LAND DRAINAGE BILL.

HL Deb 17 July 1918 vol 30 cc970-5

Amendments reported (according to Order).

LORD STRACHIE moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 5. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is put down to meet the objections which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill raised when my noble friend Lord Lichfield moved a similar Amendment in regard to land drainage. Then Lord Clinton said that he took objection to Lord Lichfield's Amendment to Clause 5, not on its merits, but because it was not in the proper place and did not come within the four corners of the Bill. I think your Lordships will see that, as regards my Amendment, it is in its proper place, because it is a new clause, and, further, that it deals with agricultural land. If your Lordships look at the title of the Bill you will see that it is designed "to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land." I venture to think that I have met the objections of the noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture on those points.

I would remind the House that when we were in Committee on this Bill the noble Lord said— 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. Now I have proposed a clause which I hope the noble Lord will receive favourably, as he was not against the principle of the Amendment of Lord Lichfield but only said it was not in the proper place and did not deal with agricultural land.

As regards this Amendment, what does it do? It simply says that where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture that drainage works are necessary for the effectual draining of some particular land, then the Board may, if they think fit, authorise the local authority to drain that particular area. It does not mean great drainage schemes, but only that the local authority may, in cases where an owner or one or two owners are neglecting their duty and flooding their neighbours' land—and perhaps, in some cases, flooding a small town—be able to secure from the Board of Agriculture permission to remove the obstruction, cleanse the drains, and allow a free passage to the water and so stop the flooding. In these days, when we are always told that we are so anxious to have more land under the plough, I suggest that this is one of the clauses which would be of great assistance, because I am sure the noble Lord is aware that frequently objection is taken to ploughing up land on the ground that it is constantly flooded. At the present moment there is no power for any local authority outside the drainage area to drain any of the land which is flooded, or to take proceedings against obstructing owners or tenants.

The Amendment which I propose is not compulsory or mandatory, and the noble Lord cannot object to having the powers to allow the local authority to make provision in their area, if the Board of Agriculture think fit. The local authority will not be anxious to do it, because they have to pay for it, unless there is good cause and reason. Surely in these days, when we are all anxious that land should be cultivated in the best possible manner, it is a right thing for the Board of Agriculture to be willing to assist in that matter. I hope the noble Lord will not refer me to Clause 16 of the Bill. Although it is quite true there is power in Clause 16, it is a different thing from sending officials from Whitehall to look after the matter. The local authority would never ask, and the Board would never give power to the local authority, unless the authority made out a good case, and showed that it was in the interests of the locality to drain an area which is outside the drainage area and could not otherwise be drained.

Amendment moved— After Clause 5 insert as a new clause:

" Board may authorise local authority or highway

authority to execute works.

". Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture that drainage works are necessary for the effectual draining and protection of agricultural land situate within the area of a local authority the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, to undertake the drainage works themselves and may direct how and out of what fund or rate the expenses of the execution or maintenance of such drainage works may be defrayed."—(Lord Strachie.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON)

My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that the Amendment which he has put before your Lordships was—I think he said—the same as the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield.

LORD STRACHIE

I did not say the same—altered to meet your objections.

LORD CLINTON

Altered to meet my objections. I have not got the Amendments with me, but I do not recognise the similarity between them. As far as I recollect—I may be wrong—Lord Lichfield's Amendment asked for powers for two authorities—the local authority under the Public Health Act, and the highway authority. I think that was the case. Now the noble Lord's Amendment is a very wide one. It gives powers to any local authority, from parish councils upwards, and including the highway authority, I suppose, to undertake drainage works in their area. If your Lordships would be good enough to refer to Clause 5 of the Bill you will see that power is given to two authorities—the local authority under the Public Health Act, and the highway authority—to contribute to the expenses of the execution or maintenance of drainage work where, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, it is advisable for them to do so, either in the interests of public health or the better enjoyment of the highways. I note that clause because I should like to say this. Those powers were very severely criticised in another place on the ground that the authorities might be executing works and improving the property of private owners at the expense of the rates. It was amended to some extent to get over that difficulty, because the Local Government Board had to be consulted and to say that the public benefit derived would be sufficient to justify the expenditure. The noble Lord's proposal is a very wide extension of those powers. It is that any local authority should do any drainage work for agricultural land, and that they do not want the sanction of the Local Government Board.

LORD STRACHIE

That of the Board of Agriculture would be required.

LORD CLINTON

I think they should require the sanction of the Local Government Board, but they do not ask for the Board of Agriculture to say that the cost of their work is not more than the benefit they do. If there was criticism against the smaller powers of Clause 5, I think it would be difficult to get this clause passed. The noble Lord speaks also as if he would have compulsory powers to make owners do their duty. I do not think there is any thing in this clause which would enable him to go on to an owner's property without his consent. I do not think there is, and, if there is not, of course that fact would very largely curtail any use to which these powers could be put. Supposing it is, as I have some idea, that this is really for the purpose of highway authorities, or some authority of that kind, to enable them to drain their roads, then obviously the Amendment should go into their particular Act and not in this Land Drainage Bill; and I suggest to the noble Lord—he does not wish me to refer to Clause 16 and so I will not do so, although it is one of the clauses under which the local authorities should get power to get the drainage done—I suggest to him that under Clause 1 there is power for the county councils to apply to the Board of Agriculture. Subsection (2), I think it is.

LORD STRACHIE

Drainage areas?

LORD CLINTON

Transferred to them. Again, there is power under Clause 2 to petition the Board to have a drainage area formed, or the drainage area extended; and then, lastly, there is power in Clause 16. It appears to me that these powers are a great deal more than was asked for originally, and I regret I am not able to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD CLINTON

The first Amendment standing in my name is put in at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and some other noble Lords, during the Committee stage, object being more clearly to define Clause 16, and show that it dealt only with small areas.

Amendment moved— Clause 16, page 8, line 25, after ("of the works") insert ("which shall not exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre in the area to be improved, or five thousand pounds in all").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON

The other Amendments are all drafting, and I will move them together.

Amendments moved—

Clause 19, page 10, line 19, after ("Majesty") insert ("in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or")

Clause 19, page 10, line 21, after ("writing") insert ("of the Chancellor of the Duchy or")

Clause 19, page 10, line 24, after ("said") insert ("Chancellor of the Duchy")

Clause 19, at end insert as a new subsection: (2) Nothing in this part of this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption vested in or enjoyed by the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Clause 21, page 10, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("subject as hereinbefore expressly provided").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.