LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 02 June 1930 vol 77 cc1234-313

Order of the Day read for the resumption of the debate on the Motion that the Report of Amendments be received.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

My Lords, the Question is that this Report be now received.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.

Clause 2:

Catchment areas.

(2) Subject to the right of appeal given by this Act, the Minister may at any time, either on the application of the councils of the counties and county boroughs concerned or, if he thinks fit, without any such application, by order under this Part of this Act direct that any areas which are not for the time being included in the said First Schedule shall he added to the said Schedule or that any area for the time being included in the said Schedule shall be removed therefrom, or that such alterations whether by the combination or re-grouping of catchment areas or otherwise, as the Minister may think fit, shall be made in the said Schedule.

LORD DANESFORT moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to leave out "Subject to the right of appeal given by this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in moving to omit this line is to insert the words of the next Amendment that stands in my name upon the Paper, and to carry out a decision of your Lordships' Committee that the appeal should be to the appeal tribunal. The object of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in whose name also this Amendment stands, is, as I understand it, to move his Amendment, which follows mine upon the Paper, providing that in case of dispute the procedure shall be by way of Provisional Order. As we are both desirous of leaving out this line, perhaps it will be convenient if the House agrees to omit it, and then I can raise the question on my next. Amendment as to whether the appeal should be to the appeal tribunal or by way of Provisional Order.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out line 21.—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR) moved, in subsection (2), before "the councils of the counties," to insert "or after consultation with." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, has already drawn attention to the different motives with which we ask that line 21 should be omitted from the Bill. Your Lordships will remember—

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask the noble Earl, on a point of order, which Amendment he is moving?

EARL DE LA WARR

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I think perhaps it might be well if we had general discussion—

LORD DANESFORT

I would suggest that this question of the appeal tribunal does not arise upon this Amendment, but upon my Amendment to line 32, at the end of subsection (2), which definitely raises that question. This Amendment merely concerns the question whether there shall be consultation by the Minister or not.

EARL DE LA WARR

That is quite right.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is this merely a drafting Amendment?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, it is; I am sorry. My next Amendment also is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 23, after the first ("of") insert ("or after consultation with").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 24, leave out from ("concerned") to ("by") in line 25.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "Provided that any person aggrieved by the Order of the Minister may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the Amendment which deals with the appeal and, in effect, confirms that which is already in the Bill by carrying out the intention of the Committee. Let me remind the House very shortly what happened in Committee upon this question. The Bill as originally introduced gave very wide powers to the Minister of sanctioning schemes and making Orders, and his decision was to be final in all cases. There was no appeal to anyone. When the Bill came into Committee, I think the House generally recognised that there should be an appeal in some form, and many noble Lords, including myself, put down an Amendment that there should be appeals from the Minister to the appeal tribunal which the Royal Commision recommended should be set up. The Government proposed that the appeal should be by way of Provisional Order, and thereupon a debate arose and the thing was discussed at considerable length upon this clause of the Bill.

It was pointed out that the method of proceeding by Provisional Order would he extremely costly. It would involve in the first instance an inquiry, at which there would be Parliamentary agents and Counsel, and when that had been concluded the Minister would have to bring a Provisional Order into Parliament. That would be discussed in a Select Committee of one or both Houses, and again there would be Parliamentary agents and Counsel and witnesses, and a considerable hearing, involving enormous cost. It was pointed out that if on the other hand the appeal was to the appeal tribunal there would be only one hearing, and, the tribunal being a Judge of the High Court with two expert assessors, the appeal would be decided expeditiously and far more cheaply than would be possible if the appeal were by way of Provisional Order.

It was further pointed out that the cost of appealing against a scheme, or against an Order of the Minister if by way of Provisional Order, would be so great that no private owner could possibly bear to incur such a risk, and all the more so because, even if he were successful all along the line, he would in the case of a Provisional Order not get a farthing of his costs back from any one. In the case of local authorities with large funds it is true that they might risk proceeding by way of Provisional Order, but that would not be very pleasant for their ratepayers, and there is no more reason in their case why they should incur such expense than in the case of a private owner. Therefore, it might well be that in many cases the Order of the Minister would be final, because no one would venture to question his decision by means of these very costly proceedings. Your Lordships' House, after considerable discussion, came to the conclusion that the appeal tribunal was the proper tribunal, and a decision was taken on this very clause in favour of the appeal tribunal. I do not think a Division was even challenged. Probably the Government realised that they could get a very small number indeed into the Lobby in support of their proposal, but at all events the House decided in favour of the appeal tribunal.

I do not for a moment deny that Lord De La Warr, in Committee, suggested that there might be cases where a Provisional Order would be more suitable than going to the appeal tribunal, and if in any special case arising under this Bill the Government are able to show that the appeal tribunal is not a fitting tribunal to decide the case in question, and it is right and proper in order to obtain justice that the matter should be decided by way of Provisional Order, I agree that there would then be a case for a Provisional Order rather than for the appeal tribunal; but in default of such proof I ask your Lordships to say that this House should adhere to the decision which it came to in Committee. The attitude of the Government has changed considerably upon the Report stage, because there are Amendments standing in the name of Lord De La Warr asking the House, in at least eight cases of schemes and Orders made by the Minister under the Bill, to go back upon the decision this House came to in Committee, and that instead of having appeals to the appeal tribunal the matter should be dealt with by Provisional Order.

I hope that your Lordships are not going to take the exceedingly unusual course of altering a decision properly come to in Committee. And I may add the further point that in the particular case now under discussion—namely, an appeal under Clause 2 against schemes made or sanctioned by the Minister—the House after full discussion came to the conclusion that the appeal tribunal was the right tribunal. That being so, I fail to understand how the House can now be asked, as Lord De La Warr asks your Lordships in the Amendment standing in his name, to reverse that decision on Clause 2 and to say that the proper appeal in such cases is by way of Provisional Order.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, at end, insert ("Provided that any person aggrieved by the Order of the Minister may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR had given Notice to move, after subsection (2), to insert: "(3) An Order under this section, if opposed, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no complaint of the way in which the noble Lord has described our discussions on this point on the Committee stage. I think if there is any difference between us it is really one of emphasis rather than anything else. It is perfectly true that on the general point of an appeal tribunal the Government recognised your Lordships' very definitely expressed views that you preferred to have it inserted, and it was inserted without a Division, which would have been a foregone conclusion. At the same time, as he has perfectly clearly stated, I did, I think, make it perfectly clear that we could not commit ourselves to saying that in every case where it was proposed by your Lordships we agreed that it was really the most appropriate course to pursue. It is perhaps unfortunate, as the noble Lord has already said, that the debate was taken on one of those very clauses on which we now desire to except the application of the appeal tribunal clause. We were anxious to get the general principle settled, and therefore we discussed it on Clause 2. I do not think, however, if you read the general course of that debate in Committee, you will feel that the discussion then held was any more applicable to this particular clause than to any other clause. The reason why the Government wish to remove the right of appeal to the appeal tribunal from the operation of this clause is that it does definitely affect the question of policy, for which the Minister will have to be responsible to Parliament. We feel that where the Minister is responsible to Parliament, as he always is on a question of policy, then the right of appeal against that policy should be to Parliament itself. I think that really is very clear, and I think your Lordships admit it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Will the noble Earl not realise that Provisional Order Committees do not decide according to the wishes of the Government of the day?

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

Of course not.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was referring to the distinction which the noble Earl was drawing between the court of appeal and the Provisional Order Committee. He said that where the Government themselves were responsible then the appeal should be to Parliament itself. The appeal to Parliament means through the machinery of a Provisional Order.

LORD PARMOOR

I do not want to reply to the noble Marquess now. If it becomes necessary I should like to reply to what he has said, but this is in the middle of my noble friend's speech.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am saying all the same that it is an appeal to Parliament rather than to an extra-Parliamentary body. I think your Lordships really admit that, because in subsection (1) of this clause Parliament is being asked to lay down that certain catchment areas shall be set up under this Bill and we put down a list of these catchment areas in the First Schedule. Nobody is suggesting that subsection (1) should be subject to the right of appeal. But if Parliament is to be the final arbitrator in settling whether the original catchment areas shall be set up and defined then surely it is only fair to ask that Parliament should be the final arbitrator with regard to further areas that may be set up.

There is only one other point and that is the point of expense which the noble Lord referred to as being inherent in the Provisional Order system. He said in Committee, I think, that it would be unfair on small land owners and other persons of limited means. I do not think that this argument really applies here because the parties concerned in connection with Orders made under this clause will be councils of counties and county boroughs, who are in a very different category from small land owners.

LORD DANESFORT

I think the noble Earl has a little misapprehended my argument. I said it would be impossible for private owners to meet the costs, and my recollection is that I said it would be unfair on the ratepayers to ask county councils and others to incur this enormous cost for Provisional Orders.

EARL DE LA WARR

I have not the noble Lord's words here, but I think I am right generally in saying that he felt that the major unfairness would be to small land owners and other people without great resources at their back. But I can assure the noble Lord on that point, because this clause does not really refer to individuals; it does not bring them in. The difficulties will be between county councils and county boroughs. I hope that your Lordships will accept the change proposed by the Government. It does not, I think, in any way go back on the decision taken in Committee. It simply tries to put the decisions that your Lordships took in Committee into shape. We did, I admit—it may or may not have been the best procedure—accept your Lordships' Amendments on the question of an appeal tribunal provisionally, because it was very difficult at the time to see their exact application, and it was for that reason that we reserved our right at a later stage to see how each Amendment applied. We would advise your Lordships that the Provisional Order basis is the best basis for working out this particular clause.

