LAND DRAINAGE BILL. (Hansard, 10 July 1918)

HL Deb 10 July 1918 vol 30 cc777-98 777

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

778

§ [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2:

§ Procedure for the making of Orders.

§ (2) A petition for an order may be presented, in the case of a proposal for the definition of the limits of a commission of sewers, by the commission, and in the case of a proposal to alter or supplement a local Act conferring powers on a drainage authority, by that authority, or by the council of any administrative county or county borough in which any part of the drainage area of that authority is situate, and in other cases by—

(a) the proprietors of one-tenth of the area proposed to be constituted a separate drainage district, or of the area proposed to be added to or excluded from a drainage district; or
(b) the drainage authority of a drainage area proposed to be altered; or
(c) the council of any administrative county or county borough in which any part of the land proposed to be affected by the order is situate.

§ LORD CLINTON moved to delete the word "district" from subsection (2) (a). where that word secondly occurs, and to substitute "area." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The word "area" is used in the rest of the measure.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, leave out ("district") and insert ("area").—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 3 agreed to.

§ Clause 4:

§ Provisions as to rating.

§ 4.—(1) The powers of a commission of sewers or of a drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, powers of levying drainage rates on the basis of acreage or on the basis of annual value of the lands liable to be rated.

§ (2) An order made under this Act may provide for differential rating of part of any drainage district (whether constituted under the principal Act or this Act), or any area within the limits of a commission of sewers, and for total or partial exemption of buildings, railways, canals, inland navigations or any other special class of land within the district or area.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved to omit from the end of subsection (1) the 779 words "liable to be rated," and to substitute "previously liable to be rated for drainage purposes." The noble Earl said: I placed this Amendment on the Paper in order to raise a point about which I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill. I must apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that unfortunately, owing to the short time available, I have not been able to obtain accurate information on the subject. I do not know whether the noble Lord understands the actual point of the Amendment, but if the words which I propose are inserted it would read— or on the basis of the land previously liable to be rated for drainage purposes. I have not been able to get absolute information of the state of affairs as regards the levying of rates in the marsh lands of Lincolnshire for the purposes of coast defence. As I remarked on the Second Reading, I have a distinct recollection that when I had the honour to represent a constituency in that part of the country there always was a grievance that certain lands which were liable to be flooded should the sea break in were not liable to pay rates. I asked two solicitors whether the words as they stand in the Bill would mean that the land was liable to be rated for drainage purposes or coast defence purposes, or whether they meant liable for poor rate, and it seems to me it ought to be made clear. If there are certain lands which are not liable to be rated for drainage purposes, I think the words might be misinterpreted. They might be interpreted to mean that the land is liable for poor rates. I do not mind which way it reads, but I think it should be made clear in the Bill.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 42 after ("lands") insert ("previously "), and after ("rated") insert ("for drainage purposes ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

§ LORD CLINTON
I did not understand the noble Earl's point when I saw the Amendment down, and I would suggest to him that, although the point has been put before us now, this probably is not the right clause on which to remove the doubt which he suggests exists. This clause is to remove quite another doubt, and only for the purpose of removing that doubt. There has been the question raised for a very long time as to whether the Commissioners of Sewers had a legal power to rate either on acreage or on annual value. 780 The whole object of this clause is to remove that doubt. It has nothing to do with anything except drainage purposes.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 4 agreed to.

§ Clause 5:

§ Powers of local authorities to contribute to drainage expenses.

§ 5. Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board that the execution or maintenance of any drainage works is desirable in the interests of the public health of any area, or for the protection or better enjoyment of any highways, the Board may authorise the local authority of the district for the purposes of the Public Health Act, 1875, in which the area to be benefited is situated, or the highway authority, as the case may be, to contribute or undertake to contribute to the expenses of the execution or maintenance of the drainage works by a drainage authority, such an amount as the Board, having regard to the public benefit derived therefrom, may sanction and may direct how and out of what fund or rate such contributions may be defrayed.

§ THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved to delete from the end of the clause the words "and may direct how and out of what fund or rate such contributions may be defrayed," and to substitute other words. The noble Earl said: It would seem from the wording of the clause that it applies only to the case of drainage authorities. There is no provision for any works being carried out where a drainage authority does not exist, and, as far as is known, there is no public authority which can spend money on works, often of a minor character, which are necessary or most desirable in the interests of public health, the preservation of high roads, the widening and straightening of water courses, and the clearing out of ditches. Where streams do not immediately join the highway, neither the district council nor the parish council seem to have any such powers. I can conceive instances where it would be important that the powers which I seek under this Amendment should be obtained, but I will not trouble you with them, because it is apparent that there is some necessity for an Amendment of this sort, which I hope the Government will see their way to meet. The words which I propose to substitute are "or if the drainage works are not situated within a drainage area, the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, 781 to undertake the drainage works themselves." I hope that my noble friend may give this his favourable consideration. I should like to say that the Board of Agriculture have met the county councils most fully all through the Bill which is now before your Lordships, In the House of Commons Amendments were put in which were perfectly satisfactory to the county councils, and I have to thank the Board of Agriculture for either introducing them or agreeing to them. This is a small matter, and, of course, I am in the hands of the Board of Agriculture. I trust they will be able to see their way to meet this want, which in some districts is a matter of considerable importance to the inhabitants.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("sanction") to the end of the clause and insert ("or if the drainage works are not situated within a drainage area, the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, to undertake the drainage works themselves").—(The Earl of Lichfield.)

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to answer my noble friend sympathetically in respect of this Amendment. If this Bill was a final settlement of the drainage question and covered the whole country, with an authority everywhere responsible for these matters, this point could not have arisen. For instance, if the county council was everywhere constituted the drainage authority in default of a special drainage board the question would have been met, but, as I understand it, the case is this—that we have a small country town liable to recurrent floods very detrimental to health; if that town happens to be within a drainage area, then under Clause 6 as drafted the evil could be dealt with, but if there is no such drainage area there is no authority in existence, or constituted by this Bill, that would be able to deal with that particular local evil. My noble friend's Amendment would in such cases give the local authority power to deal with it, and in default of any arguments from my noble friend in charge of the Bill it seems to be not only an innocuous but an extremely valuable Amendment.

§ LORD CLINTON
I am sorry to be apparently in opposition to the county councils again. I recognise that this is a very valuable proposal, but I rather 782 gather from the speech of the noble Earl, and distinctly from his Amendment, that this is not a land drainage purpose. It is for the purpose of protecting the highways.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
Or public health—local authority or highway authority.

§ LORD CLINTON
It is for the purpose of highways or public health. I do not think there is any provision in this Bill that you should be empowered to drain for such a purpose. That must be done under the Public Health Act, or in some other way. This particular clause with which we are dealing enables a body, like a public health authority or the highway authority, to contribute towards the expenses of such a thing being done. In addition, this is a clause which has nothing to do with powers. It has only to do with expenses, and I do not think it would be suitable to put into it any new set of powers. That is the real objection to the Amendment. I recognise the great advantage there would be of getting it done, but I am inclined to think it cannot be done in this way and under this clause, and as it is not for land drainage it would be very difficult to do it within the four corners of the Bill. Probably the right course would be, if the district proposed to be drained is too small for a drainage area, that the highway authority should persuade the Board to act under the powers which it retains for itself under Clause 16.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD
I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I should not wish to press the Amendment after what he has said, especially as it does not come within the four corners of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
With great deference to my noble friend's advisers, I should have doubted whether this Bill could be said exclusively to deal with drainage from an agricultural point of view, considering the extent to which it refers to the existing Acts, and the fact that they cover a very much wider ground than mere agricultural drainage. I very much doubt if that contention could be maintained, and I would ask the noble Lord, between this and the Report stage, to look more closely into the Amendment. I think he understands its purport and 783 recognises its legitimate and necessary purpose. We shall be much obliged if he will look further into it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 5 agreed to.

§ Clause 6 agreed to.

§ Clause 7:

§ Power to enter into arrangements with navigation authorities.

