LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 18 March 1926 vol 63 cc636-87

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Transfer of drainage powers to councils of counties and county boroughs.

1.—(1) The powers of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as "the Minister") under Part II of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, shall be transferred to the councils of counties and county boroughs, and accordingly that Part of that Act in its application to any county or county borough shall have effect as if for references to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries there were substituted references to the council of the county or county borough.

(2) Section seventeen of the said Act is hereby repealed.

LORD TREOWEN moved to add to subsection (1):—

"Provided—

1. "(a) That in the case of the powers conferred by subjection (2) of section fifteen of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and transferred to the council of a county or a county borough p by this section the council shall, except in case of emergency, before exercising any such potters, give to the drainage authority in whose default they propose to exercise such powers not less than thirty days' notice in writing of their intention, so to do, and that if before the expiration of the period of notice the drainage) authority intimate in writing to the council their objection to the exercise of the proposed powers the council shall not exercise the same except with the consent of the Minister who may, if he thinks fit, cause a public local inquiry to be held with respect to the objection;
2. "(b) That in the case of the powers conferred by section sixteen of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and transferred to the council of a county or county borough by this section any draft scheme made by the council of a county or county borough in pursuance thereof shall (in any case in which the proprietors of one-third of the area to which the draft scheme relates have presented objections thereto and shall not have withdrawn the same) be nettled by the Minister and not by the council, and for that purpose the draft scheme and any objections thereto which may have been duly presented in accordance with subsection (2) of the said section shall be referred to the Minister, who before settling the scheme shall consider any such objections, and may if he thinks fit cause a public local inquiry to be held with reference to the scheme."

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name is a lengthy one, but I will endeavour to explain it to your Lordships in very few words. The Land Drainage Act of 1918 conferred certain powers upon the Ministry of Agriculture—namely, powers of control over existing drainage authorities and powers to carry out certain small drainage schemes. The clause in the Bill which is now under your Lordships' consideration proposes to transfer those powers to the local authority; that is to say, the county council or county borough council. The Amendment which I beg to submit for your Lordships' consideration provides, in the first place, for such delay in the exercise of those powers by the council concerned as will permit of an appeal by the drainage authority presumed to be in default to the Minister of Agriculture, with a view to a public local inquiry if he thinks well, and, secondly, for a similar appeal in the case of a, drainage scheme put forward by the council in the event of an objection on the part of the proprietors of one-third of the area affected by the draft scheme, with a view again to the objection so raised being considered by the Minister and made the subject of a public local inquiry.

I think the Amendment is of such a, nature that it will commend itself to your Lordships and I hope also to the Minister in charge of the Bill. I will only add that there are certain local authorities which already, under Private Bills which they have promoted and which have received the sanction of Parliament, have powers of the character that are now going to be given to all county councils. In those Bills the power of appeal is reserved in the manner in which I ask that it should be granted in the present Bill. Therefore we have already the precedent for enabling this claim to an appeal to be made and I hope the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, will be able to accede to the Amendment which I move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Treowen.)

LORD CLINTON

I have very little to add to what my noble friend has said. He has put the position clearly before the House. We think it necessary, in cases where orders of very great importance may be issued by county councils for work to be done, either by drainage boards or by individuals, that there should be some reasonable power of appeal to the Minister. As my noble friend has already said, that power does exist in, I think, the case of four different county councils, or at all events under local Acts. We therefore ask your Lordships to allow an appeal in all cases.

LORD STRACHIE

I think it would have been better, if my noble friend behind me (Lord Treowen) feels so strongly against trusting county councils, that he should have come and moved the rejection of the Bill on the Second Reading. I was unable to be present when the Bill was then being discussed, but I have read the debate and I did not find that much objection was taken to county councils having the power proposed to be given to them. Your Lordships might think, from what has been said, that important powers have been given to county councils who are to go on all sorts of roving commissions, to execute great works and put landowners to great trouble. Many of your Lordships will be surprised to hear that there is already a precedent for this in the case of Lancashire, the North West Hiding of Yorkshire and also the County of Surrey. The County Councils of those places have these powers, which have been obtained by means of Private Acts of Parliament. Those Acts can only have been obtained after very full consideration of all the merits of the case and care would be taken that no unfairness would be put upon landowners.

So far as I can see, this Amendment will only cause delay and expense. What is the proposal of this Bill? It is only to transfer powers to county councils from the Ministry of Agriculture. First of all, it transfers the power to enforce liability to repair drainage works under the Sewers Act of 1883. Further, there is a power to exercise powers over drainage authorities who have neglected their duties. Lastly, there is power given to carry out small drainage schemes. Those powers do not seem very formidable and it does not appear necessary to institute an expensive appeal and public inquiry. In these days we should be able to trust the county councils, which are bodies representative of, and elected by, the people. My noble friend behind me (Lord Treowen) apparently is an enemy of decentralisation. He wants to maintain the rule of Whitehall and to make county councils liable at any moment, if a few landowners object to what the county councils are doing, to have to undergo the expense of a public inquiry and to call in the Ministry at Whitehall. That would involve delay and great expense and seems to me to be quite contrary to the spirit of the day, which is to trust county councils. Many noble Lords, like myself, know county councils and as a landowner myself I would rather be under my county council than under some Ministers of the Ministry of Agriculture. I would rather trust my county council to do me justice than I would trust some Ministers of Agriculture that we have had in the past. I say nothing about the present occupier of that position. I hope the Government will resist this Amendment and will trust the county councils.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

By Section 17 of the 1918 Act, if the Government transferred their powers to a county council, an appeal to the Minister is allowed. Under this Bill that section is repealed and all the noble Lord, Lord Treowen, asks is that that section shall be maintained in this Bill. The noble Lord who has just spoken objects to any check being put upon the powers of county councils and says he is prepared to trust these bodies. I dare say that in some cases he is right, but every county council has not the advantage of having the noble Lord as a member. He will, no doubt, keep his county council straight, but it might be that there is a county council which has too zealous an official and he may do something that ought to be objected to because it might do harm to a neighbouring landowner. All that is asked in this Amendment is that if such procedure does take place there shall be an appeal to the Minister. It is not at all likely that a landowner will take the trouble to appeal to a Minister unless he has some grounds on which he could appeal. Therefore I hope my noble friend Lord Bledisloe will accept this Amendment.

I have a somewhat similar Amendment later on, but if this Amendment is accepted I shall not move mine. This particular Amendment is wider than mine because this Amendment says that "the county council shall, except in case of emergency, before exercising such powers," give notice, etc. The council, therefore, is able, in cases of emergency, to exercise these powers, apparently before the consent of the Minister is obtained. I think the proposal made by my noble friend is a very moderate one and I hope it will be accepted.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)

I find some difficulty in dealing with this Amendment, expressed as it is in two parts. I think what is described as proviso (a), is entirely different in intention and substance from what is described as proviso (b), but on the general question I am bound to agree with the contention put forward by my noble friend Lord Strachie, that you will to a very large extent defeat the main purpose of this Bill if, in effect, you give with one hand what you propose to take away with the other. The main object of Clause 1 of this Bill is not merely to delegate but to transfer the powers contained in the Drainage Act of 1918, which can only be exercised by the Ministry or, on delegation on the part of the Ministry, by county councils—to transfer those powers absolutely to the county councils. What we naturally want to do is to create a sense of responsibility on the part of the-county councils, who are, best acquainted with local areas and local circumstances, in promoting schemes for the effective drainage of ill-drained land within their administrative areas and, so far as what I may call Amendment A is concerned, for making good the default of drainage authorities who are not properly performing their task. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, suggested just now that the Amendment of my noble friends Lord Treowen and Lord Clinton went further than his own Amendment. I am afraid I cannot accept that.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Will you accept mine then?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Lord Banbury's Amendment extends beyond local authorities and drainage authorities to individual owners and occupiers. If we were to accept such an appeal as is contemplated we should defeat the whole purpose of Clause 1 of the Bill. Reference has been made to existing legislation which contains some right of appeal. I am given to understand that such a power as this exists in, I think, Section 43 of the Surrey Drainage Act. But under this Act the power of the local authority and of the Ministry is a concurrent power. What is proposed by this Bill is to throw the whole responsibility upon, and transfer the whole of the powers from the Ministry to, the local authority. I think your Lordships will agree that when once we begin to allow an appeal to be made from local authorities, from county councils and borough councils to the Ministry, the tendency will be in every single case where objection is taken to carry that objection to the Ministry as against the county council. We want to set up a feeling of responsibility on the part of the county councils. The county councils are very anxious to undertake this work. They have carried out the work very efficiently under the unemployment scheme which has been in operation for the last two or three years, and, as the noble Lord will realise, Private Bills have been promoted by various county councils—some have been passed already—to vest in county councils very much wider powers than they have hitherto possessed. I venture to hope your Lordships will no accept these two Amendments.