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, I rather hesitate to intervene in this case because I have not the legal and technical knowledge of my noble friend Lord Danesfort, but I do realise that in this matter the Government have tried to meet us as far as they could. What we were trying to insist upon all along was that there should be an appeal from the decision of the Minister, and in one clause after another the decision of the Minister was made final. What we were trying to stress was that that was not right and the decision of the Minister should not be final, but that there should be some appeal from his decision. As to whether that appeal should be to a special tribunal, or whether it should be to the Committee of this House, which is really the Provisional Order procedure, I own I am not a learned enough lawyer to pronounce an opinion. My noble friend has laid great stress upon the amount of costs. It seems to me that if you go in for legal proceedings of any sort, before whatever Court they take place, the costs always are very considerable. My noble friend is no doubt a better authority on that point than I am, but personally I think that the Government have done their best to meet us. This is a case, not between private individuals and a Government Department, but between big local authorities and a Government Department, and I for one am not prepared to vote against the Amendment the Government have put down if it is their considered opinion that the Provisional Order is as appropriate a procedure in this case as the appeal tribunal which appears in the Bill.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I should like to say a word upon this matter, particularly in regard to what fell from the noble Marquess, because I regard it as a constitutional question of considerable importance. I think it was the view of the majority of your Lordships opposite that a matter of this kind should be decided constitutionally by Parliament rather than by the decision of a particular Minister, however carefully he might consider the case. All that we propose here is that that should be done. I quite agree with the noble Marquess: of course Parliament will exercise independent judgment. It always does that through Committees when it is dealing with questions of this kind, and that is the merit of what my noble friend Lord De La Warr has proposed at this stage. It is not a matter for judicial decision; it is really a matter for Parliamentary decision. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, it is not a question immediately concerning private interests, but one as between different local authorities, and I think it is right to have the decision of Parliament on such a matter concerning these catchment areas.

The question of cost has been mentioned. If you were to bring in the question of cost you might- in every case have an argument against Parliament exercising its constitutional powers. There is some cost, but in the great majority of cases there is probably no real opposition, so that it is not costly in the sense in which an inquiry before a Parliamentary Committee is costly; and even if it is I must say I am strongly in favour of the constitutional principle of maintaining the ultimate decision in the hands of Parliament itself. On a point of this kind a judicial tribunal has no knowledge whatever. The question of what is the proper constitution of a catchment area is not a judicial question, but a question that Parliament ought to decide. And in this case, as I believe almost universally, the Provisional Order system should be maintained.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am sorry I came into conflict with the constitutional knowledge and experience of the noble and learned Lord. He is certainly better qualified to speak on a matter of that kind than I am. But all I was at pains to make quite clear is that when we speak of Provisional Order procedure we do not mean that these points of rights are decided by the Party majority for the time being in the House of Commons, which would be a most disastrous idea. They are to be decided, of course, by the elaborate Private Bill procedure in your Lordships' House as applied to the Provisional Order. Merely to clear up that point, I make my apologies to the noble and learned Lord if I expressed myself inaccurately.

With regard to the point which has arisen, I think we have all listened to my noble friend Lord Bayford with very great attention. My noble friend represents in your Lordships' House a body of noble Lords who have taken very special interest in this question from the point of view of those interested in the administration of land and of local government, of whom, of course, there is a large number of eminent representatives sitting on both sides of your Lordships' House. My noble friend has pointed out that this is a matter of compromise, to which he himself assents—namely, that in those cases where the appeal is brought by a local authority it might well be conceded to the Government that they should go before the Private Bill procedure rather than to a court of appeal. The main thing, of course, which your Lordships have inserted in the Bill is that there should be an appeal; that much as we may respect the particular Minister who holds office for the time being, his ipse dixit must not prevail by itself, but that there mist be some means by which an aggrieved party, whether an individual or a local authority, may have the matter tried out in a judicial or semi-judicial manner. That, of course, your Lordships' House has absolutely established.

Then arises the question as to what the tribunal should be and your Lordships have further decided, and I understand that the Government do not contest the conclusion, that where it is the case of a private individual who is aggrieved there should be no question that his right of appeal should be to the tribunal set up under the Bill as it left your Lordships' hands in Committee. But there are other cases in which only local authorities are engaged, and on that it is suggested that the Provisional Order procedure should apply. I do not pretend that I have completely dealt with all the possible alternatives. There may be other intermediate cases with which I have not dealt in these observations; but upon that broad issue my noble friend Lord Bayford has said that he is prepared to accept the compromise. I have some sympathy with my noble and learned friend who sits behind me and who says that the decision in Committee ought to be respected. In general, I think that is right in your Lordships' House; but I think also that the principle of compromise is a useful principle and if my noble friend Lord Bayford advises us to accept it in this particular case, I shall be prepared to go with him.

LORD DYNEVOR; My Lords, I was certainly under the impression that the Report of the Committee on Land Drainage advised two things—one, that there should be an appeal tribunal for certain things, and, secondly, that Parliament should deal with other portions. When the Government brought in their Bill, they ignored that recommendation altogether and said that the Minister was to be the final decider on every point. My noble friends Lord Bayford and Lord Danesfort, myself and others thought that that would not do and we framed Amendments setting up an appeal tribunal, which were accepted by your Lordships. As I understand the proposal of the Government, it is not to do away with that appeal tribunal in every case. Certain things will go to the appeal tribunal and others will be dealt with by Provisional Order. I agree with my noble friend Lord Danesfort that Provisional Orders will be very costly. I am not at all sure that the tribunal will be cheap; in fact, I believe it will be very costly even to appeal to the tribunal. But in this case, as the Government have not done away with the appeal tribunal in every instance, and are ready to offer a compromise on the question, I think we might accept it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, I am not quite clear what my noble friend Lord Salisbury meant. I understood him to say that if a private person opposed one of these schemes, the matter was to go to the appeal tribunal. If the dispute was between councils, then it was to be dealt with by Provisional Order. The Bill will want amending if that is the proposal.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I think that is not quite what I said. What I intended to convey was that in cases where local authorities were involved as aggrieved persons—that is, such a case as is contemplated in the clause under discussion—then we would accept the views of the Government. In other clauses of the Bill where aggrieved individuals are involved, then the other decision would have to be arrived at.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I think there has been some misconception in regard to this matter, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Bertie, because there may be an appeal by a private person aggrieved under this clause. What is the provision in the clause? It says, in subsection (1):— The areas specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall be catchment areas … Then it gives a right to the Minister upon the application of local authorities to alter those areas. That is what we find in subsection (2), where it says:— the Minister may at any time, either on the application of the councils of the counties and county boroughs concerned or, if he thinks fit, without any such application"— I believe the noble Earl wanted to leave out those words but it does not affect the question— by Order under this Part of this Act direct that any areas which are not for the time being included in the said First Schedule shall be added to the said Schedule.… In other words, the power Minister under the clause local authority asks him he area.

It may very well be that a private person may be seriously aggrieved by that alteration of the area. Therefore, in that case I most earnestly ask your Lordships to give a right of appeal to the appeal tribunal. The noble Earl quite fairly admits that the cost to a private person of going by way of Provisional Order would be absolutely prohibitive in many cases; but what I want, if your Lordships would agree, is to say in substance that the alteration of this catchment area may very well affect private individuals, and that if they are affected or aggrieved they may go by way of appeal to the appeal tribunal. That is the real question here. There is this further point. Supposing that only a county council or a local authority is aggrieved, why should they put the taxpayers to this enormously increased cost of proceeding by way of Provisional Order when they could get probably a better, but let us say an equally good, decision, certainly far more cheaply by going to the appeal tribunal? Mention has been made of compromise. Surely this is a matter which has been practi- cally decided on the Committee stage. I beg your Lordships not to go back upon the Committee stage more especially regarding this particular clause, where your Lordships accepted my Amendment which distinctly gave a right of appeal to an aggrieved person where the catchment area was altered. If I can get anybody to support me, I shall certainly divide upon this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 32, at end insert as a new subsection: (3) An Order under this section, if opposed, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament."—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Schemes for reorganisation of internal drainage authorities in catchment areas.

4.—(1) Every catchment board— (b) shall within a further period expiring on such later date as may be appointed by the Minister for the purposes of this provision, either generally or in relation to a particular catchment board, prepare and submit to him for confirmation a further scheme or further schemes making provision for the following matters:—

(2) As soon as any such scheme has been submitted to the Minister, the catchment board shall send copies thereof to the council of every county and county borough and every drainage board affected thereby, and shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area affected by the scheme a notice stating that the scheme has been submitted to the Minister, and that a copy thereof is open to inspection at a specified place and that representations with respect to the scheme may be made to the Minister at any time within one month after the publication of the notice.

(3) The Minister shall, after considering any representations made to him and making such enquiries as he considers necessary, take into consideration any scheme submitted to him under this section for confirmation, and such a scheme shall not be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by an Order of the Minister under this Part of this Act, subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act.

(4) Any scheme under this section may from time to time be amended by a subsequent scheme submitted by the catchment board and confirmed in the manner aforesaid, subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act.

