LAND DRAINAGE BILL

HC Deb 02 June 1961 vol 641 cc587-614

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

11.6 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill has been given close scrutiny during its course through the House. There are hon. Members on both sides who have a great deal of expert knowledge of land drainage and its administration. There are others, among whom I include myself, who have learned a great deal about it during the course of the passage of the Bill and who have learned something of the intricacy, detail and value of the work done by river boards and internal drainage boards.

We have had our minds concentrated on this for some days during the passage of the Bill. I wish to thank particularly those who did so much work on the Bill in Standing Committee. I believe that in Committee and on the Floor of the House we have managed to improve the Bill considerably at many points, and I am grateful for all the help we have had. I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I start by saying a few words on the Bill and then deal with one or two points which I undertook to consider when they were raised by hon. Members on Report. I shall do this as briefly as possible and then, with the permission of the House, I shall ask leave to speak again at the end of the debate.

The aim of the Bill is to strengthen and supplement existing drainage law, to improve its administration, and to rectify anomalies which have developed over the years. By using the new powers the Bill gives, the authorities concerned will be able to get a great deal of much needed drainage work done. That has been held up because no one had responsibility for the intermediate water courses in question and because there were not sufficient funds to finance the work. The river boards will be able to raise extra revenue so that they can add to their main rivers and also take control of new water courses where the interests of agriculture require that to be done.

For the first time, river boards will be able to require agricultural land outside internal drainage districts to contribute to the cost of drainage work. Agreement on this important new principle would not have been possible without a great deal of give-and-take. I should like to pay tribute to the cooperation which the Government have received from the various organisations concerned and to express our gratitude for it. As the House knows, the powers are permissive. I am sure that all the river boards will make the most of them, but I am also sure that it is right to leave it to the boards to decide, since they are in the best position to judge what is possible, according to their different circumstances.

The Bill makes no drastic change in the basic structure of the internal drainage boards. These boards do excellent work and have an unrivalled knowledge of their own areas. We saw no reason for extensive changes in their organisation, but anomalies have grown up with the passage of time in the levying of drainage rates. Without altering the incidence of drainage rates upon urban or agricultural communities, the new provisions will avoid comparable properties bearing different burdens of drainage rates merely because they are assessed for Schedule A at different times. I am sure that the purpose of these new Clauses is generally welcomed and the extra work which may be caused to drainage boards is justified, appreciated and accepted.

The Bill also increases the powers of local authorities to deal with local drainage problems in their areas. It is clearly the view of the House, and has been during the passage of the Bill, that they should have these powers without in any way derogating from the overall responsibilities of drainage boards for looking after drainage in their areas. The new powers will enable local authorities to tackle many problems which it might not be appropriate for a drainage board to deal with. There are also improved powers for the undertaking of special drainage improvement schemes. They will be used in rural areas where the creation of a new internal drainage district is not justified.

This brings me to one of the questions which on Report I undertook to consider. Under the powers to which I have just referred, the Minister must hold a public inquiry or an informal hearing if objection is made to the promotion of a local drainage improvement scheme. The House will remember that during Report we had a considerable discussion on an Amendment put forward by hon. Members opposite and some considerable guns and minds were brought to bear upon it.

The Amendment was designed to include specific provision for copies of reports of such inquiries or hearings to be made available to objectors. I made it clear at the time that the intention behind such an Amendment was wholly shared by the Government. It has always been, and continues to be, our practice to make available on request copies of the reports of inquiries under existing land drainage legislation. I assure the House that it is our intention to continue to do so and to extend the practice to those inquiries and hearings which are provided for in the Bill.

On the question of providing specifically for this in the Bill, I have had further consultations—as I promised on Report—with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We are agreed that it would not be appropriate to single out this one aspect of inquiry procedure for separate statutory provisions. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, gives power to the Lord Chancellor, after discussion with the Council on Tribunals, to make rules for the conduct of statutory inquiries and for action following them. The preparation of suitable rules for local improvement schemes and other inquiries which may be held under the Bill is in hand, and such rules will include provision for any promoting authority and any objectors to be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry or hearing on request. This procedure has the further advantage over making it a statutory provision—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If I let the right hon. Gentleman continue like this I shall have to permit other hon. Members to do so. I have difficulty in seeing how his remarks arise on Third Reading.

Mr. Soames

I gave the House an assurance that between Report and Third Reading I would consider this point and I felt it my duty to say something about it.

Mr. Speaker

If I rightly remember the assurance was in relation to whether something would have to be done about amending the present provisions of the Bill in another place. The assurance concerned whether, or no, that should be done.

Mr. Soames

Yes.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot bring that within Third Reading.

Mr. Soames

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. The answer is "No".

I am in the same difficulty about the next point, which perhaps I might touch on briefly. It concerns powers of entry and whether we intend to make Amendments in another place to meet the desire of the House, expressed on Report by hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the length of notice which should be given for powers of entry. What we intend to do both for drainage boards and river boards—and we have discussed it with both organisations concerned, and it is acceptable to them and I hope will be advantageous to them—is as follows: at the moment, there is not sufficient power to enter in an emergency, but an Amendment will be made in another place which will enable them to go on to residential property in an emergency without notice and to move heavy equipment on to agricultural land—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no power to alter the rules of the House, and it is quite impossible to contain what he is saying within the rules of order on Third Reading.