LORD PARMOOR

I cannot help thinking that a difficulty arises hers not so much on matters of principle as in the way in which this particular Bill has been dratted. We have heard more than once that you will find similar Bills in respect of certain counties under Private Bill procedure. The Surrey Act has been brought to my notice. It was kindly sent to me by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Bledisloe. That Bill consists of two distinct parts. One of them is properly a land drainage portion, to which this Act in my opinion ought to be limited, and you do not have appeals. But the other part of it deals with quite a different matter. It deals with schemes of a larger kind, such as sewer schemes and schemes for drainage of a large area, and there it is right that there should be some form of appeal. The difficulty in this case appears to be due to an attempt to deal under somewhat vague words with two practically distinct matters. The procedure as regards land drainage, if taken from the Surrey Act, would in my opinion be entirely satisfactory, but it must be limited to that purpose.

I do not know about the Lancashire Act, but quotations are often made from part of the Surrey Act, which is entirely different. On land drainage proper there is no appeal under the Surrey Act, but when we get to drainage schemes in the wider sense there is an appeal and there ought to be an appeal. I have put down an Amendment to test that and to limit it to land drainage, but it is no good referring to Bilk which not only include these powers but an entirely different class of powers under a different portion of the Bill and then to quote them as a precedent. I must say I see no precedent of that kind, but the difficulty as regards the draft Bill and Amendments is that you are really including two different subject matters in a very indefinite way.

LORD CLINTON

I regret very much that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has found himself unable to accept this Amendment. He apparently views with some favour the first part of it so far as regards the drainage authorities. From our point of view that is not nearly so important as the second part. In the second part you have county councils initiating their own schemes and putting them through without reference to anyone else, even though there may be very valid objections to the scheme. We do consider that there should be a right of appeal from those who are closely interested in the matter, and although I and all of us here, I think, are quite anxious to see drainage schemes carried through, we think it would be only justice to those who own and occupy land that there should be some right of appeal against the county councils.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)

I must admit to a feeling of some disappointment at the way this Amendment has been advocated by my two noble friends, because the Government was under the impression that it was doing nothing but what was very good in transferring the power which has hitherto not been exercised by the central authority to the county councils and so getting something done. Here is a great evil and a great mischief in the country which has been apparent to those interested in the land for many years, and present legislation is quite ineffective. We hoped we should receive the general support of those interested in the land when we proposed to transfer the power which is now inoperative to county councils and gat local interest and local energy to bear upon it. Most of us—perhaps I ought only to speak for myself—I myself have great confidence in the county councils at large. I have no experience of county borough councils, but of course they have nothing to do with the present question. In regard to county councils at large it appears to mi: that they constitute a reform which has worked admirably in this country, and I have the greatest confidence in the work of the county councils. Therefore, to be met at the outset of this Bill by a complaint that county councils are not to be trusted is a very mortifying experience.

I should be most unwilling to meet my noble friend with a direct refusal of an Amendment supported by so many noble Lords who have great knowledge of the subject, and I should be very unwilling to ask your Lordships to divide against it at this stage of the Bill, if I could help it. I do not know whether my noble friends would allow us a little more time to consider the Amendment. I do not want to hold out any hope which may not be gratified, but I have talked it over with my noble friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture and he and I are quite willing to consider it a little further and see whether we can take some part of the Amendment. But I do hope that in subsequent proceedings in Committee on this Bill my noble friends will be willing to trust county councils, as we do. Otherwise, we shall not get on at all.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I point out, in reference to the suggestion of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House that we ought to be pleased because the Bill has transferred certain powers from the Government to the county councils, that the effect of this will be to increase the rates, and that the counties will now have to pay the whole of the costs, whereas before the cost was found by the general taxpayer? In those circumstances I think it is necessary that we should take care that there should be some appeal if a county council should prove to be extravagant.

LORD MERRIVALE

I hope that my noble friend who leads the House will take into consideration all that was said by the noble and learned Lord opposite. Lord Parmoor, who speaks, as many of your Lordships well know, with very great practical experience in matters of this kind. There is a great distinction between the powers that have been used or neglected under the old system of commissions of sewers and under the modern Land Drainage Acts, and it really ought to be borne in mind, I think, with regard to those larger powers, that under the law as it stood, at any rate until a very recent time, there was an absolute right of veto upon less than a majority of the proprietors concerned. If the scheme came to them and they did not approve, it was vetoed, and if, in matters of that kind, my noble friend can save what I think many people regard as a very useful step in advance by meeting an objection which has substantial foundations, I really hope that he will do so. Perhaps I may say, since my noble friend expressed disappointment at the way in which the Bill has been received up to this moment, that some of us understood that Bills were brought here at a, reasonable period of the year in order that they might be discussed, especially by people who understand them.

LORD TREOWEN

I cannot resist the appeal made by the noble Marquess opposite, but I should like, to make my position perfectly clear to him, and also to my noble friend near me, who certainly ought to have known better than to suppose that I came here on the Committee stage of this Bill to oppose the principle of the Bill. If I had desired to oppose the principle of the Bill I should certainly have been in my place on the Second Reading. I am sure that it was not the desire of the noble Lord who supported me on the other side of the House, and it certainly is not mine, to oppose the general principle of this Bill, which is that of giving powers to county councils. I am a member of a county council, and I have been a member of the council of a county borough in my time, and therefore I ought to have some confidence in the way in which they do their work.

The reason that I have put forward, and I venture to repeat it now, is that these appeals have been admitted in other places and, if Parliament in its wisdom has granted these powers to local authorities only subject to such rights of appeal, I venture to submit that there must be some very good ground for that. For that reason I quoted a precedent and requested that it should be applied to this case. I have no desire, unless my noble friend wishes to do so, to divide the Committee at this early stage, and I am quite willing not to press it any further than he wishes to go and to accept the statement of the noble Marquess that he will give further consideration to this point—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Certainly I will.

LORD TREOWEN

—and allow me to raise this question again on a later stage of the Bill, if I think it desirable to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: (2) Where the council of a county or a county borough propose to exercise any of the powers conferred upon the Minister by part II of the said Act and objection is made, and not withdrawn, by the owner or occupier of any land affected or by any navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the Minister to be affected, such appeal as may be prescribed under the said Act shall lie to the Minister. The noble Lord said: I understand that my Amendment is worse than the one that has just been withdrawn, and therefore it is not much use my moving it.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Maintenance of drains, etc.

2.—(1) Where the council of u county or county borough are of opinon that from any cause other than the subsidence of the surface of the ground duo to mining operations any drain within the meaning of this Act is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, or land is injured by water or is in danger of being so injured by reason of the condition of any such drain, the council may serve—

1. (a) upon any person by whose act or default such flow is impeded or any such land is so injured or in danger of being injured; or
2. (b) if such person is not known to the council and cannot be ascertained, by them after reasonable enquiry, upon the owner or occupier of the land on which the drain or any part thereof is situated, or upon both such persons;

notice in writing requiring the person on whom the notice is served to put the drain or any part thereof in proper order:

Provided that a notice shall not be served upon a person, other than a person by whose act or default land is injured or in danger of being injured, in any case where the works required can conveniently be dealt with by a scheme under section sixteen of the Land Drainage Act, 1918; as amended by this Act.

(2) Subject to the right of appeal hereinafter contained, it shall be the duty of every person upon whom any such notice has been served within one month of the date of the service of the notice to comply with the requirements of the notice.

(3) Any person upon whom any such notice has been served may within twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice either—

1. (a) appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction on any of the grounds hereinafter mentioned; or
2. (b) by notice in writing addressed to the clerk of the council require that any question, being a matter on which he might appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, shall be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution.

(4) The grounds upon which any such person may so appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction are all or any of the following:—

1. (a) that the service on him of the notice in not authorised by this section;
2. (b) that the condition of the drain is due to the act or default of some other specified person;
3. (c) that the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of surface due to mining operations; or
4. (d) if not the person to whose act or default the condition of the drain is due, that the works required can be conveniently dealt with by a scheme under section sixteen of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, as amended by this Act;
5. (e) that the notice cannot reasonably be enforced against him having regard to the land owned or occupied by him and abutting on the drain or the part thereof to which the notice relates, or bin estate or interest therein, or the expenses involved in compliance with the notice.

(5) The court of summary jurisdiction or arbitrator may either confirm or annul the notice to which the appeal or reference relates, or vary any requirement thereof.

(6) If within one month after the service of a notice under this section, or in the case of an appeal or reference to arbitration under this section, within one month after the confirmation or variation of the notice, the requirements contained in the notice or in the notice as varied, as the case may be, are not complied with, the council may, if they think fit, execute the necessary works and recover the expenses thereof from the person in default summarily as a civil debt.

Where several persons are in default, the council may apportion amongst them the expenses incurred by the council in such manner as they think just, but the court before which proceedings for the recovery of any apportioned part of the expenses are instituted may, if they think fit, vary the apportionment.

(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an owner or occupier to recover from the other under the terms of any lease or other contract for the time being in force the amount of any expenses incurred by him under the foregoing provisions of this section or recovered from him by the council.

(8) Where a local authority have powers vested in them for securing the proper flow of water in any drain under their jurisdiction, the county council, except by agreement with the local authority, shall not exercise their powers under this section in relation to the drain unless after reasonable notice from the council the local authority have made default in the proper exercise of such powers as aforesaid.