(5) Where the Minister refuses to approve any such scheme or makes an Order approving any such scheme, he shall give public notice of the refusal or of the Order, as the case may be, in such manner as he thinks fit.

(6) If the catchment board or any drainage board or any other persons are aggrieved by the refusal of the Minister to approve and scheme under subsection (1) of this section or by the approval of any such scheme, they may, at any time within three months after the date on which in pursuance of this section notice was given of the refusal or the making of the order approving the scheme, appeal against the refusal or Order to the appeal tribunal, hereinafter by this Act established.

EARL DE LA WARR moved after paragraph (b) (iii) of subsection (1) to insert: "(iv) the abolition of reconstitution of any internal drainage district and of the drainage board thereof." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this really is largely a drafting Amendment, but I think I had perhaps better explain it. It should be read in connection with Clause 16. One clause refers to areas within catchment areas, and Clause 16 to areas outside catchment areas. It confers powers on catchment boards in regard to the areas within their jurisdiction. Clause 6 of the Bill confers upon catchment hoards for the purposes of land drainage exclusive powers and jurisdiction with regard to the main rivers, and your Lordships will see in Clause 4 that paragraphs (a) and (i) of that clause provide for the catchment board as soon as may be after it has been constituted submitting a scheme for the transfer to the catchment board of all rights and duties and obligations over the main river. There are certain cases where at the present moment a drainage board of an internal district is charged with the obligation of maintaining part of the main river, and when a scheme is put forward under this clause there will be practically nothing left for that board to do, because its responsibility for the banks of the main river will have been taken from it. This being so it is essential the catchment board should be in a position to wind up the affairs of that particular drainage board, and this Amendment will enable it to do so. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after paragraph (b) (vi), to insert:— (viii) for altering or supplementing in any respect the provisions of any local Act or of any award made under any such Act where such alterations or supplemental provisions are necessary or expedient for enabling the area for the benefit of which drainage works are authorised by the local Act or award to be drained effectually. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this again should be taken in conjunction with Clause 16. This clause is a re-enactment of the Land Drainage Act of 1918 and this is virtually a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 19, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert: (2) The Minister may by Order under this Part of this Act confirm any scheme so submitted, either with or without modifications: Provided that an Order confirming a scheme under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection, if opposed, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament. (3) A scheme under the said paragraph (b) may provide for the revocation or amendment of, and for the retransfer of property, rights, powers, duties, obligations and liabilities transferred by, any previous scheme under this section.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are back here on the same point as that which we have already discussed. This is really consequential on Clause 2. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, wants to discuss any particular matter with regard to this clause, or whether he will accept the decision on the point already given.

LORD DANESFORT

I certainly do not agree to this.

EARL DE LA WARR

Very well, for the same reason that I advanced in connection with Clause 2, on consideration of this Bill as it was amended in your Lordships' House we find it difficult to agree that Orders under this clause made by the Minister shall be the subject of appeal to the appeal tribunal. We think that this point should come back directly to Parliament for decision. If your Lordships will read Clause 4 you will see that in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) it is purely a matter of carry- ing out the decision of Parliament as given in this Bill and therefore there is no reason for any appeal at all. The Bill lays it down that schemes shall be evolved, and this clause provides for these schemes with regard to Orders confirming schemes under subsection (1) (b). These Orders are concerned with important decisions on policy. This is the same point as we discussed on Clause 2. They will have to be made by the Minister and therefore the Minister is responsible to Parliament on these matters of policy. We think that the appeal against the Minister should be to Parliament through its Provisional Order organisation. I therefore hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move to amend the said Amendment by leaving out "(2) to (6)" and inserting "(3) to (6)" and, in the proposed new subsection, leaving out "confirming a scheme under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection" and inserting "under this section." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that moving an Amendment to an Amendment always creates a little difficulty in people's minds, but I will try to make as clear as I can what would be the effect. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, moved to leave out subsections (2) to (6). Now this clause has reference to schemes for reorganisation of internal drainage authorities in catchment areas. I am suggesting that subsection (2) should be left in the Bill. I am allowing the noble Earl to take out subsections (3) to (6). Subsection (2) is a provision which your Lordships put into the Bill at my suggestion, although the Government, I remember, were not quite happy about it. They rather suggested that it was already dealt with in the Bill. I pointed out that my Amendment—which is subsection (2)—was to compel catchment boards to publish in the local newspapers a notice that a scheme had been submitted to the Minister, so that it could be inspected at some specified place. I was very anxious that there should be as much publicity as possible, otherwise a catchment board might submit a scheme to the Minister and nobody would know anything about it until he, under the Second Schedule of the Bill, had confirmed it. Then it would be open for aggrieved persons to come forward.

The present Prime Minister when he was in Opposition was always calling for open diplomacy, but in this case it seems to me the Government want secret diplomacy. They do not want anybody to know anything about a scheme that is being put forward until it has been dealt with by the Minister. Therefore I am anxious that subsection (2) may be allowed to remain. Then the catchment board would let all interested people know that it had submitted a scheme to the Minister and the Minister when he had received the scheme would either accept it or add to it or alter it, and he in his turn would publish in the newspapers what the scheme was and then further objections could be made. I do not know if I need at the moment mention the other portion of my Amendment. It might be convenient for the noble Earl in replying to deal with it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is a separate point, is it not?

LORD DYNEVOR

What I am proposing is to leave in subsection (2) and to amend the words which the noble Earl wishes to put in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is separate.

EARL DE LA WARR

I take it that the noble Lord accepts the general assumption behind my Amendment, but wishes to amend it in the form he has put down on the Paper.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

What the noble Lord has addressed himself to is the question of the retention of subsection (2). That is the only issue now before your Lordships.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— Leave out ("(2) to (6)") and insert ("(3) to (6)").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I think really the whole issue is whether the particular form of publicity proposed by the noble Lord should be adopted. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment to my Amendment, if it is accepted, would be to require catchment boards not only to submit copies of schemes to the Minister, but also to send copies to the councils of every county and county borough and to every drainage board affected thereby, and not only that but to publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area affected by a scheme a notice that the scheme has been submitted to the Minister. This would involve catchment boards in what I venture to suggest to the noble Lord is quite unnecessary expenditure of public money.

If your Lordships will look at page 25 of the Marshalled List of Amendments you will see standing in my name an Amendment to insert a new Second Schedule. That Schedule would impose upon the Minister the duty of giving notice of his intention to make an Order confirming a scheme submitted to him by a catchment board, of the place where copies of the draft Order may be inspected and obtained and of the time within and the manner in which objections to the draft Order may be made. That notice is to be given (a) by publication in the London Gazette and (b) in such a manner as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected. Further than that a notice has to be sent to the council of every county or county borough in a similar manner to that provided in subsection (2), which the noble Lord wishes to retain. It will be seen, therefore, that the only effect of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment would be that the same thing would have to be done twice over—once on the making of the application and once when the application is granted. I would suggest to your Lordships that really that is quite unnecessary and that it would involve unnecessary public expenditure to have this publicity twice over. It is really only duplicating work and duplicating expenditure. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I will now propose the second part of my Amendment. We have just agreed that subsection (2) shall stand part of the Bill. I am making no objection to the noble Earl taking out subsections (3) to (6) and inserting the alternative words which he has put on the Paper, to which I raise no objection except in regard to the proposed proviso. He proposes that an Order confirming a scheme under paragraph (b) should be only provisional if it is opposed. I suggest that that should not be limited to paragraph (b) but should also include paragraph (a). Therefore I propose to insert the words "under this section" so that the whole section would be provisional only and would not have effect until confirmed by Parliament. I beg to move.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved— In the proposed new subsection leave out ("confirming a scheme under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection") and insert ("under this section").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, if we accept the noble Lord's Amendment, it will really mean that Parliament will be going back upon what it has already passed in this Bill, if it becomes law. The Bill requires, under Clause 2, that certain specified areas should be set up as catchment areas, and it further provides by Clause 6 that the catchment boards so set up shall have exclusive control and jurisdiction over the main rivers. This being so, it is obviously necessary for machinery to be prepared whereby parts of the main river which, prior to the passing of this Bill, were vested in other drainage authorities, should be transferred to the catchment boards so set up, and it really would be absurd to provide that orders for carrying out those provisions of the Bill which your Lordships are approving should be the subject of objection and renewed confirmation by Parliament, which has already determined that such action is necessary. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I can assure him that it is quite unnecessary.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I do not lay too much stress upon this Amendment. I think it would have been a good one, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, may I suggest to your Lordships that Lord De La Warr's Amendment, as amended, has not yet been put? I am going to oppose it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am putting the Question that Lord De La Warr's Amendment, as amended, should be accepted.

LORD DANESFORT

I hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. It is really' a different question from your Lordships' decision on Clause 2, because under this clause there may be private owners who are aggrieved under these schemes and, according to the noble Earl's Amendment, those private owners would be put to the very serious expense of proceeding by way of Provisional Order instead of the appeal tribunal. That was recognised by your Lordships in Committee, with the result that in subsection (6) of Clause 4, which the noble Earl now proposes to leave out, you find these words— If the catchment board or any drainage board or any other persons"— that includes private owners— are aggrieved by the refusal of the Minister to approve any scheme, under subsection (1) of this section, or by the approval of any such schemes"— so that this clearly contemplates that there may be private owners who do not approve of the decision of the Minister to sanction a scheme—then the clause goes on to say that they, including the private owner— may, at any time within three months … appeal against the refusal or Order to the appeal tribunal. I hope that your Lordships will retain this subsection in the interests of the private owner. Otherwise all those evils which I am sure that my noble friends Lord Dynevor and Lord Bayford deplore as much as I do come into operation, and the private owner will have to go to the enormous expense of proceeding by way of Provisional Order instead of by appeal to the appeal tribunal.