§ 7.—(1) A drainage authority and a navigation authority may, if authorised in that behalf by an order made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries after consultation with the Board of Trade, and, if opposed, confirmed by Parliament, in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act, enter into arrangements for—

(a) the transfer to the drainage authority of the whole or any part of the undertaking, powers, duties, and obligations of the navigation authority with a view to improving the drainage area of the drainage authority; or
(b) the alteration or management of the works or undertaking of the navigation authority or any parts thereof with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage area of the drainage authority; or
(c) payment by any party to any such arrangement to the other party as the consideration for any matter or subject to which the arrangement relates.

§ (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing or affecting any powers of entering into such arrangements which any such authorities may possess independently of this section.

§ LORD CLINTON moved the insertion of a new subsection. The noble Lord said: This new subsection is to meet a suggestion of the Postmaster-General. It is understood that certain communications are going on between the Postmaster-General and the navigation authority, and these words are required by him.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 6, after line 7, insert as a new subsection: (2) Notice of the intention to make an Order under this section shall be given to the Postmaster-General."—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.

784

§ Clause 13:

§ Definitions.

§ 13. For the purposes of this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— The expression "drainage authority" means any commission of sewers, any drainage board constituted under the principal Act or this Act, and any body of persons authorised by any local Act or any award made under any such Act to make or maintain works for the drainage of land; and the expression "drainage area" means the area within the limits of a commission of sewers, the district of such drainage board as aforesaid, and the area within the jurisdiction of such body of persons as aforesaid: The expression "navigation authority" means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation.

§ LORD CLINTON moved to omit the definition of "navigation authority." The noble Lord said: I wish to omit this paragraph from this clause and to insert it in Part III of the Bill. This is a general interpretation, whilst this clause deals only with the interpretation of this particular part of the Bill—

§ Amendment moved— Page 7, leave out lines 20 to 22 inclusive.—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 14 agreed to.

§ Clause 15:

§ Powers of Board to enforce performance of duties.

§ 15.—(1) For the purpose of enforcing in relation to agricultural land any liability to repair which is enforceable under section fifteen of the Sewers Act, 1833, any officer appointed by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may exercise on behalf of the Board the powers conferred by that section on an officer appointed by a Court of Sewers.

§ (2) Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flooding or inadequate drainage which might be remedied wholly or partially by the exercise of drainage powers which are conferred by any general or local Act or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, or by any award made under any Act, or by any commission of sewers, and which are not being exercised or, in the opinion of the Board, are being insufficiently exercised, the Board may exercise any such power and also any power conferred by any such Act, order, award, or commission for defraying the expenses so incurred or for any purpose incidental to the exercise of any such power: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to powers conferred upon any railway or canal company for the purposes of their undertaking.

785

§ LORD CLINTON moved to leave out "or canal company" at the end of the clause, and to insert "company or navigation authority." The noble Lord said: This is only a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, lines 10 and 11, leave out ("or canal company") and insert ("company or navigation authority ").—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 16:

§ Schemes for drainage of small areas.

§ 16.—(1) Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an order under Part I of this Act, and that, the expenses of executing and maintaining such works will not exceed the increase in the value of the land arising therefrom, the Board may, in accordance with the provis1ms of a scheme made under this section, enter on the lands and execute such drainage works as appear to them desirable.

§ (2) Before executing any works under this section the Board shall prepare a draft scheme stating:—

(a) the works proposed to be executed;
(b) the area to be improved thereby;
(c) the estimated cost of the execution of the works and the maximum amount to be recoverable by the Board in respect of the costs thereof;
(d) the manner in which the expenses of executing and maintaining the works are to be apportioned amongst the lands comprised in the area;

and shall give to the owners and occupiers of land comprised within the area, and to any navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the Board to be affected by the scheme, notice in the prescribed manner of the making of the draft scheme, and of the place where it earl be inspected and of the time within which objections to the scheme may be presented to the Board, and the Board shall, before settling the scheme, consider any objections which may have been duly made.

§ (3) Copies of the scheme when settled shall be served on the owners and occupiers of land in the area to which the scheme relates.