(9) For the purposes of this section, the expression "drain" means any river, stream, ditch, drain, cut, culvert, dyke, or sluice.

(10) This section shall have effect as if it formed part of Part II of the Land Drainage Act, 1918

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "Where the council of a, county or county borough are of opinion that" and to insert:— by reason of the act, omission or default of any person any drain within the meaning of this Act is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, and that by reason of the condition of the drain land within the county or county borough belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water or is in danger of being so injured, the council may serve upon the person by whose act, omission or default such flow is impeded notice requiring him to put the drain or any part thereof in proper order.

The noble Lord said: Perhaps the House will forgive me if, for a moment, I seek to explain what alterations, in a general way, we are proposing in relation to Clause 2. Let me say quite frankly that we have done our very utmost since the Second Reading of the Bill to endeavour to meet the reasonable objections to Clause 2 put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor and my noble friends Lord Dynevor, Lord Banbury of Southam and others. With that object we have in effect recast Clause 2 and there are a considerable siderable number of Amendments upon the Paper in my name, of which this is first, that are being submitted with that intent.

Four main objections have been urged against Clause 2, and they have become apparent in the Amendments put down by various noble Lords to this clause. The first one raises the question as to whether a man may reasonably damage his own land—an objection put forward, I think, by my noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale, and also by my noble friend Lord Dynevor. The second question is whether the owner and occupier of land containing a blocked drain shall be primâ facie liable for that blocking. That is a matter that was dealt with by Lord Parmoor upon the Second Beading. The third question raised by the principal Amendments upon the Paper is the nature of the tribunal that will hear appeals against notices served. That is raised particularly by the Amendment that stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. Finally, there is the definition of a drain, a matter which has aroused considerable comment and in respect of which Amendments have been put down by Lord Banbury, Lord Parmoor and Lord Dynevor, the Amendment of Lord Banbury being, I believe, to some extent inspired by my noble friend and colleague Lord Desborough, who is the very efficient Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am always willing to take good advice.

LORD BLEDISLOE

As regards the first proposition—and there are words which would seem to indicate that a new principle is being set up by this Bill—that a man may not lawfully damage his own land where no damage necessarily results to adjoining owners, all that I desire to say is that the time may possibly come when a new principle of law may be established to the effect that, if a man turns land of high economic value into a deer park or makes a lake upon land of that character, although this is on the face of it only damaging his own land, it may have some serious effect upon food supply and may therefore have some national significance or importance. But I am sure that we are all agreed that, if we are going to introduce a new principle into legislation of this kind, it is not desirable to do so by a sidewind in a relatively unimportant Bill such as this. Accordingly, in the Amendment that I am now moving, your Lordships will notice that as far as injury to land is concerned it is confined to land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person.

LORD PARMOOR

Is that on the Marshalled List of Amendments?

LORD BLEDISLOE

I intended to circulate to all those who moved Amendments the new form of my clause as amended. I need only say on this point that we intend to adhere to the existing legal maxim: "So use your own property as not to damage that of other people," and beyond that we do rot propose to go. As regards the second point—and we have endeavoured to meet my noble and learned friend, Lord Parmoor, in this connection—the notice requiring removal of an obstruction or impediment is to be served only on the person responsible for it, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will accept that as being sufficient to meet his main objections to Clause 2. What was, of course, contemplated in Clause 2, as originally drafted, was the placing of a responsibility upon the owner and occupier of land containing a drain to put that drain right, or at any rate to suffer service upon him of a notice with a view to the ascertainment of the person really responsible; but, in view of what is apparently the opinion of this House, we have restricted service of these notices to persons who are known to be responsible for causing the obstruction.

I do not know that I need for a moment go any further than that in explaining the Amendment which I am now moving. To that Amendment certain noble Lords have put down Amendments. My noble friend Lord Dynevor seeks to leave out the word "omission." The clause as amended will read: by reason of the act, omission or default of any person any drain within the meaning of this Act is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded. I am going to ask your Lordships to retain the word "omission," which is in my Amendment, because we regard it as not only usual but of some considerable importance. Cases frequently occur in which weeds and rushes are allowed to grow up in a drain and so hold up the water, to the detriment of other owners or occupiers, and I am advised that the words "act or default" are not sufficient of themselves to deal with such a case as that, as of course. We regard the word "omission" as of some importance, now that the owner and occupier are left out as the persons who, failing the wrongdoer, would be regarded as primâ facie responsible for the obstruction. Also, for what it may be worth, this word "omission" occurs in the private Acts, to which reference has already been made.

Then, the noble Earl, Lord Midleton, asks us to insert the word "agricultural" before the word "land." We have been in some difficulty with regard to this Amendment, as we can quite contemplate the case of land which is of a semi-agricultural character, upon which buildings are being erected, and which may suffer serious detriment as the result of flooding from adjoining agricultural land, and on that view it was thought desirable to bring such land within the scope of the Bill. If the noble Earl presses his Amendment we shall find it rather difficult to resist it as apparently the same word appears in the principal Act.

We find a much greater difficulty with regard to the Amendment in the names of Lord Dynevor and Lord Banbury of Southam, to leave out the words "or is in danger of being so injured." Putting the matter shortly, prevention is obviously better than cure. This is a case where there is an admitted impediment or obstruction, and the only question is whether steps should be taken to remove that obstruction before possibly far-reaching damage is caused. There is nothing under the Bill as framed to make an owner liable for the damage caused by obstruction. He can only be compelled to pay the cost of removing the obstruction, and just consider what would be the possible result of that. Other owners may suffer very serious flooding as the result of obstruction on the part of one owner, and would have no remedy, whereas if action were taken at once, immediately obstruction occurs, to prevent any serious damage resulting from that obstruction, foreseeing in fact the damage which is almost certain to occur, in that case damage will be saved, possibly, to a large number of owners higher up in a water-shed. I submit to your lordships the Amendment which stands in my name, expressing the sincere hope that it does go a long way, if not the whole way, to meet most of the objections put forward on the Second Reading, and since, to this particular clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("that") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

My Lords, the Amendment as printed omits everything in the clause down to the end of line 19 on page 2. I do not know that it is necessary to do so, but I would point out that there are a number of Amendments to the first subsection of the clause. If Lord Bledisloe's Amendment is agreed to, of course the remaining lines of the subsection will be taken out, and I think it will be more convenient to put the Amendment in the following form: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from "that" to the end of line 18. If that is agreed to the rest will follow as a consequence.

LORD PARMOOR

The statement made by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is an extremely important one. If I follow him it really alters materially the principles enuciated by him on the Second Reading, and really also the whole basis of the Bill as regards liability, matters to which I ventured to call your attention on the Second Reading. Let me look closely to see if I understand what the noble Lord's Amendment means, because it is so different from the original Bill that I am not sure I have followed him correctly. In the first place, I understand him to say that he only seeks to apply what is known as the legal principle sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas, and recognises the application of the principle that a person may deal as he likes with his own property on the assumption that he does not hurt his neighbour or any one else. I am not going back upon what I said on the Second Reading. Of course, it is directly opposed to the Bill as originally printed and as brought forward on the Second Reading, but at the same time I congratulate the noble Lord on the suggested Amendment which he is now bringing forward and the entire change in outlook.

The second matter is this, and it is equally important. He says that in the event of any damage such as he contemplates arising he does not seek to make any person responsible except the person by whose act or default or omission the injury has been caused. There again, I entirely agree with the principle of the Amendment, because I objected very strongly to the entirely novel principle in the Bill that you were to put into the position of a defaulter a man who had not been guilty of any act or omission or default. I drew attention to this before and I am glad to think that the noble Lord has been convinced, either by my argument or in some other way. But I do not like the word "omission"; "act or default" means anything that you do or that you ought to have done and do not do. The words, as Lord Merrivale will appreciate, have a legal significance which all lawyers understand; but I do not quite know what is meant by the word "omission."

LORD DYNEVOR

Are we in order to discuss my Amendment before I have moved it?

LORD PARMOOR

I understood that the Lord Chairman thought the whole matter should be discussed. It does not matter to me.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This is a matter for your Lordships to determine. There is undoubtedly an inconvenience in discussing the Amendment of my noble friend before we reach it and if he wishes that we should follow the rigid Rules of Order he has only to say so. We shall accept it at once and in that ease the general discussion must take place without reference to the Amendment of my noble friend; but it would be, I think, more convenient to discuss it all at once.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

In reference to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord on behalf of the Government I think it is desirable that we should discuss that at this stage and nothing else. But I rise to make yet another suggestion. Those who are interested in the Bill will realise with great gratitude the willingness of the noble Lord representing the Ministry of Agriculture to meet his critics on this Bill. The noble Marquess will pardon me for saying that I hope His Majesty's Government will meet all their critics on other Bills in the same accommodating spirit, though I hardly expect that that will take place. Grateful as we are, however, to the noble Lord for his action in this matter, it has really gone very far, as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, to alter entirely the character of the clause. There are over thirty Amendments. It is difficult, in spite of the kindness of the noble Lord representing the Ministry of Agriculture in sending round to us a form showing what the clause would look like if his Amendments were accepted, to realise it at such short notice and the discussion which has taken place already, even the fact that the noble Lord who moved the Amendment; just now proceeded to discuss certain Amendments which may not be moved, shows that unless we are very careful we shall waste a good deal of time, this afternoon.

