation relating to the maintenance or repair of a watercourse imposed on him by virtue of the contract of tenancy, the arbitrator shall award to the landlord compensation equal to so much of the net cost of the scheme as was attributable to the execution of those works: Provided that, where any agreement is made between the landlord and the tenant of such a holding as aforesaid for the payment by the tenant of any contribution in respect of the sum paid or payable as aforesaid, that contribution shall be recoverable from the tenant in lieu of compensation under this Sub-section. For the purpose of any arbitration under this Sub-section, a certificate by the Catchment Board that such part of the net cost of the scheme as may be specified in the certificate was attributable to the execution of works so specified shall be conclusive evidence of that fact.

§ Sir R. Dorman-Smith
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is inserted to meet an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Pym) to deal with the question of the owner's liability to recoup a catchment board for the cost of works carried out by virtue of Sub-section (4, b) of the Clause. It was pointed out that there were many cases where work might be done by a catchment board in respect of ditches, the obligation to clean out which was a liability of the tenant under the tenancy agreement. It was suggested that it was unfair that the owner should bear the full liability of the 2036 net cost. It is proposed that the State should pay 50 per cent. and the owner the other 50 per cent. The Government undertook to look into the position and see whether anything could be done to meet the point. The effect of the Amendment is that where a scheme has been carried out by a catchment board under the Clause and the cost has been incurred by the landowner in accordance with Sub-section (4, b) the landowner on the termination of the tenancy should be entitled to recover from the tenant the net cost of doing the work, that is to say, the balance after the Government's grant has been taken into account. The Amendment is framed on the lines of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, Section 10, which deals with the question of dilapidations. The proviso makes it clear that there is nothing to prevent landlord and tenant agreeing between themselves as to some different basis. That is the normal thing, and it will probably happen that agreement will be arrived at. The Amendment will bring about fairness between the landlord and the tenant.

§ Mr. T. Williams (Don Valley)
We have no objection to the Amendment. I think it is strictly in accordance with the promise made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. So long as the tenant has the right to go before an arbitrator to submit his case, should there be a dispute, we see no reason for dissenting from this House of Lords Amendment. The only other thing I would say is that the landlords are to be complimented on the watch dogs they have here and elsewhere.