Mr. Soames

Perhaps I might be permitted to say that in another place an Amendment will be put down which will meet broadly what has been requested.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

Would it not be in order for the Minister to say that the Bill is bad in certain respects because certain provisions are not contained in it? That in itself would allow him later to amend the provisions. He is in a position to say whether it is good or bad, and if he admits that it is bad because certain provisions are not in the Bill, perhaps he could give the House the information in an indirect way.

Mr. Speaker

No doubt the Minister's ingenuity is equal to every situation. He could give reasons why the Bill as it stands at present is so defective that it ought not to be given a Third Reading, but that would be somewhat difficult while he is moving the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Soames

Strange as it may seem to you, Mr. Speaker, that was not my objective, nor was it the proposition which I intended to put before you and the House. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for kindly trying to come to my aid, but I think that this is an excellent Bill and that it will be better still after it has been through another place.

It has been the Government's concern throughout the Bill to strike the right balance between private rights and the powers given to drainage authorities which must be commensurate with the onerous and sometimes urgent tasks which are placed upon them. A Bill such as this cannot hope to provide ready-made answers to all the land drainage difficulties which can arise. What we are aiming to do in the Bill is to strengthen the legislation which already exists in the Acts of 1930 and 1948 and to adapt it in the light of the experience which we, the river boards, and the internal drainage boards have gleaned over the years. I believe that with this Measure we shall be providing authorities which must deal with today's land drainage problems with a workmanlike and valuable instrument.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart (Workington)

I hope that I can keep within order on Third Reading while saying that the Bill has certain defects. I am not as yet giving the Bill my approval.

As the Minister mentioned action in another place and did not confine himself strictly to Third Reading, I hope that I am in order in saying that one of the defects of the Bill, and one of the reasons why hon. Members may argue that at this stage it should not be given a Third Reading, is that the argument which we put forward on Report has not been met. We argue that there should be a better arrangement in respect of inquiries concerned with local drainage improvement schemes, and we are not satisfied with the Bill which has been presented to us.

Although it may be argued that the Lord Chancellor in another place will present new regulations, we have always stressed that the Bill should deal with this specific point. The Minister should not wait for a wider and comprehensive review but should put the provision in this legislation. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to do so. I will not pursue the argument. It was generally put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) because he felt that the spirit of the Franks Committee should be followed and that its main recommendations and main approach should be contained in this legislation. I regret that the Minister has not met our points.

I will not deal with the question of powers of entry but will leave that to my hon. Friend. I agree with the Minister that the Bill has had close scrutiny from both sides of the House. He paid a generous tribute to all hon. Members who have participated in the proceedings. I compliment him, too; it was his first major Bill and he and his Parliamentary Secretary have done well in the way in which they have presented it.

I believe that the legislation has certain defects, but that is not his responsibility, there is a history to this, for, as hon. Members know, the Bill is the outcome of the Heneage Report, That Report was published ten years ago. We argued over and over again in Committee and on Second Reading that there has been considerable delay. I admit that the Minister had no responsibility for that delay but he must accept that previous Conservative Governments and Ministers have a responsibility for this long period of procrastination.

The Bill, however, has been presented and we are seeking to give it a Third Reading. Although in a way it is a compromise Measure, and limited, we give it our approval. Throughout the Committee stage, my hon. Friends sought to improve it. Many of the arguments on the Bill went right across party. Indeed, the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), on the Government side, all made constructive suggestions which are now contained in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds), my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), who put the case of the local authorities, made very constructive suggestions.

I have no wish to make a long speech today because we have already had a long period of debate on this matter, but I think that it was rather unfair of a writer in an official organ of the National Farmers' Union to criticise hon. Members for putting forward their criticisms. It was argued that we on this side sought to filibuster. Yet today the Minister has paid tribute to both sides. We in no way wish to delay the Bill in the sense of holding up land drainage and drainage legislation. Throughout all our proceedings up to today we have always put forward constructive Amendments, and although our case has not been met in every instance, I think that the Minister will agree that land drainage has been debated very thoroughly in Committee and in this House, as it should be.

We are dealing with a major problem. It does not concern just agricultural interests; it concerns the whole nation. It concerns the town dweller. Throughout the Bill hon. Members have argued that we must have a comprehensive drainage system that would protect not only the farmer and the rural community but also the urban dweller who may be affected at certain periods of the year by flooding. I think that the Bill follows the main spirit of the Heneage Committee's recommendations on this problem. I am only sorry that the Bill is not wide enough. Although, as the Minister said, it gives permissive powers, it gives the river boards certain powers, it improves the structure of the internal drainage boards, and it removes anomalies of rate collection, I still think that we shall need further legislation later.

The Bill is a step forward. It will give the river boards, quite rightly, more powers. These bodies, which were created by the 1948 Act, will be the instruments of drainage policy, and we wish them well. I hope that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will in no way impair their work.