I rise to throw out the suggestion that we should agree to these Amendments which are required by the noble Lord, so that we may discuss this matter in the shape which he likes on the Report stage. If this clause were amended in the direction that the Government wish and the noble Lord were good enough to give us a week or ten days in which to consider it further, we might be able to come to a conclusion much more quickly than if we go through these thirty Amendments this afternoon, without being able to see clearly what the influence of each of them will be, either upon the Bill itself or upon the proposal made by the noble Lord who represents the Ministry of Agriculture.

LORD PARMOOR

I entirely agree with the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. If Lord Dynevor thinks we are encroaching upon a subject on which he has put down an Amendment, undoubtedly he was right to intervene. I was only following what I thought was the acceptance of a form of procedure by the House and the Chairman of Committees, and I thought that it would be convenient to deal with this matter generally, in the same way that Lord Bledisloe has dealt with it. But if it is Lord Dynevor's view that his position might be prejudiced I am entirely prepared to give way to him, though, as a matter of fact, I have already expressed a good deal of what was in my mind on the subject.

LORD DYNEVOR

If it be any help. may I suggest that I should say now what I was going to say on my Amendment, to leave out the word "omission," but not actually move the Amendment? That would pave the way for anybody who wishes to refer to the words in the general discussion.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As my noble friend pleases.

LORD DYNEVOR

Without actually moving the Amendment, then, I will say now what I desire to say on this point. In the second line of this Amendment there appears the word "omission." I would remind your Lordships that this word "omission" was not in the Bill as introduced, although the other two words "act" and "default" were, and I intend later on to move the deletion of the word "omission," owing to its very far-reaching effect. Last year, when we were discussing the Public Health Act, a like question arose over the cleaning of watercourses. There was a proposal made to add a proviso with the words "act, default or sufferance"—as Lord Bledisloe now tries to get in the word "omission." This was objected to, and Lord Salisbury, on the Report Stage, said he thought the word "sufferance" was going too far, and he then moved a proviso, which was put into the Act, which road as follows:— Provided that nothing in this section shall be deemed to impose any liability on any person other than the person by whose act or default the nuisance arises or continues. So, as your Lordships decided eight months ago that those words were the right and proper words for the Public Health Act, and your Lordships declined to extend them, I would suggest that we again on this occasion adhere to the words "act or default."

On Question, Amendment to leave out the words "Where the council of a county or county borough are of opinion that from any cause other than" agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Question now is that the remaining words of the subsection, of which Lord Bledisloe moved the omission, stand part.

LORD PARMOOR

That covers the Amendment which I put down as regards the definition?

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Yes.

LORD PARMOOR

Then I want that reserved.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Do I understand that the noble Lord when he speaks of the definition, refers to the Amendment, after "any" to insert "land."

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am going to suggest to him that that be raised on the Definition Clause.

LORD PARMOOR

I am very desirous to assist, and I accept the noble Lord's suggestion.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I beg now to move to insert the words as printed.

Amendment moved— Page 1 line 18, insert the said new word.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out of the proposed Amendment the first "omission". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 2, leave out ("omission").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD MERRIVALE

I think the great objection to the retention of this word is that it would be impossible by reasonable inquiry among learned persons in London to find out exactly what it means. Nobody knows what is the effect of holding a man liable for an act, a default, or an omission. A wrongful act is understood; a wrongful default is understood; but an omission may be a perfectly reasonable and proper omission. Are your Lordships going to consent to making a reasonable and proper omission equivalent to a wrongful act or default? I do not think that is what my noble friend in charge of the Bill means. It was found in the Public Health Act last year to be supererogatory to put in any such words, and I believe it is supererogatory now. If I thought anybody's wrongful act was prohibited by this word I would vote for its retention; but because I think it creates uncertainty and, therefore, mischief I shall vote against its retention.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I feel that we cannot resist the argument of so eminent a legal authority as my noble and learned friend and I am, therefore, prepared on behalf of the Government to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My noble friend Lord Midleton has asked me to move for him the insertion of the word "agricultural" before "land" If, as I understand, my noble friend Lord Bledisloe is going to accept it, I need not say anything more.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May we hear my noble friend's argument?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My argument is that this particular word was inserted in the Act of 1918. All the clauses giving powers under that Act used the expression "agricultural land" instead of simply "land." Section 15 (2) says: "Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured," etc. Therefore, unless the Government intend this Bill to go beyond the Act of 1918, they will accept my Amendment.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 5, after ("drain") insert ("agricultural").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

It was, in fact, the discovery that this word appears in the principal Act that made me hesitate.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to leave out "or is in danger of being so injured." The noble Lord said: I regret to hear already that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe is not able to see his way to accept my Amendment. He gave the reasons why he could not accept it, but I am afraid he did not quite persuade me to regard the matter in the same light as he does. One can understand it being a fairly simple matter to see where land has been or is being damaged by water; but it seems to me that an argument as. to whether land is in danger of being injured would lead to very long disputes and is altogether unnecessary. I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment, because I do not know where we shall be landed if these words are inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Lines 7 and 8, leave out ("or is in danger of being so injured").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The object of this Amendment is to prevent unnecessary litigation. Who is to decide whether land is likely to be injured or not? In the opinion of an official certain land may be likely to be injured, but the owner might say: "No, I do not think it is likely to be injured. Water has stood on this land in flood time for a certain number of years. My experience is that when the flood is over the land is not hurt in any kind of way." Possibly, if it is grass land it might even be improved. Then the official of the county council might reply: "I do not agree with you; you have to do it." That is one of the reasons why we think these words should be omitted.

I understood my noble friend Lord Bledisloe to say that there might be a block in a river which would cause the water to overflow and that might result in damage, and, therefore, these words were necessary. I do not think that is so. If he will read his own Amendment he will see that it says if:— any drain within the meaning of this Act is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded and that by reason of the condition of the drain land within the county or county borough belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water. If a county council official comes down and sees that there is a block in the river and that the flow of water is being impeded and says: "You must remove this or else something will result from it," nobody can say anything. The further words "or is in danger of being so injured" are unnecessary, and I think that without those words the objection of my noble friend would not hold good. I do not know whether I have made the point clear.

LORD BLEDISLOE

Having already submitted my argument in relation to this matter, I do not desire to do anything more than to reinforce it by reminding the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, of the words in the Act of 1918 upon which he so forcibly relied in submitting his Amendment just now. Those words are in Section 15 (2): Where, in the opinion of the Board, any agricultural land is injured or likely to be injured by flooding or inadequate drainage.… powers are given to the Board by this Act, which passed through both Houses of Parliament seven years ago, to exercise through the county councils the necessary powers to obtain the removal of such obstruction. For that reason, as well as for the reasons I have already submitted to your Lordships, I think you would be justified in rejecting this Amendment.

LORD CLINTON

So far as I understand the point, do not see any great objection to these words remaining in the Amendment. My noble friend Lord Banbury. in supporting the Amendment to the Amendment, said that the object was to prevent unnecessary litigation. The object of most of us is really to prevent any damage being done to our land, and I think that unless some power is possessed by somebody to say that if any such default continues serious damage will be done to somebody else's land, there is a real danger of unnecessary damage arising.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 9, leave out ("omission").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, the main Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think the next Amendment is the one on page 2, line 19, standing in the name of Lord Clinton, to add a proviso to subsection (1). I do not. know if that is covered.

LORD CLINTON

I think that is covered now, and I do not move.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (2), after "within," to insert "a reasonable time not being less than." The noble Lord said: The Bill as drawn says that the work must be finished within a month. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill, it might be perfectly impossible to comply with such a notice, for the word "drain," as the Bill stands, includes a river and a stream, and they might. be in flood and remain so all the winter and there might be great difficulty in obtaining labour. I think, therefore, a little latitude should be shown. I am moving later on that the word "drain" should not apply to rivers and streams, but even if that is agreed to I think my words should still be inserted. because it might take more than a month to clean out a dyke.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, after ("within") insert ("a reasonable time not being less than").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I think it must be obvious to your Lordships that this sort of work to be effective must be promptly executed. Let me take what is the most common case, that of a tree being blown down, or falling across a stream and the water being held up to the detriment of adjoining owners because of the swamping of their land. It is obvious that it is most important the water should be released as soon as possible. May I also remind your Lordships that there, is only a limited time during what I may call the dry months of the year within which certain drainage work can be most efficiently performed. For this and other reasons it is very desirable that an owner who is responsible for an obstruction shall not have an unlimited period within which to remove it. I do not want to appear unreasonable in trying to meet my noble friends in this matter, but if a longer time were fixed we do ask that it be a definite period and that it be not too long. If my noble friend will be prepared to accept two months instead of one month, I will accept his Amendment in that altered form.