§ (4) For the purpose of executing any works under a scheme and maintaining the same the Board shall, within the area to which the scheme relates or in which the works are to be executed, have all the powers of a drainage board under the principal Act as amended by this Act, but subject to the restrictions thereby imposed on the exercise of such powers.

§ (5) Any expenses incurred by the Board under this section in the execution of drainage works to an amount not exceeding the amount declared by the scheme to be the maximum amount of expenses recoverable by them, or in maintaining any such works, shall be recoverable by the Board in a summary manner from the several owners of the lands to which the scheme relates according to the apportionment in the scheme:

786

§ Provided that if any owner so requires in writing the sum payable by him shall be recoverable by the Board by means of a rate to be made and levied by the Board in like manner, subject to the like provisions and with the like incidence, as are applicable in the case of a private improvement rate for private improvement expenses incurred by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, with this qualification, that the Board shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works, the contract of tenancy, and all other circumstances of the case, but the local authority may on the application of the Board collect the rate and pay over the proceeds to the Board after deducting such reasonable costs of collection as may be agreed with the Board, or, in default of agreement, settled by the Local Government Board.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER Moved, after "Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any," at the beginning of the clause, to insert "small area of." The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which raises a very important point. The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said the whole of Clause 16 referred to the drainage of small areas, and up to a certain point he appeared to be quite correct, because in the margin of the Bill the words "Schemes for drainage of small areas" are placed. Anybody who peruses Clause 16 from start to finish will not see the word "small" appear anywhere at all in the text of the clause, and my Amendment is for the purpose of inserting the words "small area of" before "agricultural land." I am informed, I believe correctly, that what is stated in the margin of a Bill has no force whatever in law. It is merely a matter of convenience for reference, but when it comes to the interpretation of the law nobody pays any attention to what is stated in the margin of a Bill. Therefore by leaving out the words "small areas" the whole of this clause is completely altered.

§ Those who are well acquainted with the Bill will be aware that according to Part I, when there is any scheme for drainage proposed, there are a great many formulas to be gone through. The parties interested have an opportunity of objecting, there are questions as to Provisional Orders, and the Regulations set out in the First Schedule of the Bill with regard to the procedure for making Orders, and if there is opposition there eventually has to be a Bill in Parliament. Under Part I any extensive scheme of drainage which will cost a good deal of 787 money has to go through these forms, and all the parties interested have an opportunity of being heard.

§ Then, when we get to Clause 16, merely by a little note in the margin we deal with small areas. As regards these small areas, no such procedure has to be gone through. The Board of Agriculture in this part of the Bill are just as omnipotent as they are to-day under the Defence of the Realm Regulations acting through the war agricultural committees. They can hear the party who objects to what the Board are about to do either by themselves or through their agents, but if the Board disagrees with the objections, the parties have to grin and bear it, and the Board of Agriculture step in and carry out such works as they think necessary, and then charge the owner or owners with the cost of the works carried out. It seems to me, for the protection of everybody and in the interests of the Bill itself, that it is most important that words should be placed somewhere in this clause definitely to show that this procedure—direct procedure by the Board of Agriculture—refers only to small areas, because by a side wind all the other difficulties which should be gone through under Part I of the Bill can be omitted altogether, and the Board of Agriculture can act as they like. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will see his way to place something in the clause to show that it refers only to small areas.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 13, after ("any") insert ("small area of ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
Before my noble friend replies, I should like to say a word or two upon this Amendment. The real amendment of my noble friend is not the one he has just moved; it is the consequential one which appears immediately after it. I very much doubt whether the words "small area" are capable of definition. It is a minor point. The real point which my noble friend has raised, I think most legitimately, is as to whether there is to be an appeal in a case where an individual landowner does not agree with the Board of Agriculture in thinking that the matter is really going to be an improvement in the sense of paying its way.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but I 788 particularly did not speak on the question which is raised later, and which the noble Earl says is consequential. I do not think it is quite consequential. If we deal with the question first as to whether "small area" should be placed in the text of the Bill instead of the margin, it would be best. It would be for the Courts to decide upon the interpretation of the word "small." I would prefer the question raised by my other Amendment to be dealt with in a moment.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I am quite ready to fall in with my noble friend's wish, and to discuss the question of small areas first.