During Committee and today there has been good will expressed by many hon. Members about the fine work which has been already done by these bodies. I hope that under this new legislation the river boards will complete much of their drainage work which we urgently require. This is a major problem. I am sorry that the Bill itself is limited. I have argued that one of the main recommendations of the Heneage Committee, which is the basis of this Bill, and in part the recommendations of the Technical Committee associated with Heneage, are still worth considering. We need a much more comprehensive approach to land drainage, but I should be out of order in dealing with this now. I would merely recommend hon. Members to read again the Heneage Report and the main recommendations of the Technical Committee. Here we must be concerned not only with drainage in relation to agriculture, but with conservation. The Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, which I quoted in Committee, on page 10, emphasises the need for water conservation in relation to agriculture and in relation to policies of land utilisation.

I think that hon. Members on both sides will welcome the Bill today and give it their approval, but we hope that, at a later stage, there will be a wider approach to the problem of land drainage and water utilisation. The two cannot be separated.

Mr. Speaker

They have to be separated on the Third Reading of this Bill. There is no other possibility.

Mr. Peart

I agree, Mr. Speaker, that they have to be separated today, but I hope that in future they will not be separated.

We give the Bill our approval today. We wish the river boards well and also the local authorities who will now be getting new powers to deal with specific local problems. Although the Bill has defects, we on this side have tried to be constructive and to see that in the views expressed there has been a proper balance of interests. I am glad that the Minister today has approached the Bill in that spirit, and we wish it well.

11.27 a.m.

Sir Richard Nugent (Guildford)

I should like to add my word of commendation to the Minister for steering this useful Bill through the various shoals and rapids which have beset him during the six or seven months that he has been taking the Bill through the House. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said, with felicity, this is the first major Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in his office as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and we would all like to congratulate him on the skill and patience with which he handled it when the water was sometimes rather rough. It augers well for the success of his Ministry.

During the passage of the Bill it has been my privilege to speak on occasions for the river boards, and I should like to say how much they appreciate the Minister's Measure in itself and his willingness to accept the many points which we raised in order to improve the Bill. The technicalities are, of course, infinite and extremely difficult to keep in correct balance, but my right hon. Friend showed throughout an admirable grasp of them and met our point time and again. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the Parliamentary Secretary, who did so much of the work in Committee.

Perhaps it is right that we should be finishing this Bill in this calm and peaceful atmosphere, as, indeed, we started it on Second Reading. Land drainage is not a topic which raises heat in the breasts of most politicians, but, believe me, it does in the breasts of farmers, because they cannot farm land which is not properly drained. As I am sure we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), the drainage of land in the Fenlands has been the sole reason why it is no longer swamped and is now the most fertile land in England. Land drainage is basic to the high standard of farming which we have in this country. Therefore, the Bill is very welcome to the farming community, although it gives power to levy a small new charge on farmers, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on introducing it.

I recollect that when I first sat at a desk in the Ministry of Agriculture ten years ago the Heneage Report had already arrived on it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing to fruition something which has defeated other Ministers and which has been extremely difficult to bring to fruition because of the many conflicting interests involved. It is not inopportune to say that at this very moment the River Boards Association is meeting in its annual conference at Brighton and is rejoicing that my right hon. Friend has managed to implement the Heneage Report.

The Bill does one very important new thing in that it gives river boards the power in Part I to levy a general charge on farm land. This is an innovation. It also gives power to levy a special drainage charge where it can be established that agricultural interests will benefit. This is the major innovation in the Bill and one which I believe will serve a useful purpose as the years pass.

A very important point arises here of which my right hon. Friend is well aware, since we have discussed it at length, namely, the machinery of collection. Due to the fact that farm land is not rated, it is necessary to levy this charge by reference to the Schedule A values, which means that the drainage authorities—that is, the river boards—will be dependent on the Inland Revenue machinery for their valuation lists. We had a great deal of discussion on this point in Committee and outside in order to try to adjust the very complicated machinery involved. I believe that it will work all right, but I ask my right hon. Friend to watch the position and to ensure that the Inland Revenue is able to provide the information which river boards must have if they are effectively to raise this charge on the farms in their area. I know that the Inland Revenue has promised to do its best in this matter, but a number of technical difficulties are involved.

If river boards themselves had to establish the machinery of surveying their areas and sending inspectors out to check areas on the ground, the cost would be so heavy that the balance of advantage in levying the general charge would tip the other way and undoubtedly river boards would decide that it was not worth raising the charge. The special charge will be higher and in special circumstances, no doubt, where agricultural benefit can be established, will be raised by river boards. But the same considerations arise. Although a useful amount of additional revenue can be raised by river boards in this way, it is not a dramatic amount. It will not enable river boards to change the face of their catchment areas by vast land drainage schemes. It is relatively small, but over ten or twenty years it will enable them to do a great deal of useful work. It is right in principle that the farming community, which benefits directly by land drainage, and, indeed, is dependent on it for its livelihood, should pay something towards the cost of this work. This would put river boards in a stronger position when negotiating with urban authorities about the size of the precept when it is over 4d. I am sure that all hon. Members are agreeable to this innovation.