LORD PARMOOR

This is just one of the points on which it is so important to know what the definition of a drain is. If it is to include a river or stream you must, in some cases, allow what may be called a reasonable time, and that would be long beyond such a definite period as a month or two months. if the noble Lord will accept the more limited definition of drain that I have given in my Amendment then we might have this limited period put in, but how is it possible to say in the case of rivers and streams that acts or defaults can be put right. within one month or two months The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, referred to one of those very simple matters which could be dealt with within the limited scope of a real Land Drainage Bill, such as a tree falling across a drain, but this Bill goes far beyond that. Under this Bill there might be an obligation to carry out works a: very great cost indeed—works that must extend over a very long period of time. If you leave the Bill as it stands it will be a most difficult one to enforce.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There would be great inconvenience, I am sure your Lordships will agree, in our discussing the question of the proper definition of a drain upon this Amendment. I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we should accept the suggestion of my noble friend that a definite period should be inserted here. It may be a longer period than that which appears in the Bill, but if, in consequence of what subsequently happens to the Bill, it shall appear to the noble and learned Lord opposite or to any noble Lord that the period we have agreed upon is not long enough, then he would be able to raise that point again upon a future occasion. But I do think the words suggested by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, "a reasonable time," are not satisfactory, because they are vague words. Vague words in this connection are better avoided. It is better to put in a definite period within which the work is to be carried out. If there is any real hardship there is always found in the play of our Courts a method of relieving a person who suffers from such hardship.

LORD PARMOOR

This will not come before the Courts.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Well, the deciding authority. Their procedure is elastic, and is always sufficient to prevent any real hardship. The only thing we require is to have definite words in the Bill. As my noble friend is swilling to accept for the purposes of the present stage of the Bill two months instead of one month, I think that might be agreed to now.

LORD MERRIVALE

I suggest for the consideration of my noble friend the Leader of the House whether it would not be sufficient in this subsection to declare the duty to do the thing called upon to be done subject to the right of appeal. There are subsequent sections which deal with the remedy, but if the limitation of time were omitted here there would forthwith be a duty to do the act. I should have thought that really would have been more advantageous to the public authority, and would admit better of a fair play of reason between the parties than to try to fix a time which you cannot fix in point of practice.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If you let us put it in now we can consider it before the next stage.

LORD DYNEVOR

Is the suggestion that we should make it two months?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

LORD DYNEVOR

Will my noble friend be ready to allow the question to be reopened on the Report stage?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are going to consider the noble Lord's suggestion.

LORD DYNEVOR

Then I will accept the two months.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I suggest that Lord Dynevor's Amendment be withdrawn, and that he move instead to the words "one month" and insert "two months"

LORD DYNEVOR

I agree.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 22, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "either (a)". The noble Lord said: My Amendment seems a very small one, but the difficulty is clue to the way in which this Bill has been drafted. The noble Lord in charge of tide Bill has himself had to put down Amendments. The object of my Amendment is to provide a rather different way of appeal. We understand there is to be an appeal from the petty sessional court to Quarter Sessions. Of course that may make a good deal of difference. The Bill provides for an appeal by persons who are called upon to clear out ditches and drains. There are five grounds of appeal set out. As regards (a) and (b) it seems that they can be dealt with very well by a court of summary jurisdiction without great trouble. On the other hand, as regards (c) there ought to be arbitration, because in that particular case it is desirable to have experts who know about mining subsidences. Some of the Amendments of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill are really incorporated in mine. I do not know, therefore. whether he would prefer that I should withdraw my Amendment and wait until the Report stage and see the general effect of the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I am entirely in his hands.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 27 and 28, leave out ("either (a)").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lord Strachie for making his suggestion and I think probably it will be for the general convenience of the House if it is adopted. Your Lordships may not have seen, or realised, the exact effect. of this part of Clause 2 as recast by the Amendments which I am proposing to move. We have endeavoured in these Amendments to incorporate so far as we can all the matters desired by Lord Strachie and also the important Amendment which is proposed to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp.

May I for the convenience of the House indicate the general scope of the procedure as contemplated now by way of appeal from a notice served upon a person who obstructs a drain? As the Bill was originally drafted there were two alternative tribunals contemplated—one. petty sessions, without any appeal from petty sessions, and the other, arbitration by an arbitrator to be appointed in the absence of agreement by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. What is now proposed is that the same tribunal shall be allowed to remain, but that there shall be an appeal from petty sessions to a court of Quarter Sessions. That is to allow for a case, which I am sure your Lordships will realise is a possibility, where, we will say, the leading landowner of a district, who is himself a magistrate and even possibly chairman of the magistrates, appeals against a notice in relation to an alleged obstruction of a drain by himself to his own colleagues on the bench. It is obvious that it would be a matter of very great embarrassment to his colleagues and might not in every case result in true justice being done.

On the other hand, of course, it may be suggested that if, as has been put forward from certain quarters, there was no tribunal but petty sessions, it might operate in considerable injustice to a man who had to make good a defect involving considerable expenditure of money when there might be some question as to whether such expenditure was really justified. We desire, in order to meet that ease, to retain the arbitrator appointed, if necessary, by the President of the Surveyors' Institution. There is another case to which I fancy Lord Strachie referred, the case of a mining subsidence. There we feel that another tribunal might usefully be brought into operation—an arbitrator appointed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, because this is a question which can best be dealt with by a skilled engineer, and we feel this is the body most capable of appointing a suitable arbitrator in such a case. That is the general scheme, and, though I agree that it would be extraordinarily difficult to obtain a perfect measure of agreement as to what is the most suitable procedure in the circumstances, I venture to hope your Lordships will accept the scheme which I have adumbrated in reply to the noble Lord. I would suggest that possibly the best way is to accept the noble Lord's suggestion and allow the matter to stand over till the Report stage, to be further discussed after careful examination of the Amendments which I am moving on behalf of the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to substitute "complain" for "appeal" in paragraph (a) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I ought to explain that this word "complain" is a technical word which brings into operation the machinery of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879. which covers all questions relating to both costs and appeal.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("complain").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("complain").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 38, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("complain").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, in Paragraph (b) of subsection (4), after "is," to insert "not" and to leave out "the". and insert "any." The noble and learned Lord said: I understand that my noble friend will accept this Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

That is so.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 42, after ("is") insert ("not") and leave out ("the") and insert ("any").—(Lord Merrivale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I accept the next Amendment, in subsection (4) (b), standing in the name of Lord Merrivale.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, leave out ("of some other specified person") and insert ("on his part").—(Lord Merrivale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and insert (c) that the notice cannot reasonably be enforced against him having regard to any or all of the following considerations, namely—

1. (i) the nature and extent of the land in respect of which his liability arises, and the extent to which such land abuts on the drain or the part thereof to which the notice relates;
2. (ii) the extent and nature of his estate or interest in any such land;
3. (iii) the expenses which would be invoked in complying with the notice."

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make much more clear the somewhat ambiguous paragraph which appears in the Bill as Clause 4 (e). I am advised that it is not very clear in its terms. Little (c) takes the place of little (e) in the Bill. Perhaps I might read this to make it clear. I propose to leave out paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and I may say, incidentally, that (d) comes out altogether. I leave in the Bill as drafted paragraphs (a) and (b) and I move to leave out paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and to insert the words printed on the Marshalled List of Amendments. Your Lordships will see that the "following considerations" referred to in the new paragraph (c) are adumbrated, but not made very clear, in paragraph (e) as it appears in the Bill. I should make it clear that there is no reason now for the inclusion of paragraph (d) because the appeal is confined to persons in default.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 1 to 14, leave out paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and insert the said new paragraph (c).—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (4) (d), to leave out "if not the person to whose act or default the condition of the drain is due." The noble Lord said: I am so fully met by the Amendment Coat my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has just moved that I do not propose to inure this Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection: () Any person upon whom any such notice has been served and who alleges that the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of surface due to mining operations, may, within twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice, by notice in wiling addressed to the clerk of the council require such allegation to be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

The noble Lord said: This really refers to what appears as paragraph (c) in the Bill in its original form, referring to cases where the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of the surface due to mining operations, and it is in such cases, as I indicated just now, that, in the event of arbitration taking place, the arbitrator shall be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD PARMOOR

I want to ask the noble Lord one question. I think the Amendment is a great improvement in the Bill, but does it leave it still open that questions of subsidence owing to mining can come before a court of summary jurisdiction, or is the jurisdiction here limited to an inquiry by an engineer apponted by this Institution? In my opinion one would be a satisfactory tribunal and the other would not.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am not quite sure, but I think the Amendment explains that point. It says:— Any person upon whom any such notice has been served and who alleges that the condition of the drain is attributable to the subsidence of surface due to mining operations may, within twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice, by notice in writing addressed to the clerk of the council require such allegation to be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institute of Civil Engineers.

LORD PARMOOR

If the noble Lord states that in his view that is the right procedure to be adopted, I accept it.

LORD BLEDISLOE

That is the procedure.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, leave out ("appeal") and insert ("complaint").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STRACHIE moved to add to subsection (5) "and may, unless the notice is annulled, order all or any part of the costs incurred by the council in connection with the appeal or arbitration to be paid by the person upon whom the notice was served."

