Clause 26.—(SPOIL.) (Hansard, 26 April 1961)

§ Mr. Soames
I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, after "watercourse" to insert: or on such width of land adjoining the watercourse as is specified in the next following subsection". I think that hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will agree that this Clause probably took up more time and exercised our thoughts more than any other Clause. It is difficult to define what is a bank of a river on which spoil can be deposited. We tried all ways and means, and I was very worried at one time whether we should be able to find words to remove any doubt about what we had in mind, and at the same time satisfy those who are responsible for the drafting of Bills. We did get it after a long time. We were very lucky, because this Clause was about to be reached at the time of the Christmas Recess, so that we had the Recess to think about it.

§ Mr. Bullard
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. As there is a series of Amendments on this, would it not be best to discuss them together?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That was not suggested to me as being convenient. It is not proposed to select the next Amendment, so I think this Amendment should be discussed as it stands.

§ Mr. Soames
Now that this point has been drawn to my attention, I suggest that it would be advantageous if we could discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 16, line 20, at the end, to insert: (1B) The said width is such as is sufficient to enable the said matter to be removed and deposited by mechanical means in one operation. They march together.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That would entail calling an Amendment to the second of the proposed Amendments. It is more convenient to take them one by one.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
If it is any help, I should be very ready for my Amendment to the Minister's second Amendment, at the end, to add: but without prejudice to the right of the drainage board to carry out the operations of removing, depositing or spreading such matter by separate stages at times seeming to the board to be appropriate to be discussed now.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
If that is convenient to the House, yes.

§ Mr. Soames
I was saying what happened during the Christmas Recess. We had this time, and we found a way of getting round our difficulties. Roughly speaking, the problem is when one is digging out this beastly spoil from a river and putting it on the side, how far one can go without committting a nuisance along the bank? One could not define this in terms of footage of bank, because it would vary very much, with different banks, different contours, and so forth. It would be difficult to put it into a Statute and say that it should be say 30 ft.—which was suggested at one time. Another proposition was to leave it to the interpretation of the word "banks," but the courts would have difficulty in defining what was meant by "banks."
In the Amendment we say that a machine digs in and puts the spoil out, and that the limit is where the machine can reach in one operation. But the machine must not go beyond what it can do in the one operation. 576 11.15 p.m.
This has been agreed by all the associations who were as worried as were hon. Members in the Standing Committee and as worried as I was myself about whether we should be able to find a solution. This solution appears to be satisfactory to everyone. It is not, after all, a very complicated matter. As so often happens when a problem seems insoluble, the solution found in the end is quite a simple one. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

§ Mr. Peart
I congratulate the Minister on his demonstration to the House. I am certain that he would make an excellent schoolmaster—

§ Mr. Soames
Thank you very much.

§ Mr. Peart
—and may yet become one.
There is only one point which worries me. I understand how difficult it is to get a definition. We had some amusing speeches in the Standing Committee. At least, they sounded very amusing; they read rather strangely now. However, if we rely on machines, as we are to do, what will happen when the machines change and develop, as they do? We are making this Amendment on the understanding of what the machines can do now. Machines vary considerably, and they are developed and changed. The time may come when the distance the spoil can now be lifted in one operation will be greater. So I think there is a difficulty about the Amendment, although, whatever definition we make, there will be the same difficulty about it. I think we have to be very careful about this, although I have no objection myself to the Amendment.

§ Mr. Turton
I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister, and to thank him, because I raised this matter in the Standing Committee. This was one of the few cases in which the Minister was not following the Heneage Report. I understand the difficulty about it. "Banks" has been unfortunately defined in the case of Jones v. the Mersey River Board to the great disadvantage of all river boards and internal drainage boards in the country. It was felt necessary to get some definition.
I do not see the difficulties which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has mentioned. The whole difficulty has arisen recently because of the 577 cub excavators and the major excavators throwing the spoil farther and farther, so that a definition may be thrown cut of date by the advance of mechanical developments. It is much better to have a definition which keeps pace with mechanical developments.
There is one doubt in my mind. I do not see any of my constituents interested in the work of river and drainage boards playing halma with the spoil as my right hon Friend pictured in his graphic illustration. I agree that he has put forward a most satisfactory definition, and I think that we all of us ought to be very grateful to him for the very ingenious way he has done it.