My right hon. Friend has dealt with a number of valuable technical points in Parts I and II of the Bill. I wish to mention only one. As the Bill now stands, the prevention of building in the flood plains of rivers is still not adequately covered. We have had a certain amount of discussion about this and my right hon. Friend has tried to meet the point, but I feel that it is right once again to call the House's attention to it. I am doubtful whether the Bill as it stands will stand the test of time.

The problem is simple. Everyone is agreed that building should not take place in the watercourses of rivers without the specific agreement of the river boards. Throughout the country there is development of all sorts—residential houses, flats, factories, and so on—in the flood plains of rivers. When the floods come it is those buildings particularly which suffer again and again, to which the most damage occurs and from which naturally the most complaints arise. Circulars have been sent out to check this development and to advise local authorities to consult river boards before building in flood plains. Some have observed this advice, some have not.

I have a case on my desk in the Thames Conservancy, which is typical, in which a local authority was advised, like all local authorities, after the 1947 floods not to build in the flood plains because if they did the houses built would be in danger of being flooded if there were another flood of that size. This local authority has specifically ignored that advice which was sent out at the instigation of right hon. Members opposite when they were in power in 1948 and has proceeded to give consent to building in the flood plains.

It approached the river board because it found that it was being flooded a little last winter and asked for flood protection schemes to be introduced. It is physically impossible to introduce flood protection schemes, because it is not possible to protect the area unless another river course is dug. The river board is put in the impossible position of not being able to protect a local authority which it has advised not to allow development, yet the authority has ignored its advice.

Mr. Speaker

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain to what provisions in the Bill this passage of his speech relates?

Sir R. Nugent

It concerns Clause 30, Mr. Speaker, which specifically gives river boards the power which I am seeking in connection with river courses. My hope was that the Bill would extend to watercourses when a river was in flood.

Mr. Speaker

It is out of order on Third Reading to advocate an extension of the provisions in the Bill.

Sir R. Nugent

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am out of order. Perhaps I may put it in this way, namely, to express doubt as to whether the provisions of the Bill will be adequate in this respect. I have had some discussion with my right hon. Friend about this matter. I hope that he will bear this point in mind and that he will persuade local authorities to accept the advice of river boards in this respect. All experience has shown that they have not done so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have to have statutory consultation. However, I do not wish to breach the rules of order or to try your patience, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House.

My main object is to thank my right hon. Friend for the Bill and to say that it is warmly welcomed by river boards. They regard the Minister of Agriculture as their friend. They know that he and his officials understand their problems. They are grateful for this valuable new legislation which will add to their powers in many useful ways. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading and that it will soon be on the Statute Book so that we can put it into effect.

11.40 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I should like, first, to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) in congratulating the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the extraordinary rapidity with which they have grasped the great complexity of a Bill that was left in their lap by the present Minister of Labour when they took office. We all sympathise with them enormously in their difficulties. I know that there have been times in Committee when I have added to those difficulties, but I hope that at least I have established something referred to by my hon. Friend; that I have acted in the realisation that if land drainage could not be made so effective I should not be speaking here at all, because my constituency would not exist. There would be only a few little islands—one with a cathedral on it—sticking through the Fens, and the rest would be given over to swamps and fish and punt-guns.

I think that my right hon. Friend has found, as we all did in Committee, that the rules governing the procedure on Third Reading were very well reflected in the position in which the Minister found himself as a result of the White Paper which was agreed before ever the Bill was introduced. In that document there was certain wording that had the agreement of all the bodies which had been consulted during negotiations, but which eventually proved to be totally incapable of translation into legislative terms that would exactly interpret the wording of the White Paper.

That has been our difficulty all the way through, but the Minister has acted as all Ministers should. Despite immense pressure from many of us, he has completely refused to go back on his word. We admire him for that, because it must have been difficult for him at times, when he listened to all the arguments, to take the course he did. I congratulate him on it.

As all hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee know, I have very rooted objections to Part I. I still have all the misgivings about it that I had when the Bill was first introduced. Part I gives power to a river board to levy a general rate on all land, regardless of benefit, that happens to fall within the boundary of its catchment area. This is a very dangerous precedent. We have to realise that whenever Parliament gives power to impose a charge on our people, inevitably that charge tends to increase with the years.

It may be that this charge will increase rather more slowly than anything the Chancellor of the Exchequer might introduce. I hope that it does. It may be that the limit we have set of 1s. in the £ in total, as between the general and the special charge, will not prove exorbitant at present, but I am quite certain that there will be pressure to add to it as time goes on, and it is we who have set the tune by allowing it to go through now.

Had it been possible to throw out Part I without throwing out Part II, I would gladly have done so, because I feel that even when operated as well as it possibly can be it will not have the desired effect. It will not enable schemes to be undertaken in the upland areas that are now due for work to be done in them.

I do not believe that the safeguard that the general charge will not be used for general maintenance of river boards will prove practicable. We have had the assurance given by the River Boards' Association—of which, incidentally, I am a vice-president—that as far as possible the general charge will not be used for general maintenance but for new work. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it may well turn out that when the ratepayers fully realise the impact of this precept they will rise up in their wrath.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford quite rightly said that it is only fair that farmers who benefit from drainage work done by river boards should be charged for the privilege. I agree with that entirely, but I can never agree with the idea that convex slopes such as one finds in the Cotswolds, on the Downs and elsewhere will ever receive any benefit from any work the river boards do. I hope that the boards will have the sense never to impose a general charge on those areas. The Bill gives them discretionary power; I hope that they will exercise that discretion as sensibly as possible.