The noble, Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give power to the Court, if it thinks fit, to order that some part of the costs of cases going before the court of summary jurisdiction or other Courts should be awarded, in the whole or in part, to the council who are successful in their claim. It seems only reasonable that the ratepayers should not be obliged to make good the whole of the costs when there has been serious default on the part of the person against whom they have to, proceed. I think it will be the general opinion of your Lordships that this is a desirable Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am advised that by the substitution of the word "come plaint" for the word "appeal", which has already been approved by the House, we bring into operation the whole of the machinery of the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and the Arbitration Act, 1889, and, as part of that machinery, the noble Lord's desire will be carried out.

LORD STRACHIE

If that is so, it is not necessary for me to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (5), to insert the following new subsection: () If either party is aggrieved by the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction on a complaint under this section he may appeal to a court of quarter sessions, and on any such appeal the court of quarter sessions shall have power to make any order which th0 court of summary jurisdiction might have made.

The noble Lord said: I have adopted the Amendment which appears upon the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, but. in a slightly different form of words from his own. I should be glad to know if the noble Earl is satisfied with my form of words, which I am given to understand is in some small respects better than his own.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I accept his form of words.

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to say one word before the Question is put This is raising again the question of the expense to which you are to go, and it depends upon the Definition Clause. Let me take the Surrey case, which has been referred to several times. In small cases of land drainage there is no appeal. That is quite right, for we want to get the matter settled quickly and an appeal means expense as well as time. But in the other part of the Surrey Act, when you are dealing with something like a large drainage scheme, you ought to have an appeal, and I want to say this word of caution. Here again whether there be an appeal or not depends on the ambit of the Act, which again depends upon the definition at a later stage. I hope that, if the words "river" and "stream" are left out, the expense both in money and time of an appeal will not be insisted upon.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "one month" and to insert "two months." The noble Lord said: This is really consequential, but the form in which it stands upon the Marshalled List of Amendments is not quite right now, because it was decided to have two months instead of one month.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months"). — (Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

My next Amendment is consequential. The word "complaint" applies to petty sessional proceedings, "appeal" to an appeal from petty sessions, and "reference" to arbitration.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 20, leave out ("an appeal or") and insert ("a complaint or appeal, or a").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I have a manuscript Amendment in subsection (6).

Amendment moved— Clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved, in subsection (6), after "notice," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or of the decision of a court of Quarter Sessions in the case of an appeal to such court." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is purely consequential, and therefore I assume the noble Lord will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, after ("notice") insert the said words.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am given to understand that my Amendment, in the form in which I moved it just now, covers this point.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

Then I certainly ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (9), to leave out all words after "For the purposes of this section, the expression," and insert, "'land drain' means any ditch, drain, culvert, dyke, or sluice together with the banks and artificial embankments thereof." The noble and learned Lord said: I do not know whether Lord Bledisloe is going to make any concession on the question of definition. In substance, what I propose is the same as that which is proposed by Lord Dynevor, but I take the actual words of my Amendment out of the Surrey Act. We heard so much about the Surrey Act, as regards the reason why this Bill should be passed, but this Bill goes far outside the land drainage part of the Surrey Act and I want to have the same definition in each case. The effect of my Amendment is to exclude the words "river, stream" from the definition of a land drain. Both of those words might give rise to very large loss being placed upon a person through whose fault damage results. Lord Bledisloe is conscious of that fact, and he has indicated that a larger Bill is to be produced next year, dealing with cases where larger schemes have to be brought into operation. In my opinion such matters as dealing with rivers and streams ought to be left to the larger Bill. So far as the Surrey Act is concerned I believe that Surrey rivers are excluded from both operations, so that in neither one case nor the other are the rivers and streams really included. I must say that I do not think it would be might to bring them within the provisions of this Bill, and the procedure under it, and make them the subject of a decision of a court of summary jurisdiction, followed by a decision of the court of Quarter Sessions, making it possible that thousands of pounds may have to be expended upon a matter with which tribunals of that kind are not adequate to deal. I hope that at any rate some limitation will be placed upon the meaning of "drain."

Amendment moved— Page leave out lines 7 and 8, and insert ("'land drain' means any ditch, drain, culvert, dyke, or sluice together with the banks and artificial embankments thereof").—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I pointed out on the Second Reading of the Bill that it is really putting too heavy a burden upon landowners to call upon them to clean out rivers and streams. Most landowners, after maintaining their property and paying their taxes, have not any too much money to play with, and to call upon them to clean out a river, which might include such a river as the River Severn, would put them into the Bankruptcy Court. It is quite possible that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has in his mind one or two individual rivers or streams with which he especially wants to deal, but even if that is so I do not think that such drastic powers should be given to county councils to call upon the landowners to clean out rivers and streams. I have an Amendment down to the same effect as that of Lord Parmoor, but at the moment I heartily support his Amendment.

LORD MERRIVALE

I have ventured to put down an Amendment to limit the generality of this proposal. That a man who has had nothing to do with the matte which has caused the damage is going to be compelled to accept responsibility, possibly, for the flow of such a river as the River Severn, seems to me to be a terrifying prospect. You ought either to limit the clause by words which show that it is only to apply to waters which have been placed under artificial regulations or else you should take the simple course which the noble Lord has proposed. The reference to "river" and "stream" appears to me to be somewhat dangerous and I venture to hope that the Amendment will be adopted.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I had ventured to hope that in view of the Amendment which I have myself put down on the Paper —the proviso which you will find at the bottom of page i of the Marshalled List of Amendments—your Lordships would not decide to rule out these words "river" and "stream." I may say at once that I am prepared presently to accept the insertion of the word "includes" in the place of "means," as proposed by Lord Merrivale, but the definition now moved by the noble and learned Lord opposite is apparently designed to narrow very extensively the previsions of the Bill by the exclusion of these two words "river" and "stream." The insertion of my proviso will exclude any so-called drain which is under the control of a drainage authority, board of conservators, or inland navigation authority, and so there is no danger of any attempt being made to interfere with the River Severn, such as Lord Dynevor contemplated as possible. It is only intended that the works authorised by the clause shall be works of a minor character, involving small expense, and I think that the provisions which give rights of appeal, coupled with this proviso, should form sufficient protection against any misuse of the clause.

There are, however, in certain parts of the country minor rivers and streams which are of very small dimensions, which most of you could easily jump across and which could be quite easily blocked up by a falling tree or other obstacle, with very serious results to adjoining owners from the holding up of the water. With regard to the addition of the words "banks and artificial embankments thereof," I think the repair of a drain must include the repair of its banks, which are really part of the drain, whether they are natural or artificial. I should, therefore, be prepared to accept the Amendment, provided the noble Lord is prepared to agree to the omission of the words "together with the banks and artificial embankments." and to the retention of the words "river, stream" which are now in the Bill. The insertion of the word "artificial" might bring within the scope of the Act protective banks which are adjacent to a river or a stream, the maintenance of which is not a liability on the frontages and is prohibitive in cost. If a liability exists at all the matter can probably be dealt with under Clause 1. I hope, for the reasons I have given, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, or agree to move it merely to add the words "together with the banks" at the end of the existing definition.

Of course, we do not intend to interfere with great watercourses such as that which is under the very able administration of the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, and others, from their source right down to their mouth. They are very efficiently controlled, and that control includes doing just the very things that we desire to see done under this Bill—namely, the removal of obstructions. So I hope that any noble Lord who is interested as a member of a board of conservators will not be in the least anxious lest we interfere with their rights. They are to be expressly excluded in the proviso which I am presently moving to this clause.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

What is the position of the smaller rivers under the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord?

LORD BLEDISLOE

It depends what is meant by "smaller rivers." There are rivers which are so narrow that the noble Earl himself could jump across them, yet they are called rivers. It is the nomenclature which is the trouble in this matter. We do not want to interfere in any way with what is popularly known as a river, but unfortunately the word "river" is applied sometimes to very small streams of an insignificant character.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

Does my noble friend mean that in order to include these very small rivers, which are really ditches, the larger rivers which are not under any conservators would be included? Because you might then call on an unfortunate owner to clean out a river as broad as this House, and he might have to spend thousands of pounds upon it.

LORD OLIVIER

There is a river in my own neighbourhood which is grossly obstructed. It is full of trunks, and not only is the navigation by canoes thereby impeded, but floods are produced, and the water overflows the roads owing to the blocking of the river. That river is nominally under a board of conservators which, I think, is called the Upper Thames Valley Board. No action whatever is now taken with regard to that river. Will that river be entirely exempted from the operation of this Bill if the board of conservators still maintain their supine attitude?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry I was not here during the earlier part of the discussion on this Amendment, but I can confirm what the noble Lord has just now said of watercourses which are properly called rivers, but which might be very great sinners in the particular matter which we are considering, and really ought to be included. Of course, we do not want to include great, important rivers, such as my noble friends mean when they speak of rivers, and if we can find any words to distinguish the two we shall, of course, be only too delighted to adopt them. And we do not, of course, include any rivers which are now under conservancy boards. Those are all excluded under the words of the Bill as it stands. People seem to think that all rivers are of an important character. I am very familiar with a river which is really a rather celebrated river, the River Lea. That might easily be obstructed in the sense in which we are considering it. There are rivers of that description that you would have to include within the purview of the bigger watercourses. Therefore the matter is reduced to a very small point. We have excluded all the rivers which are under conservators. We desire to exclude everything which is substantially a river in the ordinary sense of the word, but there are streams which are called rivers which must be included. My noble friends might allow the Bill to go through at present, and if we or they can find a means of making a distinction between the two kinds of rivers we should be quite willing to adopt it.