§ Sir D. Glover
I should just like to join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I suppose he will now be able to do down in history as the first right hon. Member of this House who has used the machine age to decide legislation. Perhaps in another few years' time this will be cited as the first moment in the House when the machine took over from the human being.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
This may be a convenient moment to argue the point contained in my Amendment to the second of my right hon. Friend's proposed Amendments. The reason that I ask for this is that after the very graphic demonstration of the Minister of how he sees this spoil being removed and deposited in one operation, we are left with a mental picture of a horrible pile of earth along some of the bank, which in due course will be spread by agreement with the occupiers. This is something which is going on the whole time in the Fenland districts anyway, and in many oases it is of some agricultural benefit, especially in cases where the Fens are tending to blow away in high winds. As I read the Minister's Amendments, excellent though they are, we are somewhat tied by the Amendment in page 16, line 20, to the matter having to be removed and deposited by mechanical means in one operation.
There is not only this question of spreading the spoil after it has been deposited on the banks. I understand that in some districts—I do not think it often happens in the Fens—there is the practice of removing the spoil out of the actual course of the river, putting it into barges and towing it and depositing it 578 further up or down stream. I do not know if the Minister's Amendment will cover that sort of operation.
I appreciate that what my right hon. Friend is trying to do is to fix the width of ground within which spoil can be deposited, but the purpose of my Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment is to ensure that in getting that width—which I fully agree we must get somehow—we do not at the same time make it absolutely essential that in removing spoil from rivers it must be deposited in one movement, because I do not think it can be done on the banks of some rivers. If we read the Minister's second Amendment too rigidly, I think there is a risk of that interpretation being placed upon it in the event of a dispute in the courts, and that would be a pity because it would greatly interfere with the work of some river boards and drainage boards. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance on this point.

§ Mr. Bullard
I thank my right hon. Friend for tabling these Amendments. In the Standing Committee in the course of discussing one of my Amendments, various suggestions were made about the width of land which might be available to drainage boards for depositing spoil. The Association of Internal Drainage Boards, on behalf of whom I raised the matter, are very grateful to my right hon. Friend for having dealt with it as he has.
I should like to comment on a matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). The question of spreading spoil is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill, though it is a matter of great importance. As a matter of fact, I think that this can be done only by agreement between the internal drainage board and the occupiers of the adjoining land. There ought to be some obligation on the board to deal with this spreading operation within a reasonable time. Most boards do so, because if they did not, these lumps of spoil would become a great eyesore, becoming covered with thistles and rubbish. It is therefore in the interests of the boards to spread this spoil.
I should like the Minister to consider a provision in the Bill to place on the boards an obligation to dispose of these eyesores which would arise if spoil were left for too long on the banks of streams.

§ Mr. Soames
I am glad that the Amendment seems to have found favour with all those who were so earnestly seeking the right answer to what appeared to be an intractable problem. On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and echoed by my hon. Friend the member for Kings' Lynn (Mr. Bullard), spreading is not mentioned in the Clause, as my hon. Friend has just said. The Clause lays down what the drainage board can do in depositing spoil on other people's land. It limits what it can do. The whole object is to prevent boards spreading the spoil all over people's land and making a thorough nuisance of themselves. The Clause delineates what can be done to reasonably enable the board to do its job.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely is anxious to insert an Amendment to ensure that the Clause in no way interferes with spreading. No Amendment is necessary for that purpose. What we have to do statutorily is to lay down what is laid down in the Clause, to make it possible for the board to do its job and, as I have said, to stop the board from making a nuisance of itself. It happens already all the time between drainage boards and the farmers who farm land adjoining the water course that many of them arrange for the spoil, instead of being piled up, to be spread evenly.
This is in no way inhibited by the Clause as it was or as amended. It would be wrong for us to try to legislate for this kind of thing and to write into the Bill a provision that, if the owner wants it, it is incumbent upon the board to do it, or if the board wants it, it is incumbent upon the owner to help. Once what is in the Clause has been done, anything further should be left, as it is now, to common sense and to the good relationship and agreement between the farmers concerned and the drainage hoard. I suggest that this is the best way to handle the matter.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Am I right in assuming that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) does not wish to move his Amendment to the proposed Amendment?