Observations have been made suggesting that these are technical legal questions which only gentlemen who are called learned in the law—sometimes, perhaps, very wrongly—can possibly decide upon. I disclaim having any better opinion than any layman on this matter. What I say is that, if the private owner is dissatisfied, he ought to have a cheap and expeditious way of expressing his disapproval. Under the Provisional Order procedure there would be three hearings: first a preliminary hearing be- fore the Minister; then another hearing before a Select Committee of the House of Commons; and then it may very well happen that there will be a third hearing before a Select Committee of this House. If he goes to the appeal tribunal there is one hearing and one only, which will, in all probability, be far quicker and cheaper than the procedure by way of Provisional Order.

I do not want to take up too much time, but I do strongly urge your Lordships to maintain the clause as it stands and to allow the private owner to appeal to the appeal tribunal. As I have said, if the Government could satisfy your Lordships that in a case of this sort under this clause the appeal tribunal is not a fit body to decide the questions that will be raised, and that the only proper way of deciding them is by means of Provisional Order, the case would be different; but can anyone get up, either on that Bench or anywhere else, and say that the appeal tribunal cannot deal effectively with the questions that would be raised on an appeal under this clause? I earnestly hope that your Lordships will adhere to the decision that you made in Committee.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, what we are discussing now is the proposal made by Lord Dynevor. We have heard Lord Danesfort's argument about five times over. The proposal that subsections (3) to (6) should be omitted is Lord Dynevor's proposal.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The Question is that subsections (3) to (6) stand part of the Bill. To regularise the matter I have to put the Question that subsections (3) to (6), which Lord De La Warr moved to leave out, stand part of the Bill.

VISCOUNT BERTIE of THAME

My Lords, on a point of order, would it not be easier if the subsections were taken separately? I understand that Lord Danesfort wants to retain subsection (6), but not subsections (3), (4) and (5).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Very well, I will do that.

On Question, the Amendment to omit subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) and to insert a new subsection (2) agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (2), after "drainage board" to insert "and navigation authority."

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think that this is likely to be necessary, but we have no objection.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 32, after ("board") insert ("and navigation authority").—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT

I do not move my next two Amendments, relating to the appeal tribunal, because of the decision recently come to.

Clause 6 [Powers in relation to main river]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The words are not necessary because of the provision as to time in Clause 54.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 22, leave out ("at any time within three months after the date thereof").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7:

Supervision of internal drainage boards and districts.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, an internal drainage board shall not—

1. (a) except with the consent (not to be unreasonably withheld) of the catchment board, construct any drainage works within the catchment area or alter any existing drainage works within that area, if the construction or alteration will in any way affect the interests of, or the working of any drainage works belonging to, any other internal drainage board; or
2. (b) otherwise than by way of maintaining an existing work, construct or alter any structure, appliance or channel for the discharge of water from their district into the main river except on such terms as may be agreed between the catchment board and the internal drainage board or in default of agreement be determined by the Minister:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to any work whether of construction or alteration which has been begun before the commencement of this Act.

(4) If any question arises under this section—

1. (a) whether the consent of the catchment board is unreasonably withheld; or
2. (b) whether any expenses have been reasonably incurred by the catchment board in pursuance of this section; or
1256
3. (c) whether any work was begun before the commencement of this Act;

that question shall be referred to the appeal tribunal for decision:

Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal.

LORD DANESFORT had given Notice of an Amendment, at the end of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to insert: "Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal."

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I will accept this Amendment if the noble Lord will be content to leave out the words "at any time within three months after the date thereof." The time is already provided for, as I said on the last Amendment, in Clause 54.

LORD DANESFORT

I will move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 11, at end insert ("Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister may appeal to the appeal tribunal").—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 33, leave out ("appeal tribunal") and insert ("Minister").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved to omit the proviso in subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, leave out lines 35 to 38.—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

If we are going to have an appeal I think this proviso ought to stand. We are, however, prepared to accept the Amendment.

LORD DANESFORT

We put the words in a little earlier in the clause, at page 8, line 11, of the Bill, and we do not want them in twice.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 36, leave out ("at any time within three months after the date thereof").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8:

Power to vary awards.

(2) The Minister shall forthwith take into consideration any scheme submitted to him under this section for confirmation, and such a scheme shall not be of any effect unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act: Provided that any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are back to the same point again on Clause 8, which deals with the power to vary awards. The Amendments standing in my name are designed to substitute an appeal to Parliament for an appeal to the appeal tribunal, which is now in the clause. This clause provides for amending awards made under any public or local Acts, which were originally passed by Parliament. They may give rise to considerable questions of policy, and accordingly the Government do not consider that there should be any appeal from a decision of the Minister confirming an Order to an independent tribunal. They feel that if it is desired to vary these awards under an Act passed by Parliament, any appeal in connection with it should come back to Parliament.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next two Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved—

Page 9,lines 24 and 25, leave out ("appear to the Minister to be") and insert ("are")

Page 9,leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert as a new subsection: ("() The Minister may by Order under this Part of this Act confirm any scheme so submitted either with or without modifications: Provided that an Order under this section, if opposed, shall be provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9:

Commutation of obligations to repair by reason of tenure, &c.

(3) The sum to be paid in respect of the commutation of any such obligation shall be such sum as the catchment board may in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection by order determine and the sum so determined shall be payable by way either of a capital sum or of a terminable annuity for a period not exceeding thirty years, at the option of the owner, and shall be charged on the land in respect of which the obligation existed and shall have priority over any other incumbrances charged on that land by the owner thereof whether before or after the passing of this Act other than charges under the Lands Improvement Act, 1864, whether created before or after the charge under this subsection.

(4) For the purpose of determining the sum to be paid in respect of the commutation of any obligation, the catchment board shall ascertain the amount which in their opinion fairly represents the probable average annual cost, taking one year with another of executing and maintaining in a duo state of efficiency the works which are required to be executed and maintained by virtue of the obligation to be commuted, and in estimating the sums to be paid in respect of the commutation under this section the catchment board shall take account of the fact that owing to modern methods of agriculture and otherwise the waters which come from land at a higher level than the lands owned or occupied by the persons whose obligations are to be commuted under this section reach the main river more rapidly than they did formerly, and a greater volume of water is passed into the main river in a shorter space of time than it would pass by natural means, and the catchment board shall fix the capital sum or terminable annuity to be paid in respect of the commutation accordingly.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "whether before or." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I believe great stress is laid upon the fact that this part of the subsection is a re-enactment of a clause of the 1861 Act, but that Act only applied to very small quantities of land, whereas this Act is going to be a very big thing indeed. I do not think the provision in the Act of 1861 was good. I do not imagine that any of your Lordships were present when that Act was passed, but I think the trend is to oppose that sort of thing in these days, and as the Act of 1861 is being repealed it is just as well that this provision should be scrapped. In Committee I moved that neither before nor after the passing of this Act should the sum payable as commutation be put in front of a mortgage. Now I am trying to offer to Lord De La Warr a compromise, so that existing mortgage gage securities shall not be disturbed, but only mortgages made after the passing of this Act.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, leave out ("whether before or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, it is true, as the noble Viscount has said, that when this Bill was in Committee he moved an Amendment to leave out the last four lines of this subsection which provides that a terminable annuity in respect of commutation of any liability shall take priority over other incumbrances. He stated that he did so on the ground that it was objectionable that mortgage securities should be interfered with. The noble Viscount admits that this particular form of dealing with the question has been in operation since the Act of 1861, and has always acted perfectly satisfactorily.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I never said that.

EARL DE LA WARR

No, but it is perfectly certain the noble Viscount would have called it in question if he had desired to do so. He suggested that the reason why no fault was found with the Act was that it only applied to a limited quantity of land. We are dealing with a matter of principle here, and a matter of principle which has been in operation for a sufficient number of years to have been called in question if it had not been operating fairly. If the noble Viscount will look at Sections 31 and 35 of the Land Drainage Act of 1861, he will find that a power was given to land drainage boards to commute an obligation imposed on any person by reason of tenure, custom, prescription or otherwise to repair the banks of a river under their jurisdiction. It also provided that the charge might be an annual charge on the land in respect of which the original obligation arose; and further, that any charge so created should have priority over all incumbrances created, or to be created, by any proprietor of the lands on which the sum is charged. It will be seen, therefore that the words in the latter part of this subsection, to which the noble Lord objects, are pure re-enactment.