§ LORD CLINTON
The noble Earl is no doubt quite right in suggesting that in the margin of the Bill the words have no importance, but I think he has been answered to a great extent by the noble Earl (Lord Selborne), for I do not think he can himself suggest what the word "small" would mean if it was in the text of the Bill. There is no definition of "small"; it is a purely relative term. For that reason it is not put in the Bill. I am informed that the noble Earl's idea is sufficiently covered by the words which follow— that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I. I am told that this is a sufficient carrying out of the marginal reference to small drainage areas.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
I must say that the answer of my noble friend is most unsatisfactory. It really looks as if this were a side wind to get in other matters. There can be no objection to having "small" in the text, except that it is somewhat doubtful as to how it may be interpreted. It seems to me that there is some ulterior object behind the proposal to get round the restrictions put in Part I of the Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
I hope that the noble Duke will not instigate my noble friend Lord Ancaster to press his Amendment. There is no ulterior motive. The objection to putting in the word "small" is that we should be inserting a word which is meaningless.

789

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH
Why put it in the margin?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
Every one knows that there is a distinction between a marginal note and the text of a Statute. There really is no ulterior motive. If it is put into the Statute it is bound to lead to litigation. Neither of my noble friends opposite is a lawyer. If it had come from other quarters I could have understood it, but I do not understand it coming from them, for it is bound to lead to litigation. The words quoted by my noble friend which follow later on surely meet the point, because they reduce it to legal terminology, a condition of things which both the noble Lords opposite wish to see.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
Might I appeal to the Lord Chancellor to help us in this matter, which is one very largely of legal interpretation. Would he be good enough to look at the Amendment and at the clause and advise us what the effect would be either of putting in the Amendment or of its omission? We should then know better than we do at present how to act.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
May I be permitted to say one word before the noble and learned Lord replies? I should like to ask why putting in the word "small" would lead to litigation any more than putting in the other words—"that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I of this Act." At all events, if you have the word "small" put in, the parties aggrieved, if they think the Government through the Board of Agriculture are acting in a high-handed way, can go to the Courts and the Courts can say whether the scheme is small, in the same way that they may have to go to the Courts in order to prove that this part of the Bill "cannot be conveniently dealt with under Part I of this Act." It appears to me that this phrase is just as likely to lead to litigation as the other.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD
May I suggest that possibly these difficulties might be overcome if after "that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with" the words were inserted "owing to the size of the area, by an Order under Part I of this Act."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I cannot help thinking that great difficulty would 790 arise if the word "small" were introduced into the section. It is quite undefined, and I am sure that the section would be the despair of all Judges if the word "small" were inserted. The noble Earl has pointed out that the words "that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order" are rather vague, but I would suggest that that is cured by the words which really govern the earlier part of the clause— Where the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries are of opinion that any agricultural land is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the same cannot be conveniently dealt with by an Order under Part I of this Act. That is a matter for the discretion of a body familiar with such business, and they are capable of making up their minds whether it can be conveniently dealt with. I understand that size will probably be the predominant factor in determining whether it can be conveniently dealt with, but I think that it would be a little rash to put in words restricting the exercise of their discretion to that one factor. And there may be others—at all events, I am not prepared to say that there may not be others—and I certainly would suggest that the word "small" does no harm in the marginal note, which is not part of the Act; in fact, it does good rather, because it calls attention to what will probably result from the application of the discretion entrusted to the Board of Agriculture in the earlier part of the clause. It would be a mistake to bring the word "small" into the body of the clause.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
I think what my noble friend wants to be reassured about is this, that the clause may not be used where really Part I ought to be used.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
Hear, hear.

