HC Deb 26 April 1961 vol 639 cc572-4
Mr. Soames

I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, after "board" to insert "concerned."

It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker if, with this Amendment, we took that in page 15, line 15.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, and the following one—or not?

Mr. Soames

No, I think only those two, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Yes, if that is the convenience of the House.

Mr. Soames

This point was drawn to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) in Committee upstairs, and we gave him an assurance that this point would be met. He pointed out that the Clause as now worded enabled either a river board or an internal drainage district to order the removal of obstructions in a watercourse in an internal drainage district. If the order for the removal of obstructions could be given by either the river board or the internal drainage district, this divided responsibility might lead to complications, and it was thought that it would be better to set out whose responsibility it was.

The two Amendments taken together have that effect. They will ensure that the responsibility for the removal of obstructions from a watercourse within an internal drainage district rests with the internal drainage district and not with the river board, even though the river flows through both the internal drainage district and the river board area.

I believe that this meets the point made by my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for having brought it to our attention.

Sir R. Nugent

I thank my right hon. Friend for meeting the point I raised. I apologise for raising so many complexities. I am satisfied that the point I raised has been fully met.

Mr. Peart

We accept the Amendment. We realise that it is important to clear up this question of divided responsibility. There is no point in going into further detail. The Minister has made his case, and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) was right to raise this point. We are glad that it has been met.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 15, at end insert: (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section the drainage board concerned shall be—

  1. (a) in relation to a watercourse in an internal drainage district, other than a watercourse forming part of the main river, the internal drainage board;
  2. (b) in relation to any other watercourse, the river board.—[Mr. Soames.]

Mr. Soames

I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end to insert except in a case where it is not practicable, after reasonable inquiry, to ascertain the name and address of the owner or occupier". This Amendment is also designed to meet a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) who pointed out that the intention of the Clause, which was to enable obstructions to be removed from water-courses, might be frustrated if the board concerned could not for some reason or other find the owner or occupier of the adjoining land. That could happen. This point crossed our minds, and my hon. Friend brought it to our attention.

The Amendment will make it possible for action to be taken if, after reasonable inquiry by the drainage board, the owner or occupier of the adjoining land cannot be traced. If, after reasonable inquiry, he cannot be traced, the board can move in and see that the obstruction is removed.

My hon. Friend saw some possibility of difficulty if the owner or occupier refused consent to a watercourse being cleared. If that happened, the drainage board would be able to serve a notice on the owner or occupier, so that there is no need for an amendment on that point. The other point is, however, covered by this Amendment.

Sir R. Nugent

May I again thank the Minister for fulfilling his undertaking? I hope that the House will agree to this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.