I really can see no hardship in respect of a mortgage such as the noble Viscount suggests, because if a mortgagee were to enter into possession of lands which are charged with an obligation to maintain the banks of a river, that obligation would, in fact, become a first charge on the income of the property. This being so, there can be no hardship in saying that the cost of these repairs, if commuted for a terminable rentcharge for a period of years on the land in question, is to come in front of the mortgage. One effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment, if carried, would he that a charge which was commuted before the passing of the Bill would under the existing law take precedence over any other charge; whereas, a charge that is commuted after the passing of the Bill would not do so. This would really produce a most unfair, and, indeed, absurd position. After this explanation I hope that the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

As apparently I have no support on this side of the House, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after the first "commuted" down to and including "by natural means." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment to meet Lord Danesfort.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 32, leave out from ("land") to ("the") in line 42.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for having improved on the Amendment I originally put into the Bill. The object was this. When the average cost of keeping up an embankment is increased by improvements, and in consequence a greater volume of water comes down the river, and involves a larger cost in maintaining the embankment than it otherwise would, I desire that, in fixing the amount of commutation money paid by the person on whom is thrown the obligation of keeping up the embankment, that fact should be taken into account. I therefore gladly accept the Amendment, but I do not understand why the noble Earl has, in the next and consequential Amendment, put in the date July 31, 1918.

EARL DE LA WARR

The reason, I understand, is that that is the date of the passage of the Land Drainage Act, 1918.

LORD DANESFORT

I do not think that is a suitable date, because these improvements have been going on for a very long time, the obligation to keep up the embankments having been imposed in many cases fifty years or more ago. It would be fairer if the noble Earl would substitute January 1, 1900.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, we will do that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of subsection (4) to insert:— Provided that in fixing the said capital sum or terminable annuity no account shall be taken of so much of the probable annual average cost as is in the opinion of the catchment board attributable to the fact that, by reason of improvements effected since the first clay of January, nineteen hundred, in the drainage of the land drained by the main river, or to alterations effected since that date in the method of cultivation thereof, the volume of water which is discharged into the main river at any time is greater than that which would have been so discharged if the said improvements or alterations had not been effected.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on the last Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

Power of Minister to enforce performance of duties by catchment board.

(2) If a catchment board are aggrieved by a notice given by the Minister under this section they may within twenty-eight days of the receipt of such notice appeal to the appeal tribunal.

LORD DANESFORT had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "a notice" and to insert "any direction." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is drafting.

EARL DE LA WARR

We rather prefer our own drafting in the Amendment to subsection (2) which comes next on the Paper. It really conies to the same thing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 19, leave out ("notice") and insert ("direction").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "within twenty-eight clays of the receipt of such notice." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 13, leave out line 20.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Procedure for making Orders and confirming Schemes]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, there are three Amendments to this clause which are consequential on the Amendment already adopted with regard to the substitution of confirmation by Parliament.

Amendments moved— Page 13, line 22, after ("in") insert ("Part 1 of") Page 13, line 24, after the first ("of") insert ("all") Page 13,line 24, leave out from (" Orders ") to the end of the section and insert ("under this Part of this Act and the provisions set out in Part II of that Schedule shall have effect with respect to the making of such of those Orders as are, if opposed, to be provisional only").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16:

Constitution of drainage districts and drainage boards outside catchment areas.

16.—(1) The Minister may by Order under this Part of this Act constitute any area which is not comprised in a catchment area a separate drainage district and include therein the whole, or any part of any existing drainage district which is not comprised in a catchment area and provide for the constitution of the drainage board for the district: Provided that any person aggrieved by such Order may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal.

(2) Provision may be made by an Order under this Part of this Act— (a) for altering the boundaries of any drainage district or drainage area.

EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the first Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 14, leave out lines 6 to 8.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2) after paragraph (a), to insert:— (b) for abolishing or reconstituting any internal drainage district and the drainage board thereof; (c) where it appears desirable so to provide in the case of any existing drainage board, for amending the method of constituting that board so far as is necessary to secure that the members of the board shall be persons elected as such members in accordance with the provisions in that behalf contained in Part V to this Act.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is similar to the Amendment to Clause 4, and simply adds to Clause 16 powers which are contained in Clause 4.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 13, leave out from ("for") to the end of line 15.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next two Amendments are merely to leave out unnecessary words.

Amendments moved— Page 14, line 16, leave out ("other"). Page 14, line 16, leave out lines 24 to 30.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17 [Provision as to petitions and procedure for making Orders]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords these Amendments are consequential on the Amendments made to Clause 2.

Amendments moved—

Page 15, line 22, at the beginning insert: ("An Order under this Part of this Act shall, if opposed, be provisional only and have no effect until confirmed by Parliament and")

Page 15, line 24, after the first ("of") insert ("such")

Page 15, line 24, leave out ("under this Part of this Act")

Page 15, line 24, leave out lines 29 to 31.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 20:

Contributions by internal drainage board to catchment board and by catchment board to internal drainage board. (4) If—

1. (a) an internal drainage board is aggrieved by a resolution of a catchment board under this section, either determining the amount of any contribution or refusing to make a contribution; or
2. (b) the council of any county or county borough which, or any part of the area of which, is within the catchment area is aggrieved by any such resolution on the ground, either that the amount of the contribution required to be made by an internal drainage board is inadequate or that the contribution to be made by the catchment board is excessive;

the internal drainage board or the council, as the case may be, may, within six weeks after the date on which notice of the resolution is given by the catchment board to the internal drainage board, appeal to the Minister against the resolution, and the Minister may, after considering any objections made to him and, if he thinks fit, holding a local public inquiry, make such an order in the matter as he thinks just and his decision shall be final and the catchment board or the internal drainage board, as the case may be, shall make any contribution which the Minister may order them to make.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:— (4) A resolution under this section may be acted upon by the Board forthwith, notwithstanding that the time for bringing an appeal under the next succeeding subsection has not expired or that an appeal so brought is pending, and in the event of an appeal being so brought, the Minister shall by his Order direct such adjustment to be made in respect of any sums recovered or paid in pursuance of the resolution as may be necessary in order to give effect to his decision.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to obviate the difficulty a catchment board would be in if a drainage board from which a contribution was demanded made an appeal under subsection (4) of the clause. The words are really put down to meet the Amendment put down by Lord Desborough in page 19, line 22, to insert a new subsection. We prefer our drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 17, leave out from ("final") to the end of the subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21:

Precepts issued by catchment board.

21.—(1) A catchment board may issue precepts to the councils of counties and county boroughs and to internal drainage boards requiring payment of any amount apportioned upon, or otherwise due from those councils and boards, under either of the two last preceding sections and, subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, a council or an internal drainage board shall pay, in accordance with any precept so issued to it, the amount thereby demanded.

(3) Where the council of a county are at the date of the passing of this Act liable for any drainage expenses the amount demanded by any precept issued to them by a catchment board together with the annual charge of such expenses shall not without the consent of the council exceed the sum which would be produced by a rate of three farthings in the pound levied in the county on the rateable value of the hereditaments situate within the catchment area.

(5) There shall not be any obligation upon any county or county borough council or upon any internal drainage board to pay the amount demanded by any precept issued under this section until such council or board have received the statement referred to in subsection (2) of this section.

(6) Compliance with any precept issued by a catchment board under this section may be enforced by mandamus.

EARL DE LA WARR

The Amendments standing in my name to this clause are consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 19, line 26, after ("amount") insert ("payable by") Page 19, line 26, leave out ("otherwise due from") and insert ("required to be contributed by").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "any" ["any precept"]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment, but I would point out that my noble friend Lord Phillimore has given Notice of two or three Amendments at this point and there is another Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Bayford and myself, all of which rather cross each other. Might we not have a general discussion as to which is the best?

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I think I can give one general answer on the whole point. I am given to understand that under the Interpretation Act, 1889, the singular can be taken to read in the plural where it is wanted. It sounds a little bit Irish to the lay mind, but I am assured that it is right and that the noble Lord's point is really met.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Lord move his Amendment?

LORD DYNEVOR

I move my Amendment to leave out the word "any."

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 32, leave out (" any ").(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I can only say that I understand that this is unnecessary from the drafting point of view. The point is covered by the Interpretation Act.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I am quite satisfied.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I gather that the noble Earl has considered with his advisers the value of the word "any," and that he is satisfied that the Amendment is not necessary. Is that so?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My noble friend Lord Phillimore is also satisfied?

LORD PHILLIMORE

That is so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then I hope we may be able to accept the Government view here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "county," to insert "and which would fall to be paid within any one financial year." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord will accept this. It only carries into effect the resolution that we agreed to. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 33, after ("county") insert ("and which would fall to be paid within any one financial year").—(Lord Phillimore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I accept this Amendment, which is certainly an improvement on the subsection originally moved by the noble Lord. But I ought to make it clear to your Lordships that His Majesty's Government cannot accept the principle involved in the subsection. Though this is not entirely in place here, I might tell your Lordships that we have gone into the question of figures and we find that in the Stour area, which would be one drainage area, this Amendment will mean that they can raise £385.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understand that this Amendment is accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "hereditaments", to insert "in that part of the county." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 37, after ("hereditaments") insert ("in that part of the county").—(Lord Phillimore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (3), after "exceed," to insert "in any one financial year." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 43, after ("exceed") insert ("in any one financial year").—(Lord Phillimore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I will accept this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "(2)" and to insert "(4)." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 15, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(4)").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 17, leave out ("under") and insert ("in accordance with the provisions of").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23 [Rating powers of drainage boards other than catchment boards]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think the second of the noble Earl's Amendments is to page 22, line 33 and not as printed on the Paper, page 23, line 22.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 33, leave out ("agricultural land") and insert ("hereditaments").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 34, leave out ("so assessed"). and insert ("assessed on the occupiers of hereditaments").—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, may I ask what has happened to the Amendment to page 23, line 22, to leave out "agricultural land" and insert "hereditaments"?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That has been agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

There are no such words as "agricultural land" in that line.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack pointed out that there was a misprint in that Amendment and that it should be page 22, line 33, and not page 23, line 22.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

At any rate, from the point of view of order, we have passed that. If anything has been done wrong, it must be put right on Third Reading. We cannot go back.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is quite right as it is now.