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
That is the matter which my noble friend feels anxiety about. I would suggest that it is a point worthy of the attention of the Government. I do not expect that they can meet it here and now, but if they would undertake to consider the argument between this stage and Report, I would suggest to my noble friend that he need not press this particular Amendment.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am told that this matter has been very maturely 791 considered, and that it was thought best to guard it as it is guarded by leaving the discretion to the Board. They are to determine it, and the factors to govern their determination are indicated in the clause. I cannot say more at present than that I think there would be very great difficulty in going further than the framers of the clause have gone already in securing that it would be used only in the class of cases for which undoubtedly it was intended.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved the addition of a proviso at the end of subsection (2). The noble Earl said: As the Government have not considered it right to insert any words in any way limiting the area over which the Board of Agriculture can order drainage works to be carried out, my next Amendment has all the greater importance. It practically grants to the owner or owners whose land is to be drained under Orders of the Board of Agriculture the right of an appeal to an independent person—the same appeal as is granted under the Corn Production Bill which we were disucssing at great length last night.

§ I will not weary your Lordships with a long discourse on the merits or demerits of different forms of arbitration, but as the Bill stands at present the Board of Agriculture over a very considerable area of land, perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 or 4,000 or perhaps 10,000 acres, for all we know, may give orders that this land is to be drained. If the owner or owners say that they do not think it would be a paying concern, and that in future years the owner or owners will be heavy losers—say the price of corn falls—the Board of Agriculture are to be practically the sole arbiters. I have another Amendment in which I attempt to limit the powers of the Board of Agriculture as regards all the more expensive parts of drainage. It would, I think, have been far better had the Government simply embodied in the Bill the powers which are possessed by the war agricultural committees under the Defence of the Realm Regulations as regards drainage. There the war agricultural committees, acting as the agents of the Board of Agriculture, can step in to make people clean out their dykes and river beds and the existing water courses, so that the flood water may be drained away as speedily as possible. With that I absolutely agree. I think it 792 is most important that somebody like the Board of Agriculture should act most firmly in this matter and I believe that is one of the chief points in this Bill which my noble friend Lord Selborne is most in favour of.

§ But when it comes to carrying out some extensive drainage operations over a considerable area of land, I maintain that there ought to be some appeal against the Board of Agriculture. It is all very well in these days, when wheat and barley and oats are all fetching remunerative prices, for the noble Lord representing the Board of Agriculture to say that now these high prices are encouraging the production of corn, and that it is therefore, in the interests of corn production, most important that land should be drained. I quite agree with him. But I should like to tell him, first of all, that there is very little haste in the matter, because, as regards growing corn in the next year on this undrained land, it is very hypothetical. I have tried it myself, and I know the difficulty of obtaining labour even for cleaning out ditches, let alone for drainage works, and in addition to that there is the difficulty of obtaining drain pipes and the difficulty of obtaining a pumping engine. I can assure the noble Lord that it is a great many months before works on any extensive scale can be begun at all.

§ If we act in a great hurry in this matter we may fall into the same error that was committed thirty or forty years ago under the Lands Improvements Act. I do not believe there is a single member of your Lordships' House who will not entirely endorse what I say about this. In that period, when agriculture was a drooping industry and corn growing was ceasing to pay, the great remedy that was to cure all this was land drainage, and there were numbers of estates throughout the length and breadth of the country that were absolutely ruined, and mortgages placed upon them, by putting in drain pipes which have never been of any use since. Plenty of estates have never recovered from the mortgages placed on them through this useless draining.

§ I am very much afraid that unless there is an appeal to some independent person the present owners may be forced to carry out drainage schemes which apparently this year, next year, and for the next two or three years may be a paying proposition, but which in the long run cannot make a 793 proper return for the money expended. I therefore think it is most important, considering the area over which the Board of Agriculture will now have power to act, that owners should have some appeal to an impartial tribunal. At the present moment all the powers under Part I of the Act are not given to the owners, and the only body whom they have to appeal to is the Board of Agriculture—the very people who order the landowner to carry out this work.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 38, at end insert ("Provided that if any owner is dissatisfied with the finding of the Board on the ground that the value of his land would not be increased by an amount equal to the cost of the proposed expenditure, he may, by giving notice in writing to the Board within such time as may be prescribed by general regulations to be made by the Board under this Act, require the matter to be referred to an arbitrator appointed as under section eleven, subsection (1), of the Corn Production Act, 1917, whose decision shall be final ").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

