LAND DRAINAGE

HC Deb 02 May 1973 vol 855 cc1302-9

Mr. Oakes

I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 57, line 11, after 'county', insert 'or district'.

Mr. Deputy Chairman

With this amendment it will be for the convenience of the House to take with it Amendment No. 96, in page 57, line 12, after 'county', insert 'or district'.

No. 98, in page 57, leave out lines 31 and 33.

No. 104, in page 59, line 42, leave out 'and not more than fifteen'.

No. 106, in page 60, line 4, after 'county ', insert ' or district'.

Mr. Oakes

This series of amendments arises at the request of the local government associations—the AMC, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association. In essence it asks for representation by district councils as well as county councils on the regional and local land drainage committees. That is a reasonable request as Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106 deal with the local land drainage committees. There is equal validity for district councillors to sit on the regional committees.

When we consider the work of the regional committees, it appears that in the main a considerable part of their duties will be to deal with drainage in a given area. Their problems will be overflowing ditches, water courses and the possibility of flooding. Those are preeminently the sort of things that a district councillor, who, as a rule, comes from the locality and knows the locality extremely well—he would be known by his constituents and would be easily available to be reached by them—can properly bring up on the regional or local land drainage committee.

I know that the county councils are represented, but often the county councillor sitting on a land drainage committee could, with our modern county councils, live a considerable distance away. When people are faced with overflowing ditches or a brook running through their home because of a heavy rain storm, they want someone available quickly to take up the matter. They do not want to search to find who might be the local representative of the county council on the district land drainage committee concerned.

6.0 p.m.

In no way is it sought by these amendments to diminish the number of representatives from county councils. This is not a war between district and county in which the district wants representation instead of the county. All that is asked for is parity of representation with the county.

These are reasonable amendments because of the local nature and type of complaint and problem which members of such land drainage committees are likely to face, and it would not do a great deal of harm to the Bill if the Government accepted them. It would mean altering the size of the committees, but in the interests of local democracy, and of the consumer—the householder—who wants to know where to go with his complaints or grievances, the amendments would admirably improve the Bill.

Sir D. Renton

In my constituency land drainage is probably as big a problem as is to be found in any constituency in England. We have very large areas of fen land and clay land. Both, for farming efficiency and for ordinary life, because the land is low lying, to a great extent depend upon drainage.

I have a measure of sympathy with the argument for the amendments because I think that the new district councils are going to be important bodies. But I believe that it is not strictly necessary for the district councils to be represented upon the land drainage committees. I think that the committees will be more effective if they are not too large and not too over-representative. They are to have some very important executive deci- sions to take. I would be happy with the knowledge that our county councils were going to represent the local interests upon these important committees. I would not be inclined to insist that the district councils should be represented as well. It would mean, in effect, double representation. That I consider to be unnecessary.

I greatly welcome, as do many others in rural England, the provisions with regard to land drainage committees. They are going to have a very important job, and, while there might be some argument as to how best they can do it, on balance I am against adding representatives of district councils to them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

The effects of the amendments fall into two categories. Amendments Nos. 95, 96, 105 and 106 would give the district councils an undefined measure of representation on regional and local land drainage committees. Amendments Nos. 100 and 108 would take this a stage further by making district council representation equal to that of the counties. Consequent amendments, bearing in mind the desire for parity, would mean that the size of these committees would have to be enlarged.

The inclusion of the county councils alone on the land drainage committees is intended to perpetuate the present day well-tried river authority system, which reflects the financial arrangements whereby the county councils meet the precept for land drainage. We consider that the reasonable demands of local democracy are met by the inclusion of county councillors, since they represent all the electors, including those in the districts, within a county. Having served as a member of a district council for 15 years, I understand well the views of the local authority associations on some of these matters.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) pointed out, one effect of the amendments would be in some cases to give virtually double representation because it would frequently happen that county council members would also be members of district councils, and there is no reason why such members should not be appointed to regional and local land drainage committees. I take one river authority at random as an example. It happened to be the first one I asked about. It has 15 members—three county borough and 12 county council members. Of the 12 county council members, nine serve on either an urban district council or a rural district council.

Bearing in mind that regional and local land drainage committees are to be committees and sub-committees of water authorities, on which district councils will be represented, we are satisfied that the reasonable demands of local democracy are met. Government Amendment No. 62, agreed to yesterday on Clause 22, requires water authorities to consult local authorities about their forward programmes, including land drainage programmes. That will be of enormous help because of the inter-action over urban run-off—the drainage problem associated with urban development. Therefore, the district councils will be aware of and will have an opportunity to influence the shape and content of these programmes. To that extent, I believe the demands of democracy are totally met. There is no reason why district councillors should not be serving, in their rôole as county council members, on land drainage committees.

The other consequent effect of the amendments would be to alter the size of the committees. I agree that fairly small committees are more likely to be effective. I can understand that the local authority associations might not share that view in this case, but the local land drainage committees are intended, with some minor modifications, to carry on only the work of land drainage committees of existing river authorities, which have other functions—water conservation, pollution and fisheries—and it is not unreasonable to argue that with these limited functions they should have a small membership.

Therefore, because the Government believe that the demands of democracy are met and that the size of the committees is appropriate for the functions they are to fulfil, I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Oakes

I accept that there is a problem in deciding the balance between adequate representation and the size of a committee. It is an eternal problem to the House. I assure the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that I in no way detract from the duties of county councillors. My wife is a county councillor, so that is something I would not dare do.