Clause 31 [Power of local authorities to contribute to expenses of drainage boards]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the Amendments to Clause 31 are all moved at the request of the County Councils Association. They enable a county council to make a contribution towards the expenses of drainage works, as a county council and not merely as a highway authority. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 29, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("or highway authority") Page 29, line 32, leave out ("under the control of the highway authority") Page 29, line 33, leave out ("or the highway authority as the case may be") Page 29, line 41, after ("nineteen hundred and twenty-six") insert ("or the council of a county") Page 29,line 43, after ("Acts") insert ("or under the Local Government Act, 1888, as the case may be").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 32:

Election of members and proceedings of drainage boards.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an election of members of a drainage board shall be conducted in accordance with rules made by the Minister and any such rules shall contain provisions—

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "rules" and to insert "regulations." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suggest that the word "regulations" should be substituted for "rules," because regulations are already referred to in Clause 68. They have to be laid before Parliament by the Minister. The word "rules," so far as I know, is not dealt with in the Bill, and it seems to me that we had better have "regulations" here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 12, leave out ("rules") and insert ("regulations").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the effect of this, as the noble Lord has implied, is that these rules or regulations, whichever we decide to call them, would have to be laid before both House of Parliament and be the subject of an affirmative Resolution. For rules of this kind to be the subject of an affirmative Resolution and be laid before Parliament for a period is really unnecessary, and it would unduly complicate the procedure under the Bill. Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to point out exactly what these rules are. One is allowing any person to vote at an election for members of a drainage board by a deputy. Another provides machinery for the preparation of the register of electors, for making all the objections to entries in the register and the hearing and determination of such objections. There is also machinery for the holding of elections, providing for returning officers at elections, nominations of candidates, polling of votes, and counting of votes. That is all these rules are concerned with, and we are, therefore, naturally anxious that it should not be made necessary to have an affirmative Resolution of Parliament before the rules can be put into operation. I should imagine, if the Minister is fit for anything at all, he ought to be able to carry out rather simple acts of this kind.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, if regulations are made we all know what they are. Presumably they would all apply to every place, but if we do not have the word "regulation" and we have the word "rules" we shall not know what the Minister is doing. I should have thought the noble Earl would have accepted such a small Amendment as this. It makes me nervous to think of the Minister making rules before we know what they are, and I hope the noble Earl will change his mind and agree to this.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, as I have already pointed out, they are the simplest kind of rules. I think if a man cannot be made responsible for this he had very much better not be a Minister—allowing any person to vote at an election for members of a drainage board by deputy. Surely we should trust the Minister to carry out simple things like that. I hope the noble Lord will not complicate the machinery. It is not an, important point.

LORD DYNEVOR

I will not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34:

Maintenance of drains.

34.—(1) Where any drain is in such condition that the proper flow of water is impeded and by reason of the impediment land is being injured by water or is in danger of being so injured, it shall, except where the condition of the drain is attributable to subsidence of surface due to mining operations, be the duty of the person having control of the drain or of the part thereof where the impediment occurs, or, if that person is not known, the person occupying the land on either side of the drain or part thereof, to put the drain or that part of the drain in proper order.

(2) Where any drainage board, not being a catchment board, are of opinion that by reason of the act or default of any person any drain within their drainage district is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded and by reason of the condition of the drain land is being injured by water or is in danger of being so injured, the drainage board may serve on the person by whose act or default the flow of water is impeded a notice requiring him to put the drain or any part thereof in proper order, and subject to the provisions of this section it shall be the duty of that person within two months after the date on which the notice was served on him to comply with the requirements of the notice.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and by reason of the impediment land is being injured by water or is in danger of being so injured." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to make a complaint, because the Government have been very gracious in accepting many Amendments, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, will, I know, help me as much as he can, but I must draw your Lordships' attention to the White Paper regarding Clause 34. The description in the White Paper, which is supposed to tell us what are old enactments and what is new legislation, says:— Clause 34 is almost wholly a re-enactment of Section 2 of the Land Drainage Act, 1926, the only material modification having been inserted as the result of the past experience of county councils in enforcing this provision. That is not quite an accurate statement. There has been considerable change in the wording of the clause, for the clause refers now to all land whether or not it belongs to a person.

On the Second Reading of the Land Drainage Bill of 1926, I said the clause ought to be confined more to the injuring of your neighbour's land than to doing injury to your own land. Then Lord Bledisloe, who was in charge of the Bill, brought in an Amendment altering the clause, and also putting in words confining it to land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person. Now this Bill alters that provision, and puts back what your Lordships took out of the Bill of 1926. My three Amendments should be read together. I am moving to put this clause back as it is in the 1926 Act, which refers to agricultural land, whereas this Bill refers to "land," omitting the "agricultural." I am making the clause read: if by reason of such impediment agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water, or in danger of being so injured. I might also remind your Lordships that the word "agricultural" was added to the Bill in 1926, so that I am only asking your Lordships to make Clause 34 of this Bill conform to what we settled in the Land Drainage Act of 1926. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 27, leave out from ("impeded") to ("it") in line 29.—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, what the noble Lord says is perfectly right. This was in the Land Drainage Act, 1926, and was removed. Since 1926 these provisions have been operated by county councils throughout the country, and this clause was drawn up in close consultation with the county councils, who urged strongly that the clause should be so amended in the light of their experience. Since 1926 the county councils have enforced this provision with considerable activity in many parts of the country, and it has proved extremely useful. The county councils know a good deal about the benefits they can obtain from it and its weaknesses. In many cases the mere existence of the power they possess has sufficed to secure the carrying out of necessary work without any force being used. I may say that this clause has the support of the County Councils Association. They wish it to remain and I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not ask us to make this change.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am afraid that at this point we must take rather a stronger line than upon some of these other matters that have been before your Lordships. I understand from my noble friends and from other sources of information that this very provision which the Government have put into their Bill was in the original draft of the Bill of 1926. It was then pressed upon the Government of that day, of which I had the honour to be a member, that the provision was a mistake, and, after consideration, we agreed that it ought to be struck out, and it was struck out. That was the deliberate decision of Parliament carried after careful consideration by the then Government, and is now the law of the land. The next opportunity which the Administration has of dealing with this drainage question it is sought to reverse that decision. I am sure the noble Earl will see that we cannot consent to that. This was the deliberate decision of Parliament less than four years ago, and the Government of that day were convinced that the original Bill was wrong, so that we were, as it were, as great sinners as the noble Earl's Government are when we started, but we repented, and I am afraid we must insist upon the fruits of our repentance being reaped.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the only trouble about our following in the footsteps of the noble Marquess in the matter of repenting is that since the change was made in the Act of 1926 the county councils who have had to operate it have found that in certain respects it was difficult to enforce. We are therefore making the change as the result of

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, the next Amendments deal with the same point and are consequential.

experience at the request of the County Councils Association. It is perfectly true that it was taken out after quite considerable discussion, but we all learn by experience. This legislation was of a purely experimental character. It was hoped to be able to do without these powers, but it has been found in the light of experience that they are required. Therefore I hope noble Lords will not seek to make this alteration.

LORD PHILLIMORE

My Lords, I think there is one point which should be put before this question is decided. What opportunity did the County Councils Association have of referring back to their constituent bodies any question under this Bill whatever? I think if my noble friend Lord Deramore was present to-day he would tell you that the County Councils Association had no time to refer the various questions which have arisen under this Bill back to their constituent bodies, and that therefore we might easily be misled if we took the rather quick replies of the County Councils Association to the noble Earl's interrogatories as the considered judgment of the county councils on these matters. I think that has a good deal of bearing on the matter.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Arnold, L.	Marley, L. [Teller.]
	Cornwallis, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Dickinson, L.	Sandhurst, L.
	Gainford, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
De La Warr, E.	Marks, L. [Teller.]	Strachie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	FitzAlan of Denvent, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
Cawdor, E.		Jessel, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Alvingham, L.	Lamington, L.
Grey, E.	Annaly, L.	Lawrence, L.
Lucan, E.	Bayford, L. [Teller.]	Phillimore, L.
Stanhope, E.	Danesfort, L.	Templemore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Dynevor, L. [Teller.]

Amendments moved— Page 31, line 36, at end add ("if by reason of such impediment agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person is injured by water, or in danger of being so injured") Page 31,line 42, leave out ("land") and insert ("agricultural land belonging to or in the occupation of some other person").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 37:

Disposal of spoil.