§ THE EARL OF SELBORNE
On the principle of this Amendment I am in most hearty agreement with my noble friend. In principle it is only right that there should be an appeal by the individual landowner against the opinion of the Board of Agriculture as to whether, as a matter of fact, the drainage operation proposed is likely to be a paying transaction. It is very hard for the individual landowner if the Board of Agriculture makes a mistake and the land is not improved by the process of draining so as to bring in a return equal to the cost to the landowner of that draining, Therefore I think there ought to be an appeal. It would greatly facilitate the working of the Act by removing any possible sense of injustice, and I believe that the tribunal my noble friend has chosen is the right one.
But I put it to him whether his words really cover the whole case. It is a rather complicated matter. If the question is between one landowner or two or three landowners whose lands are going to be improved, and the Board of Agriculture, the Amendment is adequate. But this is a case with which my friend is familiar, I think, and which is certain to arise. He has, say, a farm or an estate which would be greatly improved by drainage, and he wants to see it so improved; therefore he is favourable to the action of the Board of Agriculture which may take place under this clause. But the way out for his drain- 794 age may be through my land, and my land may not be improved by the operation. Now, on the one hand, it is rather hard on me that I should have to pay for a process which is not going to be remunerative to me; yet on the other hand it is harder still for my noble friend to have his land waterlogged because I will in no way facilitate the drainage works that are necessary to his land. That is what I mean when I say that the matter is rather more complicated, as I see it, than would appear by reading my noble friend's Amendment.
The Amendment provides absolutely for the case of the individual landowner and the Board of Agriculture; but if these words are put in, I think he is bound on Report to bring up additional words to meet the further case; for I certainly hold that it is the business of the Bard of Agriculture to see that drainable land does not remain undrained because somebody else will not give facility for the outfall of the water. I put that case to my noble friend, and I hope that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will deal with it in the reply he is going to make. If the Amendment is not accepted and my noble friend goes to a Division, I shall certainly vote with him, but I should do so only on the understanding that this point was going to be met at a further stage.

§ LORD CLINTON
I will deal with this last point first of all. I am glad to see that the noble Earl recognises the great importance of this clause; but he has expressed a fear that a down-stream owner who may be blocking up a drainage area and whose land may come out of that area may yet have to pay a heavy rate even though his land is not improved at all. I think that was the point. That is dealt with, I believe, or it was intended to be dealt with, in subsection (5) where the Board recover the expenses according to the apportionment in the scheme. I take it that in view of an earlier clause, where lands are rated relatively to the value they receive, that must be the intention; that if this or any one particular owner, although he is inside the area, does not benefit, I imagine he also does not pay the rate. But I will have that looked up before the next stage and make certain, although I have very little doubt that this is so.
I come now to the main question of appeal. The noble Earl asked for the same appeal to be put in as is in the Corn 795 Production Act. But there is a very great difference between these cases. In the Corn Production Act you refer to a practical man for his decision on questions of fact—the question whether a farm has been cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry; whether certain land should be ploughed up; and various questions of that kind, which a man who knows his work can settle. Here we are going into a different kind of thing altogether, to a case where a man has to estimate whether an improvement which you execute now is going to benefit your estate X years hence—at some time or another. You must get the opinion of an expert witness for it. You may not be inclined to take the opinion of the expert appointed by the Board, but I cannot see that you are then in any better position by taking the opinion of some expert appointed by any other body. It is certain that it will lead to a very great cost. You will have fully-fledged arbitrations, with expert witnesses on both sides, and your arbitrator will be another expert. It is a very risky proceeding indeed to rely too much upon expert evidence of some future happening. The Board, of course, appoints its authority; it is responsible for having the scheme carried out; and I think that this opinion ought to be accepted, as I do not think you gain much by going any further and getting other expert authority. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ LORD CLINTON
I have an Amendment in the second half of the proviso to insert "and on behalf" after "application" This is purely drafting.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, after ("application") insert ("and on behalf").—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ The EARL of ANCASTER moved to add the following proviso at the end of Clause 16: "Provided always that no scheme made under this section shall include works for the arterial drainage or for the erection of pumps in respect of the drainage of land within the scope of this section." The noble Earl said: I have given way on this clause on two occasions without a Division; therefore I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept 796 this Amendment. It is always one of the difficulties in dealing with a Bill in Committee that you so often have to withdraw Amendments because the object for which they are moved is, perhaps, not apparent until the, end. What I have always been afraid of in this part of the clause is that the Board of Agriculture, either by themselves or acting through their agent, should order some owner or owners, under this part of the Bill, where they have no appeal except to the Board of Agriculture, to go in for very difficult and costly schemes of drainage.