LORD PARMOOR

I understand the noble Lord accepts the word "includes," suggested by Lord Merrivale, instead of the word "means."

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes.

LORD PARMOOR

Could the noble Lord put it in this form: "includes any stream, ditch, drain"? The real difficulty is the word "river." I think "streams" would include all that has been suggested as the class of rivers that should come under the Act. I am quite willing to take out of my Amendment the words to which he refers, "and artificial embankments."

LORD BLEDISLOE

I think the proposal of the noble Marquess is probably the best one in the circumstances, but I do not at this stage want to rule out the word "river" or "stream." If your Lordships would allow it to remain in on the understanding that we desire to see some less formidable word take the place of "river," we will see if we can find some more suitable language to substitute.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

The position is rather difficult if we leave in the word "river." I will take a case which I know myself, of a river in my own neighbourhood. There are one or two mills on this river. A certain amount of sand is caused to accumulate in various parts of the river, and you may be told by somebody whose drains fall into the river higher up that those drains are obstructed because the river is silted up. The unfortunate owner on the banks of the river has done nothing whatever to obstruct or impede the flow, yet he might be landed with a responsibility which might involve him in tens of thousands of pounds in clearing the river. That is not intended by the Government, who only want to get at small streams. Surely they can find some form of words which would adapt Lord Parmoor's Amendment, and yet carry out their own intention, without the danger of making this Bill an intolerable oppression for landlords.

LORD PARMOOR

May I appeal to the noble Marquess at this stage to use the word "stream," because there are very great difficulties about the word "river" It could then be reconsidered before the Report stage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I want to meet the House. The difficulty of leaving out the word "river" is that I am afraid some word will be required in its place.

A NOBLE LORD

Stream.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should much prefer not to be asked to decide that across the floor of the House now. If the House wishes to leave out the word now I shall not resist, but it is on the understanding that there will be no suggestion of a breach of faith with the House if we ask them to restore that word, or some equivalent word, on the next stage. On that understanding I shall not resist the wish of the House.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has informed me that he does not desire to insert the word "land" ["land drain"]. That being so, I suggest that the expression "drain" which is already in the Bill need not be altered.

LORD PARMOOR

That is so.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Therefore, we get as far as the word "drain" without alteration; and then we come to the word "means."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (9), to leave out "means" and insert "includes." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper and to which I understand the Government agrees.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, leave out ("means") and insert ("includes").—(Lord Merrivale.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Now we come to the word "river."

LORD BLEDISLOE

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, would move to leave out "river" only and allow it to go to the Report stage in that form.

LORD DYNEVOR

Only to the Report stage?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes.

LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (9), to leave out "river, stream." The noble Lord said: I am very much obliged to my noble friend and I move my Amendment in the form he suggests.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7, leave out ("river").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD MERRIVALE

I do not know whether my noble friend would consider that it might help him to meet the real difficulty there is if some qualifying words were inserted after "sluice"—some words which would indicate the character of the works upon rivers and streams which had to be dealt with.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I feel considerable apprehension about the possible effect of accepting general words. We feel that an undue expense might be thrown upon owners if we included such words, for instance, as "and other works."

LORD MERRIVALE

I am not proposing to move I am only calling my noble friend's attention to the point.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on my left (Lord Parmoor) will correct me if I state it incorrectly, but I understand we have got to the word "any," and that he desires now to leave out the words "river, stream, ditch, drain, cut, culvert, dyke, or sluice" with the object of inserting "stream, ditch, drain, culvert, dyke, or sluice together with the banks thereof." Is that the proper form?

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

At this stage I am going to ask your Lordships not to leave out more than the word "river".

LORD PARMOOR

That will be sufficient for my purpose.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Very well.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to add to subsection (9):— Provided that where any drain as so defined is under the jurisdiction of a drain-age authority, a board of conservators, or an inland navigation authority which is exercising its powers, this section shall not apply to the drain except with the consent of the authority or board.

The noble Lord said: I have already adumbrated this Amendment. It is intended of course to rule out drains which are already under the jurisdictoin of a drainage board, a board of conservators, or an inland navigation authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to omit from the proposed Amendment the words "which is exercising its powers." The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Bledisloe's Amendment reads— Provided that where any drain as so defined is under the jurisdiction of a drainage authority, a board of conservators, or an inland navigation authority which is exercising its powers, and so on. I want to leave out the words "which is exercising its powers" because do not quite know what their effect would be. My noble and learned friend Lord Merrivale might be able to tell us what the effect of those words would be. If they are inserted I am rather afraid that a county council might come down upon a drainage authority and say: "It is true that you did something once last year, but we do not consider it sufficient. We do not consider that you are exercising your powers, and, therefore, this section does not apply." I do not know whether that would be so because I am not a legal authority, but it appears to me that those words might cause litigation. They are not clear. It is always best in clauses of a kill to put words that are understood not only by noble Lords learned in the law but by more ignorant people. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Lines 4 and 5 leave out ("which is exercising its powers.")—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD OLIVIER

I hope the noble Lord opposite will not accept Lord Banbury's Amendment. This is precisely one of those cases of which I was speaking. There are rivers flowing into the Upper Thames and elsewhere which are nominally under the protection or administration of the Upper Thames valley authorities. I am not quite sure what the authorities are.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am a member of one of them.

LORD OLIVIER

Nothing has been done to those rivers for years and I do not want those authorities to be protected by the omission of the words which Lord Banbury seeks to omit.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I did not anticipate that my noble friend Lord Banbury would disclose so readily the position of his own authority. But we cannot disguise the fact from our minds that there are, unfortunately, a large number of moribund statutory drainage authorities. In fact, that is already recognised in the Act of 1918, which gives to the Ministry of Agriculture its default powers in relation to drainage where the statutory authority is not doing its work. It may rather surprise your Lordships that even since 1918 statutory drainage authorities have come into existence and have died, simply because they would not do their work. They have ceased to exist. There was one in the County of Westmoreland, the Weaver and Wampool Drainage Authority which was set up in 1919 and is already dead. I venture to hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Am I to understand that these words apply only to dead authorities? If so, I do not mind.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

The words would apply to authorities which legally are still existing, but are doing nothing at all and have done nothing for some time.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord press his Amendment?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am not very satisfied, but I will not press it.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Provisions as to councils.

3.—(1) The expenses of a council under this Act, so far as they are not defrayed out of moneys recovered by the council in accordance with this Act, shall be defrayed—

1. (a) in the case of the council of a county, out of the county fund as expenses for general county purposes, or if and so far as the council think fit, as expenses for special county purposes, charged on such parts of the county as the council think fit; and
2. (b) in the case of the council of a county borough out of the borough fund or borough rate.

(2) The council of a county or county borough may borrow for the purposes of this Act—

1. (a) in the case of a county, in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1888;
2. (b) in the case of a county borough, in accordance with the Public Health Acts, 1875 to 1925.

(3) The council of a county or county borough may delegate, with or without restrictions, to any committee of the council any of their powers and duties under this Act.

(4) The councils of two or more counties or county boroughs may combine for the purposes of the joint exercise of any powers conferred on them by or under this Act, and may for that purpose appoint a joint committee, and may agree as to the proportions in which the several councils represented on the joint committee are to contribute towards the expenses thereof.

LORD DYNEVOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):— Provided always that the expenses referred to in this section and incurred in connection with this Act shall not exceed in amount the sum which would be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound levied by the council of a county or county borough.

The noble Lord said: I am moving that the expenditure by a county council under this Bill should not exceed what can be produced by a rate of one penny in the pound. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe told us on Second Reading that there are one million acres of waterlogged land. But there is no necessity for all that land to be drained at once. It can be spread over a number of years. It is evident that the expenditure under this Bill may be very large. The Treasury will not find the money and it has all to be paid out of the rates. The Government has just introduced an Economy Bill. It is just as necessary to economise on local expenditure as on Imperial expenditure. I am a member of a county council and I know how difficult it is to economise. I fail to see how we can possibly do so when fresh burdens are imposed upon us.