37.—(1) A drainage board without making payment therefor or giving compensation in respect thereof may appropriate and dispose of any shingle, sand, clay, gravel, stone, rock or other matter removed in the course of the execution of any work for widening, deepening or dredging any watercourse, and may deposit any matter so removed on the banks of the watercourse or use it in any other manner for the maintenance or improvement of those banks or for the purposes of the execution of any other work which the drainage board have power to execute:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "without" ["A drainage board without making payment"] and to insert "on." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if you will look at the marginal note to Clause 37 you will see it is brutally frank because it says "Disposal of spoil." I take it that is something that is stolen. What prompted me to put down this Amendment was that I saw that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was in a generous frame of mind as in Clause 42 he proposes to allow compensation to be given for obstructions which have been taken down. Therefore I hope he will see his way to be generous in this respect also. It is very easy to rectify this matter because it simply means substituting one word for another in order that justice may be done.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 18, leave out ("without") and insert ("on").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the object of Clause 37 is to entitle a drainage board when carrying out necessary work to remove shingle or sand or clay without any payment and deposit the same on the banks of the watercourse.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

And sell it also, dispose of it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think so.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

"Appropriate and dispose of."

EARL DE LA WARR

Oh yes, but it goes on to define how—"may deposit any matter so removed on the banks of the watercourse"—without payment. It is quite obvious that this work is carried out for the benefit of the landowners. It is the usual thing, when dredging and taking out clay or shingle, to deposit it on the banks of the watercourse, and it would obviously be most unreasonable to ask that those boards which have to proceed in this way should pay compensation for doing so.

EARL GREY

My Lords, has the noble Earl quite dealt with the remark of my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame regarding the words "dispose of"? The word "dispose" in line 20 is not qualified.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 39:

Provision for transfer to drainage boards of powers and duties of navigation authorities. (2) Any person aggrieved by any arrangement made under this section may, at any time within three months after such arrangement has been approved by the Minister of Transport, appeal to the appeal tribunal.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, my first Amendment to this clause is drafting. It is designed to include the conservancy authority.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 18, after ("navigation") insert ("or conservancy").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My Lords, my Amendments also are drafting. Does the noble Earl accept them?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

Amendments moved— Page 36, line 21, at end insert ("rights") Page 36,line 22, after ("duties") insert ("liabilities").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, my next three Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 36, line 23, leave out ("navigation") Page 36,line 26, leave out ("navigation") Page 36,line 23, leave out ("navigation") in both places where it occurs.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 39 is a purely optional clause, empowering certain authorities to come to an agreement among themselves, and therefore I do not think the appeal tribunal should enter into this clause at all.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 31, leave out subsection (2). —(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40:

Power to vary navigation rights.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an Order made under subsection (1) of this section may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:— (2) An Order under this section, if opposed, shall he provisional only and shall not have effect until confirmed by Parliament. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think we have already discussed this point on a former Amendment. It is a question of amending a local Act, and I do not think the appeal tribunal is really suitable here.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:

Power of drainage board to levy navigation tolls in certain cases.

"—(1) Where any navigable waters within a drainage district are not subject to the control of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, the drainage board of that district may, subject to the provisions of this section, by order impose tolls in respect of the navigation of vessels in those waters.

(2) Any tolls payable under this section in respect of the navigation of a vessel in any such waters as aforesaid may be demanded from the person in charge of the vessel by any person authorised in that behalf by the drainage board, and if not paid upon demand, may be recovered summarily as a civil debt either from the person in charge of the vessel or from the owner thereof.

(3) An order made under this section shall have no effect unless and until it has been submitted to and confirmed by the Minister of Transport, who shall not confirm any such order unless lie is satisfied that the cost of the maintenance or works in connection with the waters to which the order relates will or may be increased as a result of the use of those waters for purposes of navigation.

(4) The Minister of Transport may hold inquiries for the purposes of this section as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and Section twenty of that Act shall have effect accordingly, and he may make such order as to the payment of costs incurred by him in connection with any inquiry held under this section as he may think just.

(5) An order made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of this section."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we attach some importance to this new clause, which is designed to enable a drainage authority which is not a navigation authority to impose tolls in navigable waters in respect of the navigation of vessels in those waters. The Orders will have to be confirmed by the Minister of Transport. At the present moment there are in certain parts of the country waters that are being used fairly extensively for the carriage of certain products, the effect being that the drainage authorities are put to very considerable expense in keeping up the banks. As against that expense, they have no right of recovering any contribution from the users of the water, and it is only fair that, if the drainage authority is charged with the duty of keeping up the banks, the users of the river should have to make some contribution towards the cost. This clause will not, of course, operate where there are navigation authorities.

Amendment moved— After Clause 40, insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question regarding this new clause? As he says, it is a new suggestion altogether. We have not previously heard of drainage boards charging tolls. I notice that in subsection (4) of the new clause it is stated that— The Minister of Transport may hold inquiries for the purposes of this section as if those purposes were purposes of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and Section twenty of that Act shall have effect accordingly. What I want to know is whether I am right in thinking that Section 20 refers to Orders in Council, and that there is no appeal against them at all? I do not know if, under this new clause, there will be any right of appeal. If it comes under Orders in Council, I suppose that there will not.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, of course the Minister of Transport merely comes in here as protecting the interests of the public. I am afraid that I shall have to make inquiry on the point that the noble Lord raised, but I imagine that this comes under the ordinary procedure of administering Provisional Orders. In that case, of course, there will not be any appeal, but that was approved by your Lordships in the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and we are merely complying with something that your Lordships have already approved.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, is there any provision, in any previous Act similar to this, giving a drainage board power to levy tolls? Is it not a new thing to give these powers to drainage boards? Is there in any Act a provision giving a drainage board power to levy tolls in navigable waters?

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord is quite right. This is new, but we attach considerable importance to it. Otherwise various water transport companies will continue to make use of navigable waters, and will cause very great wear and tear on the banks, and the new catchment boards that we are setting up will be made responsible. The agriculturist and ratepayer will have to pay for the repairs. Accordingly we think, although this is new, that it is a very fair and reasonable provision.

LORD PHILLIMORE

My Lords, are we to understand that this applies to places where no navigation tolls are payable at present?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Are there any such places where water transport is at all considerable?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, I think there are, and if we improve the state of our rivers it is quite probable that these will be increased. I do not think there is a very great deal of it, but where it does occur I think that your Lordships would agree that this is a very fair power to give.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I take it that the noble Earl has said that this toll is levied only where a navigation board is not already in existence. Where a navigation board is in existence, I suppose the assumption is that tolls are already levied.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I also see that under this clause there is no appeal whatever, and these tolls could be levied without any remedy in the shape of an appeal.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, may I ask whether, in the event of these areas coming under some other navigation authority in the future, the powers of continuing to levy tolls would remain with these authorities, or would revert to the new navigation authority? I think that is an important point.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think that, if a navigation authority were set up, this clause would obviously operate so that they would come in, probably by means of a Bill dealing with the relations between the navigation authorities and the catchment board.

LORD GAINFORD

You think it is provided for?

EARL DE LA WARR

Oh, yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I am sorry that I was absent when the noble Earl first addressed your Lordships on this new clause. It is very evident that the matter is one of considerable importance, because the clause proposes to lay a financial burden on His Majesty's subjects, as I understand it, at the instance of the Minister only. The noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, who is very familiar with constitutional law, will recognise that this is a considerable power to give. The established practice in the Constitution is that no financial burden is laid upon His Majesty's subjects except by Parliament itself. Perhaps I should amend my statement by saying, except by public authorities, as persons responsible to the electors. This proposes that a burden should be thrown upon the subject by a decree of the Minister. That appears to be a very strong measure indeed to introduce at a very late stage of the Bill. I hesitate to believe that it is very wise of the noble Earl to do so.

LORD PARMOOR

I think the noble Marquess was not here, and I understand the nature of the objection which he raises. It has been explained that this would be only in particular cases, and in those cases with regard to the person who bad to find the money and whose works might be affected a toll might be charged. The matter might be looked into before the Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I suggest that the Government withdraw the Amendment now and bring it up on the Third Reading.

LORD PARMOOR

Would it not be better to insert the clause now, and reconsider it on the Third Reading?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think not.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 41:

Power of drainage board to enter and survey lands and inspect documents.

41.—(1) Any person authorised in that behalf by a drainage board may for the purposes of this Act at all reasonable times— (a) enter and survey any lands within the drainage district (including the interior of mills through which water passes or in connection with which water is impounded) and take levels thereof and inspect and examine into the condition of any drainage work thereon; and

LORD BAYFORD had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), immediately preceding paragraph (a), to insert "on the production if so required of his authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this explains itself, and is so reasonable that I am sure it will be accepted.

VISCOUNT BERTIE or THAME

My Lords, I have an Amendment to this Amendment. In Clause 49 it is enacted that persons authorised by councils of county or counts boroughs to enter land shall give notice in writing. Under this clause people may enter and survey any land within the drainage district, including the interior of mills. I should have thought that unless a miller got notice it might be very inconvenient, and I accordingly propose to insert, at the beginning of the Amendment, "after giving notice in writing to the occupier and."

EARL DE LA WARR

I will accept both the Amendment and the proposed Amendment to the Amendment.

LORD BAYFORD

I agree, and will move my Amendment with those words inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 6, at end, insert "after giving notice in writing to the occupier and on the production if so required of his authority."—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42:

Obstructions.

(8) If it appears to any drainage board that an obstruction erected before the commencement of this Act is a nuisance and ought to be removed, the board may proceed against a person having power to remove the obstruction in the same manner as if it had been erected after the commencement of this Act, and this section shall have effect accordingly.