§ I have no very grave objection to—in fact, as I said before, I welcome—any scheme by which the ordinary watercourses and the natural channels of drainage can be kept open and free to let the flood water away in the speediest manner. As I also said before, I should have preferred the powers under the Defence of the Realm Regulations as they exist at the present moment for the cleaning of ditches and water-courses, which are the natural drainage of the land, than Part II of this Bill. But the grave objection there is to this clause as it stands is that the Board of Agriculture may order an owner or owners not only to dig out the natural watercourses which already exist, but to dig new water-courses, and, in addition to that, to go into the extremely expensive matter of arterial drainage, and also, perhaps, of pumping.

§ The price of arterial drainage is certainly going after the war to be double what it was before the war, both in the matter of labour and cost of pipes, and after four, five, or six years the price of corn will very likely fall and everybody will say they had better go in for growing meat instead of corn, and the cost of pipes and laying them will probably be lost. Therefore, although I would have preferred the clause of the Defence of the Realm Act dealing with this question of drainage rather than Part II of the Bill, still I think it would meet many of the objections which landlords would have to the second Part of the Bill, and the somewhat arbitrary powers which are handed over to the Board of Agriculture, if their powers could be limited so that an enormous sum of money should not be placed upon the land practically as a renteharge in order to pay for the cost of arterial drainage. I therefore beg to move my Amendment.

797

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 29, at end insert ("Provided always that no scheme made under this section shall include works for the arterial drainage or for the erection of pumps in respect of the drainage of land within the scope of this section").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

§ LORD CLINTON
I hope that the noble Earl is over-nervous as to the awful results of this clause. I consider it one of the most valuable clauses in the Bill, and I should be very sorry indeed if it could be used in any such way as the noble Earl suggests. With regard to the Amendment, it is, I think, rather a strong measure to say that you are not to use any machinery of any kind in these drainage works. After all, certain pumps are very inexpensive matters, and it might be necessary in order to carry out a scheme to use a pump, and I do not think you should prohibit it. Then, I do not know what is the noble Earl's definition of arterial drainage. He leads me to think that there is some definition making it apply to only very wide areas, but my definition is "any combined system of drainage in which you have one big cut into which other cuts flow." I think you could have a very small arterial system as well as a very large one.

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
Surely it means drainage with drain pipes.

§ LORD CLINTON
I have never used it in that sense, but, as I say, I have not looked the definition up, and the words of the Amendment are in my opinion rather dangerous words to put in when neither side understand what they mean. I think the whole of the trouble is still over our word "small."

§ THE EARL OF ANCASTER
No, it is a question of the words "drain pipes."

§ LORD CLINTON
I mean that you want to limit the expense. Although I cannot accept the Amendment, I will endeavour before the next stage to see whether we cannot come to some arrangement which will put more of a limit upon the size of the scheme than there is at present.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 17 to 22 agreed to.

798

§ Clause 23:

§ Short title, and construction.

§ 23.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1918.

§ (2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act.

§ (3) In this Act the expression "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the expression "drainage" includes defence against water.

§ LORD CLINTON moved an addition at the end of subsection 3. The noble Lord said: This is the same provision as that which your Lordships took out of a previous clause because it happened to be placed in the wrong part of the Bill. It is really drafting, and merely an interpretation of certain words.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 23, after ("water") insert ("and the expression ' navigation authority' means any person or body of persons having powers under any Act of Parliament to work or maintain a canal or other inland navigation").—(Lord Clinton.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

§ Schedules agreed to.