I have a precedent for this Amendment. In last year's Allotment Act, which began as a Private Member's Bill and was eventually adopted by the Government, the provision of allotments by local authorities was limited to the expenditure of a penny rate. My noble friend, Lord Bledisloe, told us the other day that he wanted the water-logged. land to be drained so that more food could be produced. The provision of allotments means more food and they are of immense help, especially to dwellers in towns, by giving them more recreation and enabling them to grow fresh vegetables; but if it was right to limit the production of food by allotments to a penny rate, it would seem to be equally desirable to limit this Bill also to a penny rate, otherwise there is no limit to what the rates may go up to. Fresh officials will have to be appointed and it will take some time to inspect every drain, dyke and ditch throughout the country. There are some places where the rates are already in the neighbourhood of 20s. in the £, and I want them to be reduced and not increased. Unless some limit is put into the Bill there will be little chance of that. If this Amendment is not agreed to by your Lordships do not let us hear in the future any suggestion that it is desirable that the rates should be reduced.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

The actual expenditure which will fall upon the ratepayers of a county can only be in regard to the actual cost of administration and even as regards the whole of that cost only such amount of it as is not covered by the rate which will be levied on the persons who will be benefited by the drainage scheme. The noble Lord suggested that fresh officers will have to be appointed. It is not contemplated that any fresh officers will come to be appointed. The county drainage officer already exists in most counties for the purpose of what are called the unemployment drainage schemes and the employment of such persons, if efficient, would no doubt be continued. Our fear with regard to this particular Amendment is that it may cause just that very extravagance on the part of local authorities that the noble Lord wants to avoid. We do not, in fact, want to suggest to many authorities that they can levy anything like a penny in the pound rate for this purpose. A penny in the pound rate in the County of Middlesex would produce £36,000, in Lancashire £44,000, in the West Riding £39,000, and in Surrey £26,000. We do not contemplate in this Bill an expenditure of anything approaching these sums for the administration of this matter by the county council. Personally I do not object to this Amendment, but I am inclined to think that it will produce just the very effect in the matter of county extravagance in some counties that the noble Lord desires to avoid.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Shall we make it a halfpenny rate?

LORD DYNEVOR

Will my noble friend Lord Bledisloe explain why, if it is so small a question, the Treasury refuses to find the money?

LORD BLEDISLOE

The noble Lord does not understand the purport of this Bill. The purport of the Bill is to carry out drainage schemes or to prevent blockage, and where such work is required there is power to throw the cost ultimately upon the persons benefited. That is the whole principle of drainage administration as carried out by statutory drainage authorities to-day. The expense that will fall upon the county councils will be the cost of administration so far as that cost is not covered by the rate that will be levied upon the land benefited.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I move to make it a halfpenny instead of a penny? My noble friend besides me suggests a farthing. Can I move to make it a farthing rate?

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

We have no desire to destroy the Bill, but I would point out that the moment a county council starts a department to deal with this particular subject some energetic secretary sets machinery in motion in various ways and long before the ratepayers can interfere a large sum has been spent. As my noble friend has already pointed out, nearly every rate that is taken off the landowner at present is replaced by something else before he gets the advantage. I hope my noble friend will accept some Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should rather accept the penny than any fraction of a penny, because I am inclined to think, if we are not very careful, that we shall render the position very difficult in small boroughs. I would ask your Lordships to remember that this applies to borough as well as to county authorities. I am not prepared, without very careful calculations, to accept any fraction of a penny. Noble Lords who came here to support this Amendment came prepared to support a penny and I am afraid it is in consequence of my unconvincing remarks—I do not say eloquence—that they are trying to get something even better. I do hope that this will not be pressed. We want to make the Bill workable, whether the area be large and rich or small and poor—though it may be both small and rich in the case of some of the municipalities. If the House really wishes it I am prepared to accept the Amendment as it has been moved by my noble friend Lord Dynevor, but I hope noble Lords will not press me further.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not understand my noble friend. He first told us that a penny rate was a great deal too high, that it would bring in, in a certain instance, £36,000, in another county —44,000, and in another—39,000, and then said that he did not want to encourage the county councils, in extravagance. In order to meet him I suggested that we should put in a lower rate which would not encourage the county councils in extravagance. Then my noble friend says he cannot accept that, but must have the higher rate. The only conclusion I car, come to is that my noble friend really thinks the higher rate will be enforced. I do not know what my noble friend Lord Dynevor will do, but I should think it would be far better to have a halfpenny rate.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I hope my noble friend Lord Banbury of Southam will not be unduly suspicious of my motives. I think it is a profound mistake to put in any figure at all, because undoubtedly you will suggest extravagance to local authorities who would not otherwise be extravagant. On the other hand, if you put in a very small rate, it is conceivable that in small boroughs and other localities it may not be sufficient adequately to carry out the work. Is it really desirable to put in any figure at all?

LORD DYNEVOR

Although my noble friend has been very kind to me on a great many Amendments this evening, I must say that I think this Amendment is such a very important one that it would be really best for your Lordships to decide the matter yourselves.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CLINTON AND LORD TREOWEN had given Notice to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "any Committee of the Council" and insert "the agricultural committee established by them pursuant to Part III of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Act, 1919, all or".

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I be allowed to move this Amendment in this form: to leave out the word "any" and insert "the agricultural committee"?

LORD CLINTON

Yes, I quite agree to that.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 30, leave out ("any") and insert ("the agricultural committee").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, after ("Committee") insert ("consisting of members of the agricultural committees of such respective councils").—(Lord Clinton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Powers of entry on land.

4. Any person authorised in that behalf by the council of a county or county borough for the purpose of carrying their powers under this Act into effect may, on production, if so required of hip authority, enter on and inspect any land.

If any person prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose aforesaid upon any land of any person authorised under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON moved to leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new clause:

".—(1) Any person authorised in that behalf by the Minister, or by the council of a county or county borough, as the case may require, for the purpose of carrying the Land Drainage Act, 1918, or this Act into effect, may at all reasonable times, and after due notice, and on production, if so required, of his authority, enter on and inspect any land.

"If any person wilfully prevents or obstructs the entry for the purpose aforesaid upon any land of any person authorised under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

"(2) Section twenty of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, is hereby repealed."

The noble Earl said: I hope my noble friend will accept: this Amendment. There are two points with regard to it. The clause as it is printed in the Bill gives unlimited power of entry to the inspector. No doubt that carriers out what was inserted in the Act of 1918, but as my noble friend will recollect, that Act was passed during the War, at a time when very unusual and very drastic powers were given. The form which I venture to propose is the one which was adopted in the Rating Act of last year with regard to giving access to all premises to which the public authority required access for similar purposes to those dealt with in this clause. I think it would be quite sufficient if reasonable notice were given, and I would submit that the penalty of similar to that provided in the Rating Act last year, would be ample for the purpose, for it is not necessary to contemplate a sort of armed resistance with a £20 penalty for any breach of the law.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 1 to 10, leave out Clause 4 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Midleton.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I hope that the noble Earl will not press for the acceptance of this Amendment. Clause 4 of the Bill is word for word, I believe, the same as Section 20 of the 1918 Act and there has never been any complaint or objection to the wording of that section. It has operated quite successfully and we do not at present see any particular reason for altering it. The only difference between the wording of our clause and of the clause proposed by the noble Earl is that he introduces the words "at all reasonable times and after due notice." In the second paragraph he also introduces the word "wilfully" before the words "prevents or obstructs." Our objection to the words" after due notice" is that they may possibly operate to interfere with prompt action on the part of the drainage authorities. The word "wilfully" I cannot find in any similar legislation. The difficulty, as I understand, about introducing the word "wilfully" is that the person who may actually obstruct the authority's officer may be a person who actually has no knowledge of the rights which his principal may have in the matter, and it is quite possible a drainage officer might go upon premises prepared to do his duty and, owing to ignorance, such a person might stand in the way of the work being carried out. My main argument, however, is that Clause 4 is simply a repetition of the section in the principal Act which, has operated quite successfully and we do not see any reason why it should be altered.

THE EARL OF MIDLETON

Though I still regard the clause as much too drastic, I think it would be better, after what has been said, if the noble Lord will allow me to confer with him before the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Service of notices.

5. Notices required or authorised to be served under this Act by the council of a county or county borough may be served by post or by delivering the same to or at the residence of the person to whom they are addressed, or, where addressed to the owner or occupier of premises, by delivering the same or a copy thereof to some person on the premises, or if there is no person on the premises who can be served, by fixing the came on some conspicuous part of the premises.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, before "post," to insert "registered." The noble Lord said: Clause 5 says "notices required or authorised to be served under this Act by the council of a county or county borough may be served by post." I am suggesting that they should be sent by registered post so that there may be more certainty of their being received.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 13, after ("by") insert ("registered").—(Lord Dynevor.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

I am prepared to accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Saving of existing powers.

7. The powers conferred on councils of counties and county boroughs by or in pursuance of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other powers possessed by any such councils independently of this Act.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to add to the clause: Provided that where by any local Act powers conferred on the council of any county or county borough similar to the powers conferred by this Act and such local Act contains provisions for the protection of any authorities, companies or persons, those provisions shall apply in relation to the exercise by the council of the powers under this Act in like manner as they apply in relation to the exercise of the powers under the local Act.

The noble Lord said: The object of this proviso is to save protective provisions which are to be found in existing legislation. A reference has already been made to certain Private Acts of Parliament passed for Lancashire, the West Riding and Surrey, and it is to save to them the protective provisions which have been furnished by these Acts.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Short title end commencement.

8.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1926, and shall be construed as one with the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and that Act and this Act may be cited together as the Land Drainage Acts, 1918 and 1926.

(2) This Act shall come into operation on the

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to insert, in subsection (2), after "the," the words "first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-six."

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 40, after ("the") insert ("first day of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-six").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.