My experience, especially in my own constituency, shows that land drainage works best when there is a maximum amount of co-operation from the local population with the local boards responsible. Trouble starts the moment an attempt is made to impose something without that full co-operation of the local population. I trust that the boards, which have set a very good example over the years, will continue to show just as good an example in future in using the powers given to them by Part I. I am sure that is their present intention, but they will find it very difficult, especially if they come under pressure from their urban Members.

The urban authorities originally hoped, I believe, that this Measure would enable the burden to be shifted more from the urban areas on to the rural areas, but I am glad that is not the case. The Country Landowners' Association deserves congratulations on this. Here, I must declare an interest, being a member of the land drainage committee and of the executive committee of that body. The association is to be congratulated on having ensured that in that respect the urban authorities will not get into an overweening position on boards.

Above all other things, the danger I see in Part I is that, if we are not careful, it will lead to an estrangement and a slight bitterness as between rural and urban areas. That is what I am anxious to avoid. If it is to be avoided, it is extremely important that the river boards should use their powers with the utmost care, and ensure that as far as possible they do not impose a general charge upon areas to which no benefit will come as a result of new work done.

The Minister has also been tremendously confined by Part II in what he could do to improve the Land Drainage Act, 1930, because of the Treasury's refusal to face up to Schedule A revision on agricultural property. One negotiating body was given the information on 18th November last year that as from 1963 rating valuations would be used as the basis for levying drainage rates on hereditaments for which there were general rating assessments, subject to a formula for adjusting the values to Schedule A values.

I think that is true, and that we shall rely much more on rateable values in this respect. Nevertheless, Schedule A values in rural areas are terribly out of date and uneven. One of the biggest difficulties arises from the relationship of those areas that have since become urban, to areas still remaining purely agricultural.

During the progress of this Bill I have urged that we should get down to a complete revaluation of Schedule A. It is the Treasury and the Minister of Housing and Local Government who have set their faces against that, and so confined my right hon. Friend in his work on this Bill. I deeply regret that. Nevertheless, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to improve the Bill, and on the improvements that have been made in regard to differential rating since the Measure was first introduced. It is a very real improvement, and I hope it works out satisfactorily.

At the risk of running the gauntlet of what is and what is not in order, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I may say just a word about Clause 39, which deals with powers of entry. As the Clause now stands, it differs very considerably from the River Boards Act, 1948, especially in the fact that it omits subsection (5) of Section 16 of that Act. It would not be in order for me to ask that this should come into this Clause. I appreciate that, and I have no desire to risk your displeasure, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that the Minister, in his reply, might feel able to justify the present wording of the Clause, and explain why it has to differ from the River Boards Act, 1948, inasmuch as subsection (5) of section 16 is omitted.

If I might refresh the memory of the House as to what that subsection does, may I say that it obliges anybody trying to seek entry, especially in a case of urgency, to apply to a justice of the peace before he goes in. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to say why that has been omitted from this Bill. It was never quite cleared up on the Report stage, when this matter was discussed before, and I hope that the Minister would be in order in pointing out why that distinction has been made.

The Bill also differs from the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and certainly there is a marked difference between the powers given to land drainage boards under Section 43 of that Act and the powers given to river boards under Section 16 of the River Boards Act, 1948. Again, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us exactly why he has felt it necessary to vary the present wording in Clause 39 of this Bill from that of Section 43 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. These matters were never really cleared up on Report, and I hope that perhaps it might be possible to do that now. I am not asking the Minister—I am sure that you would not allow him to do it, Mr. Speaker, even if he were ready to answer me—to tell us what he proposes to do in another place, but merely why this difference exists today.

I should like to thank the Minister for his courtesy in writing to me, as he did yesterday, explaining why the wording of Clause 41 has to be as it is in regard to the payment by river boards of expenses of official visits. We discussed this matter in Committee on 9th May, and it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT in c. 386 et sequens. I then drew the attention of the Minister to the original passage of the Heneage Report which referred to the fact that some river boards, especially the Middle and North Level Boards, are really river boards in all respects, although they function as internal drainage boards. My own feeling is that if we give power, as we are now doing in a Schedule to this Bill, to the chairmen of boards to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses, we may find that, in effect, the two amounts are much the same thing. I hope that the Minister would like to say something about that, and I hope that I have given him the opportunity of so doing.

I cannot help feeling, as I have done all the way through the proceedings on this Bill, that there has been one face grinning at us, fading in and out, from time to time, and that is the face of the Minister of Labour. There has been nothing which has reminded me so much of Alice and the Cheshire cat, because the present Minister of Labour was in charge before this Bill came before the House. It was he who had the talks connected with the Land Drainage Bill. That is why I have referred to that famous work of Lewis Carroll "Alice in Wonderland", and why I feel that the remark of the March Hare is not altogether inappropriate when he drew attention to the great difference between getting what one likes and liking what one gets.