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I will not seek to move that Amendment in view of what the Minister has said.

§ Mr. Soames
I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out "and" and to insert: the drainage board may, if they think fit, pay to him such compensation as they may determine; and if". This is not a major point but it was raised in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) and I am grateful to him for having done so. The Amendment will make this provision in the Clause simpler and fairer. As the Bill was drafted, we laid down that a board could not pay any compensation to a landowner unless it was shown that the damage had been done. In the good relationship which has to exist if arrangements are to work well between them and farmers, boards have been accustomed, if they feel that they themselves have caused him extra expense, to pay the farmer compensation if they feel that some measure of compensation is appropriate. The Amendment is designed to enable that arrangement to continue, as my hon. Friend and other hon. Member suggested in Committee. The Amendment will serve to oil the wheels generally and to maintain the situation much as it is today.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question. He will know that in Section 34 (3) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the following appears: Where injury is sustained by any person by reason of the exercise by a drainage board of any of its powers under this section, the board shall be liable to make full compensation to the injured person, and in case of dispute the amount of the compensation shall be determined in the manner in which disputed compensation for land is required to be determined by the Lands Clauses Acts. What effect, if any, does my right hon. Friend's Amendment have on that subsection? Is it intended that it should no longer apply to complaints of this kind?

§ Mr. Soames
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires, in this form. The Amendment will ensure that river boards and drainage boards will be able to deposit spoil and pay compensation where damage is caused as they have been accustomed to do in the past and as they have been doing under the powers of the 1930 Act.

§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "they think fit" and to insert: there is substantial loss or injury". The Amendment relates to a small but important point. The Minister proposes that the drainage board may, if they think fit, pay…such compensation as they may determine". That is not an onerous obligation, but it meets a point that was raised in Standing Committee. We on this side wonder whether it would not be better to make the obligation specific in case of substantial loss or injury. In other words, that would be the criterion. It is more in accord with the view of the Heneage Committee. We agree that normally there would be no case for compensation. I prefer the criterion that we suggest, but I invite the Minister to express his views about it.

§ Mr. Soames
I quite see what the hon. Member is trying to do, but, in fact, he is running counter to our endeavour which is to meet the point made in Committee by my hon. Friend and also the wishes of the drainage boards in this respect. The drainage boards were anxious that this Clause should not be too restrictive, that they should be able to pay compensation without having to have recourse to the courts and the like if it was obvious that they had caused damage to the land.
What this Amendment will in fact do—though I appreciate what is in the hon. Member's mind—is to lay down that if there is substantial loss or injury then the drainage board should pay. But that, in fact, makes it much more restrictive because if we were to write these words into the Bill it would be incumbent upon the drainage boards to have it proved that substantial loss or 582 injury had been suffered by the individual. I am told that to prove what is substantial is difficult in the courts.
I do not think that our Amendment is in any way detracting from the right of the individual to get compensation from the drainage boards if damage is done. The object of the Amendment was to enable the drainage boards, when they so wished and at their discretion to pay compensation if they thought that they had done damage, without the man concerned having to take them to the courts to prove that the loss or injury was substantial.
Drainage boards are highly responsible bodies, and I have no doubt that they will exercise this right as they have clone in the past with the greatest care. I do not think that it would be right to impose upon them the need to have it proved that they had caused substantial loss or injury before they paid out compensation. I think, perhaps, that on reconsideration the hon. Member might withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Willey
Of course, we are not only concerned with the boards but with the person who suffers injury. We want to give him some assurance that there are conditions in which this discretion should be exercised in his favour. However, I appreciate the difficulty of the words which we propose and, on reflection, feel that they might not be as advantageous to the person injured as the present words. But I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again to see whether the words could be improved upon. In view of what the Minister has said, I would not wish to press the Amendment at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Soames
I beg to move. That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
We have made substantial progress on the Bill during this evening. We have got well into it; we have broken its back on the Report stage, and many of the most important questions which were 583 worrying hon. Members have been dealt with. I feel that this has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House in a spirt of co-operation and in an endeavour to master the matters which those who have lived with the Bill realise are so important. As I say, we have made considerable progress and I suggest that we might now adjourn further consideration.