The hon. Lady drew an analogy with an existing river authority, finding that 12 county councillors sat on it and that nine of them were also serving on district councils. I think that that is not likely to arise so much in future. I think that people serving in dual capacities are becoming much rarer today.

However, the House has ventilated the matter. Perhaps the other place will have second thoughts. I do not wish to divide the House on the issue, and, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones

I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 59, line 22, at end insert: 'and to the local authority for every area wholly or partly included in the drainage district or proposed drainage district to which such scheme relates. (8) A local authority for an area wholly or partly included in a drainage district or proposed drainage district may make representations to the Minister in respect of any scheme sent to them under the preceding paragraph and the Minister shall take into account any such representations before approving the scheme'. This amendment concerns land drainage committees. For every local land drainage district there will be a local land drainage committee, which is to be constituted in accordance with paragraph 5 and will include in its membership a majority of members appointed by local authorities.

County councils and district councils will have an interest in the constitution, areas of responsibility and activities of the local land drainage committees, and it is considered important that they should have a sight of the schemes proposed by the regional land drainage committees before they are approved by the Minister and should have an opportunity of making representations in regard to any of the provisions included in such schemes. It is the object of this amendment to secure that that is so.

Mrs. Fenner

As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) said, the effect of this amendment would be to require a water authority to send a copy of any scheme formulated by the regional land drainage committee for any part of its area not already included in a local land drainage district to all local authorities, county or district councils, wholly or partly in the area in question, as well as to the Minister and to require the Minister to take into account any representations those local authorities may make before approving any scheme.

The House will be aware that Schedule 4 provides for the division of water authority areas into local land drainage districts by means of local land drainage schemes. Three types of scheme are envisaged. Paragraph 4(1) provides for initial schemes for dividing up the area of the water authority into local land drainage districts with effect from 1st April 1974, when the water authority becomes operational. Paragraph 4(3) allows the Minister to direct either that no scheme is required for a particular water authority area or that a scheme need only cover part of that area. Paragraph 4(6) provides for subsequent schemes to cover any part of a water authority area not covered by an initial scheme. Paragraph 6(1) provides for variation or revocation schemes, which may apply to either an initial scheme or a subsequent scheme.

The general intention is that local land drainage districts should correspond to the present river authority areas, which cover the whole of England and Wales with the exception of the London excluded area. It is only in those few cases where an existing river authority covers the same area as that of a proposed water authority—for example, Northumbrian and Yorkshire—that there will be scope for not having a local land drainage scheme. Consequently, the scope for a "subsequent scheme" as described in paragraph 2(2) is extremely limited. I am not sure whether that was the intention, but that is the way it would be as drafted.

Such an amendment could not be accepted for initial schemes because the tight timetable does not allow time for formal consultations with local authorities and other interested bodies. The overriding consideration is that local land drainage committees should become operational on 1st April 1974 at the same time as water authorities. On the other hand, the Government's intention is clear and already well known: local land drainage districts should normally correspond to the present river authority areas.

The amendment as it stands is defective in three ways. The drafting is deficient, it does not apply to a variation or revocation scheme and in seeking to obtain consultation it unnecessarily limits it to local authorities. We in fact consult a wide range of interests including drainage boards, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Certainly my amendment refers to the previous paragraph, which says, for which there is then no such scheme in force. My hon. Friend applied adjectives to my amendment which I thought a little harsh. I should have thought that both county councils and district councils ought to be consulted and have an opportunity of commenting on extension of local land drainage schemes. I cannot see anything against that. After all, we are trying to bring about arrangements in which those who have responsibilities will be working in the closest possible harmony, and if there is any impediment to that relationship we should seek ways and means of eliminating it.

I hope that my interpretation is that my hon. Friend will be kind enough to look at this matter again. If she will do so, as I am sure she will, in the circumstances I would wish to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner

May I be permitted to add that certainly at a later stage we can consider amendments which could meet the substance of the proposed amendment so far as it applied to any scheme other than an initial scheme. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Mr. Jones

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Arthur Jones

I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 60, line 37, at end insert: '(4) Any member of a regional or local land drainage committee appointed by or on behalf of constituent councils who at the time of his appointment was a member of a constituent council shall if he ceases to be a member of that council, cease also to be a member of the committee at the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date when he ceases to be a member of the council or on the appointment of another person in his place, whichever first occurs; but for the purposes of this sub-paragraph a member of a council shall not be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the council by reason of retirement if he has been re-elected a member thereof not later than the date of his retirement'. It was conceded during the Committee stage of the Bill that if a local authority member of a regional water authority was at the time of his appointment a member of an appointing local authority he should, if he ceased to be a member of that authority, also cease to be a member of the regional water authority. The purpose of this amendment is to bring land drainage committees into similar circumstances, and the same consideration should apply as that which applies to regional water authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the sensible purpose of this amendment and will accept the amendment.

Mrs. Fenner

As my hon. Friend the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) has pointed out, the effect of this amendment would be to apply to local authority members of regional and local land drainage committees the same requirements regarding cessation of membership as apply under Clause 3(14) to local authority members of water authorities. I am happy to inform the House that my right hon. Friend can accept this amendment. It may well be that we shall wish to make minor drafting amendments, but they will not alter the effect of this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.