So far as I am concerned, the Minister of Labour has made quite certain that we have got what the Ministry of Agricuture likes. We, or at any rate some of us, are quite certain in our own minds that we are not getting what we like, but what we are getting is most unlike-able. Whatever may be our likes or dislikes, I feel that this is not the end of the story by any means, but the beginning of a new chapter. It remains to be seen how that story turns out. My own feeling is that we shall see as the years go by, in desiring to improve upland drainage which has not been included in internal drainage areas, that this Bill will not provide the necessary finance. The finance which is capable of provision under this Bill, although not enough to do the work which is desirable, will, in its imposition on the ratepayers, so infuriate a great many of them as to disrupt the work of a great many boards quite unnecessarily. For this reason, I have the misgivings which I have.

I am deeply conscious of the somewhat ludicrous position of those who Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer, And, without sneering, teach the rest to sneer; I hope that in the proceedings on this Bill I have not shown myself to be Willing to wound and yet afraid to strike"— just hinting faults and hesitating dislike. I certainly dislike intensely Part I of this Bill, but I like Part II quite a lot. I wish that part of the Bill well in operation, and I hope that my misgivings in regard to the other will turn out to be unfounded.

11.57 a.m.

Mr. Percy Browne (Torrington)

My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has made pretty clear his views on Part I of the Bill. I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on what I think is a very fair compromise, and a compromise a Bill of this sort must be, because it deals with so many different types of terrain and river boards dealing with different sorts of country, varying from turgid rivers like those at Stoke-on-Trent and on Mersey-side, down to the cleaner streams in my own part of the world.

I should like to make two or three points as a result of what has been said during the Committee stage and Report stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) referred to Clause 5, which deals with the operation and incidence of drainage charges, and in my part of the world, where the majority of farmers are farming small acreages, many of them being upland farmers, I cannot see that it will be worth while for the river boards to collect these charges. On the other hand, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely that it is wrong for upland farmers—I think he said in convex areas; I never know quite which is which—to pay the drainage charges. After all, in my part of the world again, the people who live in the valleys, who are usually artisans with cottages beside streams, are getting a great weight of water in the valleys because it is coming off the hills.

One of the big problems with which this Bill is trying to deal concerns the fact that for many years the farming industry has been paid grants to drain its land, and the result has been a greater weight of water in the valleys below. I do not believe that any hill farmer will begrudge paying a drainage charge under Part I of the Bill if it alleviates flooding in the valleys.

The Bill was introduced at a moment when the attention of the country was focussed on the flooding problem. It was a pure coincidence. The flooding problem has loomed large throughout all stages of the Bill. It is not a bad thing that it should do so, and the Bill has, perhaps, on that account carried more weight than it otherwise would. Certainly, flooding has focussed the attention of river boards on the need to put their house in order. I hope that they will invoke Clause 27 of the Bill which gives them power to make riparian owners take snags out of the parts of the river which they own. I see a difficulty in the Clause we discussed at length in Committee dealing with the disposal of spoil on the river banks. I rather doubt whether that Clause as it stands will have the desired effect.

All the Measures we have recently had before us in the House dealing with river board affairs and rivers generally have given a great deal more powers to river boards. The Devon River Board now has a part-time treasurer. I envisage the board shortly having to have a full-time treasurer. Also, it will have to increase the size and scope of its staff. I wonder whether these general charges will be swallowed up in administration rather than be used for the purposes for which they were intended. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely touched on that. I hope that it will not be so. What I do know is that, partly as a result of the passage of the Bill and partly as a result of the flooding, the Devon River Board for certain—I am sure this applies to others—has made an effort to improve its main river and take over and adopt more of the streams up from the main rivers. I hope that this process will continue.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill. I am delighted that it will have an unopposed Third Reading. If it results, as I think it will, in the alleviation of flooding in the valleys—the like of which I never saw before last winter and which I hope never to see again—and if it benefits the agricultural community as a whole, which I believe it will do, the Bill will be a very worth-while Measure.

12.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

Day after day, week after week, and month after month, I wait for such an occasion as this. This is an occasion on which I should very properly and fairly pay tribute to a member of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman—and, for that matter, his Joint Parliamentary Secretary—has conducted our proceedings with good humour and a receptive ear. On reflection, in the light of our prolonged discussions, I appreciate that he was severely handicapped and limited in what he could do to meet the various points we raised in Committee. This, of course, was a Measure the shape of which had been determined before the right hon. Gentleman took office. However, as the Minister of Labour is at present very kindly performing a ceremony in my constituency, I do not wish to say anything adverse about him.

I come now to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman made. I regret that his answer about tribunals was in the negative. I appreciate the assurances he gave, and I understand also that I may not say anything more about that on this occasion. My dislike of the provisions about powers of entry is somewhat alleviated by the fact that the Minister indicated that steps may be taken in another place to improve them.

On Second Reading, I drew attention to representations I had received from the North Hykeham Drainage Rate Protest Committee. I realise that I may not call attention to those representations now, but that valiant protest committee has kept closely in touch with us throughout our proceedings. After we had discussed the Bill in Standing Committee, it said that it had watched with interest through HANSARD and the OFFICIAL REPORTS the process of making laws in a democracy. We have been impressed by the thoroughness of the debate but dismayed and discouraged by the pitiful result. If the right hon. Gentleman had not felt so loyal to his right hon. Friend, we might even have got from him more than we did. However, we have together improved the Bill.

This protest committee has now given us its further views which are, I think, appropriate to be raised on Third Reading. It calls attention to the fact that this is a compromise Bill, and it points out also—I think it is obvious—that when we speak of it as a compromise Bill limited by the agreement which was reached, the agreement comprised only a certain section of those affected by the Measure. Some were not consulted. It calls attention to the difficulties and anomalies which will arise from Schedule A. It calls attention to the important fact that there is at the moment a division of responsibility in regard to flooding between two Ministries.

The protest committee calls attention to another matter which was a theme discussed throughout our proceedings, the Medway letter. It says that this is a principle devised in the middle ages which ignores completely the vast increase in water usage and improved drainage techniques which has speeded up the whole process of drainage. Based as it is on a datum line, it creates many unjust anomalies in rating. This, again, is something commonly agreed on both sides of the House. The committee goes on to say—and I think this is something we ought not to overlook— If the powers contained in the Bill are operated fully, the effect in this area will be to make fewer people pay exorbitant rates or alternatively make it impossible for our internal board to carry on". I hope the Minister will keep a careful eye on this effect of the Bill. It is an effect which can be disastrous for some drainage boards. One would not like to see boards forced out of existence in this way. The protest committee concludes by saying: It is claimed for the Bill that it will clear up many problems. In our opinion, it will create many more, and we suggest that a thorough examination in this area would confirm this". Of course, what applies to that area applies to many others.

I hope, therefore, that, while we accept the Bill in general and we appreciate that it will bring advantages, and while we have many reservations and qualifications about it, the right hon. Gentleman will do two things. I hope he will watch carefully the effect of the Bill on particular districts, and also—this is straying to the fringe of the bounds of order—will consult with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to ensure that this Measure is the first of several Measures which will bring order and an up-to-date approach to the general question of water conservation and use.

12.8 p.m.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) reminded us of the time taken between receipt of the Heneage Report and the introduction of legislation. It has been a very long time. It is not always well understood that, very often, there has to be considerable delay between the receipt of a report on any subject and the implementation of it through legislation in the House, if that is decided upon, merely because the legislative programme is more limited than is the power of Ministers to set up committees.

Whereas a committee can press on with its work and produce its report, there is a limit to the amount of legislation which can be handled during a Session in the House and it is not always easy to bring in such legislation. In this case we had the added difficulty of the number of consultations necessary with the interests involved and the effort to bring before the House a Measure which was broadly accepted as satisfactory by the interests concerned. As the hon. Gentleman also said, during the passage of the Bill the differences have been across party. This is true, except that the Bill ran into a little heavy weather when the relationship between the Opposition and the Government was not perhaps at its best. It then suffered as other Bills for which I was responsible suffered.

Mr. Willey

The White Fish and Herring Industries Bill, for instance.

Mr. Soames

Yes. Apart from that, I agree that the attitude towards the Bill has been across party and nothing but constructive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) has taken great pains to help us with the Bill. He has set his mind to it the whole way through and has never faltered. He shows his interest in this important subject, not only by what he has done in the House about the Bill, but also by deeds as well as words in the part he plays in drainage matters, particularly on the Thames Conservancy Board, outside the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend emphasised how necessary it was for the Inland Revenue to do the business it will have to do, which it is agreed that it will do, and not impose a heavy burden upon river boards in collecting their drainage charges. If river boards had to acquire the information with which the Inland Revenue can provide them, it would cost so much money as to tip the scales the other way and the charges would not be worth raising. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is perfectly possible for the Inland Revenue to perform this function for river boards. I am full of optimism about this, and have no cause to anticipate that it will not work satisfactorily.

My hon. Friend then asked whether Clause 30 would be sufficient. He got into some difficulties with you, Mr. Speaker, on this point. I do not want to follow him into his difficulties. I will merely say that, as the Bill stands, he and I have the same object in view. We wish to ensure that river boards will be consulted when any planning authority is thinking of permitting building in any flood plains. My hon. Friend referred to circulars which had been issued in the past. The last one of which I know was in 1947, which was before river boards were even in existence, let alone being the well-known and respected organisations which they now are. We are optimistic, more optimistic than my hon. Friend is, that the administrative processes which we will arrange will have the effect which both he and we wish. This is a matter of opinion. I think that it will have this effect. He thinks that it will not. If we are proved wrong and he is proved right, we shall certainly have to think of other ways such as the one he suggested of statutory consultation in order to have the effects which we both seek.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has unique experience amongst hon. Members of this subject. He has shown his impartiality by his broad attitude to the Bill. He represents an area which is par excellence one of an internal drainage district, otherwise, as he said, his constituents would be nothing but ducks. Nevertheless, during our proceedings he has championed the farmers on the Cotswolds over the drainage charge. By that attitude he has shown that he has looked at the Bill broadly and fairly, although he has made it clear that he has never liked it. He has always made it fully clear to me that he has never liked Part I.

He said today that he hoped that certain river boards would not raise drainage charges where, to use his words, no benefit will come from new work done. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) took the opposite view. He shares the Government's view that it was never the intention that the drainage charge should be based upon benefit, as is the special drainage charge. It was not considered that the drainage charge should be based upon benefit. It was considered that those who farm on the uplands, like those who live in dwellings on the uplands, should make a contribution towards the general drainage of the country as a whole. That was always the intention. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely does not like it. He wishes that the Bill did not contain that provision.

However, broadly speaking, hon. Members on both sides take the opposite view and think that this should be done. They agree that some contribution should be made by agriculture in general towards these general charges. They agree that this will prove to be of benefit.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

I hope that my right hon. Friend does not intend by that statement to go back on the assurance which he has given over and over again in the course of the proceedings on the Bill that we are trying to implement, as far as possible, the intention expressed in the agreed paragraphs at the end of the White Paper. The general charge was to be related to new work. It is new work which I want to see emphasised here. I am concerned about any attempt to raise the general charge in respect of areas which cannot possibly benefit from new work.

Mr. Soames

I have never gone back on what I have said again and again. I will always say it, and my hon. Friend knows that. I shall certainly not go back on it on Third Reading or afterwards. Of course it is for new work. That is absolutely agreed.

My hon. Friend went further and argued that it should be for new work which benefits the individual from whom the charge is raised. That is where the Government disagree with him. We think that it is right that under Part I the charge should be raised for new work which would not have been done had it not been for the charge, but it is not for the individual benefit in the same way as is the special drainage charge. That is more a matter of individual benefit and of benefit to agriculture specifically. Benefit can be taken further when one gets into internal drainage districts, where the drainage rates are for the direct benefit of the individuals concerned.

My hon. Friend then referred to the differences about powers of entry as between Clause 39 and Section 16 (5) of the 1948 Act. Although I agree with him that some internal drainage powers are large and most important, many of them are very small. The sweeping powers of Section 16 (5) of the 1948 Act—

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

My right hon. Friend is confusing two things. Section 16 (5) contains powers of entry. I think that my right hon. Friend is trying to reply to my point about expenses of entertainment by boards.

Mr. Soames

No, I am not. I shall do that later. The sweeping powers of entry contained in Section 16 (5) of the 1948 Act are not justifiable in the case of internal drainage boards. There is a difference between the responsibilities of river boards and those of internal drainage boards. Clause 39 contains the essential powers of Section 16 in shortened form.

Again I find myself in difficulty. In opening I strayed too far. I shall not do so in winding up. I will content myself with saying that Amendments which will be introduced in another place will bring the two provisions rather more in line than they are at present.

On the question of expenses, my hon. and gallant Friend referred to a letter which I had written. Here again, there is a difference between river boards and their responsibilities and internal drainage boards and their responsibilities, and we think that the balance which we have struck in the Bill is about right.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made many constructive remarks during the long debates in Committee. I do not know how much he knew about the subject before we started the proceedings, but he knows a lot about it now, and that is very good. He has a quick, legally-trained mind which can assimilate these things very quickly. He has certainly mastered this subject. He has always dealt with our differences with the greatest good temper and aplomb, and we are grateful to him for the leadership which he has given on the other side of the House and for the constructive manner in which he has approached the Bill.

The hon. Member talked about the viability of internal drainage boards and what effect the Bill would have on them. We have tried to strike a balance and we hope and think that it is about right—a balance between giving proper benefits to individuals who are subscribing towards the work of the internal drainage boards and the maintenance of the viability of the boards. Some of the smaller boards are anxious in case their viability is affected by some of the measures which have been included in the Bill to give the protection which we think it is right that individuals in drainage districts should have. This is a matter of judgment, and although some may differ on what we have done, on the whole I feel that the right balance has been struck.

The hon. Member and others referred to the Bill as a new chapter. I will not argue whether it is a new chapter or the continuation of an existing chapter. Certainly it is not the last word on drainage. Revising Measures have always had to be brought before the House on this matter which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford said, does not necessarily excite a wild interest in the breasts of politicians. But do not let us under-estimate the vital importance of drainage to the country, and particularly to agriculture.

I cannot deal with the question of water conservation on Third Reading, but hon. Members know that the Government attach great importance to these aspects of water conservation, closely connected with drainage. I hope that the time will not be all that far distant when we shall be able to talk about it.

The Bill is not the end of the road. I hope that it will be felt that it is of value to agriculture and the country. Speaking personally, having come into the matter as a layman, I cannot thank enough all those organisations who have helped us both in the preparation of the Bill and, constantly, in a spirit of constructive co-operation, as various points have arisen during the passage of the Bill. They have enabled us to maintain this somewhat delicate balance in an understanding way. There has been a good deal of both give and take during the passage of the Bill by these organisations, who have realised how many interests were involved. I could not be more grateful for all the help which has been given by these organisations and by those hon. Members who have given so much thought and interest to the Bill. Undoubtedly it is a better Bill which we are considering on Third Reading than that which we introduced on Second Reading, thanks to their interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.