(9) Nothing in this section shall apply to any works under the control of a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, or to any works executed under or in pursuance of any Act or any Order having the force of an Act.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the first Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 38, leave out line 41.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (8), said: The noble Earl has I think met my point in a subsequent Amendment, and therefore I will not move.

EARL DE LA WARP moved, after subsection (8) to insert:— Provided that the drainage board shall be liable to make full compensation to any person who sustains damage by reason of the removal of an obstruction in pursuance of the provisions of this subsection, and in case of dispute the amount of the compensation shall be determined in the manner in which disputed compensation for land is required to be determined by the Lands Clauses Acts.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really made in connection with a point that was going to be raised by Lord Phillimore.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 42, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (9), after "executed," to insert "or maintained." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 4, after ("executed") insert ("or maintained ").—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43:

Power to buy, sell or exchange land.

43.—(1) A drainage board may, with the approval of the Minister and subject to any rules, orders, or regulations made by him, acquire by agreement land for any purpose connected with the drainage of land or purchase by agreement any water-mill, dam, weir, or other work or any easement which interferes with the proper drainage of their district, and for the purpose of such acquisition Sections one hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and seventy-eight of the Public Health Act, 1875, except so far as those sections relate to the purchase and taking of lands otherwise than by agreement, shall apply as if they were herein re-enacted and in terms made applicable to drainage hoards.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and subject to any rules, orders or regulations made by him." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is not much more than a drafting Amendment. There does not seem any reason why the acquisition of land by agreement should be the subject of any rules, orders or regulations, and I am therefore proposing to omit these words.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 7, leave out from ("Minister") to ("acquire") in line 8.— (Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 45:

By-laws

45.—(1)A drainage board may, subject to the provisions of this Act, make such bylaws as the board consider necessary for securing the efficient working of the drainage system in their district, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions may make by-laws for any of the following purposes (that is to say):— (d) Compelling the persons having control of any watercourses vested in or under the control of the board or of any watercourses flowing into any such watercourses to cut and remove the vegetable growths therein.

Loan DYNEVOR moved to leave out paragraph (d) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment because I thought I would like to hear what your Lordships had to say in regard to this paragraph. It compels anyone who owns a watercourse to cut and remove vegetable growths therein. You could not have a better way of destroying all fishing at once. I do not know what is meant by it. They have plenty of other clauses in which streams, rivers, ditches and dykes are to be cleaned out, but the Government seemed to have gone out of their way to deal specially with vegetable growth. If you clean a river quite out there would be no fishing left.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 6, leave out paragraph (d).—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, of course, on the point of fishing I think your Lordships will agree that we have inserted in the Bill—and it remains subject to slight drafting alterations—Clause 53, which gives most adequate protection to all fishing rights. But I think, to come down to the general drainage point, you are well aware that one of the great causes of bad and ineffective land drainage is the fact that rivers and streams are frequently permitted to be overgrown with weeds and rushes, and die water is not allowed to get away. Hitherto there has been no power for drainage boards to prevent this evil, and if your Lordships will refer to the Report of the Royal Commission, paragraphs 121 and 122, you will see that it specifically recommends the making of by-laws to prevent the discharge of destructive matter into rivers. The cutting of weeds and vegetable growths is one of the duties required to be carried out in drainage districts, and the making of by-laws is necessary to require the removal of weeds when cut, to prevent them from drifting down and blocking the rivers, and interfering with navigation by fouling the propellors of steamers, This clause follows a clause which was inserted last year in the Doncaster Drainage Act, and I cannot accept the Amendment, because this power is much required by the authorities who will have to work this Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE had on the Paper an Amendment to insert at the end of the clause the following new subsection:— () Notwithstanding anything in this Act no by-law made by a drainage board shall conflict or interfere with the operation of any by-law made by a navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, subject to further consideration of drafting, I am prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 14, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46 [Appointment of officers]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 15, leave out ("drainage boards") and insert ("a drainage board").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 [Powers of persons authorised by councils of county or county boroughs to enter on land]:

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 27, at end, insert ("at all reasonable times").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53:

Protection of Fisheries.

53.—(1) Nothing in the Bill shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, or any of the rights, powers and duties thereby conferred.

(2) In the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill due regard shall be had to fishery interests.

EARL DE LA WARR

This is drafting, as I am moving to insert a similar clause in proper form after Clause 58.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 53.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, the fishery authorities have communicated with me with regard to the acceptance of this clause, and I admit that the phraseology proposed is an improvement on that agreed to in the Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Land Drainage appeal tribunal]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the next three Amendments are consequential on what we have already discussed.

Amendments moved— Page 50, line 6, leave out subsection (7) Page 50, line 24, at the beginning insert ("on any appeal the appeal tribunal may make such Order as they think just and") Page 50, line 24,leave out ("and decision").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR had on the Paper an Amendment to insert, after Clause 54, a new clause ("Provisions as to pollution authorities for catchment areas"). The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Minister has been approached on a great many occasions recently by various bodies urging him to allow this Bill to deal with pollution. It has been felt that, although the questions of land drainage and pollution do to some extent overlap, it would be inappropriate really to insert in this Bill provisions conferring pollution powers on catchment boards or drainage boards. It has, however, been very strongly urged upon the Government that, even if this view be correct, at all events as the Bill creates areas for the purpose of land drainage, there is no reason why such areas should not, if occasion arises and the authorities think fit, be utilised as units for pollution purposes. This argument has impressed His Majesty's Government, and accordingly I am moving to insert this clause, which merely has the effect of enabling the Ministry of Health to constitute a catchment area a unit for the purpose of dealing with pollution. I should like to alter the drafting of the clause as it appears on the Paper. After "Provisional Order" I want to insert "under Section 14 of the Local Government Act, 1888."

Amendment moved— After Clause 54 insert:

Provisions as to pollution authorities for catchment areas.

"—(1) A Provisional Order under Section 14 of the Local Government Act, 1888, constituting for a catchment area or combination of catchment areas a joint committee or other body having any of the powers of a sanitary authority under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, may be made under Section 14 of the Local Government Act, 1888, by the Minister of Health of his own motion and without any application by the council of any of the counties concerned.

(2) Any such Order shall provide for the inclusion so far as may conveniently be, on the committee or body, of the persons appointed by county or county borough councils to be members of the catchment boards of the catchment areas concerned.

(3) A committee or body so constituted and the catchment board of any catchment area concerned may enter into arrangements for co-operation in the discharge of their respective functions, including arrangements as to payments for services rendered by either party to the other party."—(Part De La Warr.)

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I should like to say with what satisfaction I rise to thank the Government for the insertion of this new clause. I have approached the Minister behind the scenes and represented to him what a strong feeling exists among all fishery authorities where pollution exists in their waters that something of this kind should be done. Royal Commissions and other Commissions have reported for a very long time in favour of something of this kind, and a strong deputation of water boards, those interested in the amenities of rivers, and those who are anxious to secure pure water waited on the late Earl of Balfour two years ago to make representations to him and we pressed that something of this kind should be done. Although this is not all we want, we do regard it as a step forward to prevent pollution, and it is right that the new authorities should be associated with the county councils and others who agree to these proposals. I hope that as a result of this clause the pollution which exists in many of our rivers may be to some extent remedied.

LORD BAYFORD

Have the County Councils Association been consulted about this?

LORD GAINFORD

I have been informed that they have been consulted by the Fishmongers Company, who have taken an interest in this matter. I think they have been satisfied, but I cannot be positive. I understood that it was as the result of a general agreement that this clause was proposed.

LORD PHILLIMORE

My Lords, I should like to know whether the words in subsection (2) "so far as may conveniently be" are necessary? It would seem at the first blush that there is a great deal of opportunity for overlapping between existing sanitary authorities and these new bodies which may be created. Would the noble Earl not consider some words which would definitely provide for the representation on these new bodies of the existing sanitary authorities? Otherwise I foresee two practically overlapping authorities.

EARL DE LA WARR

That is a matter of drafting. I could look into it. But I assure the noble Lord this clause has been very carefully considered.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55:

Maintenance of banks between adjoining lands.

(2) If any person, being an occupier in default on whom a notice has been duly served in pursuance of this section, fails within one month after the date of the service to comply with the requirements of the notice, the person by whom the notice is served may, if he thinks fit, execute all such works as are reasonably necessary for maintaining the banks or cleansing or scouring the channels and the expenses incurred by him in so doing, or such proportion of those expenses as is just, shall he recoverable by him summarily as a civil debt from the occupier in default.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 24, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "if he thinks fit" and to insert "apply by complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction for a warrant authorising him to". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I had better explain the whole meaning of the very long Amendment which follows this, because the two are really one. Clause 55 is a very wide clause, and refers to maintaining the banks and to cleansing of watercourses (which include rivers) by the occupier where injury is caused to any other land, and the owner can serve a notice on the said occupier ordering him to do the work, and if he does not do it then the complainant can go and do it and recover the expense as a civil debt. But this may be a very big and costly affair, and there is no appeal. This question was dealt with in the Scottish Bill a few weeks ago. There the Government set up most elaborate machinery for an appeal to the sheriff. I have put in toy Amendment an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction, copying the words from the Scottish Bill, except that my appeal is to a court of summary jurisdiction while the Scottish appeal is to the sheriff.

There are nine subsections, which are all the same as in the Scottish Bill, except subsection (7), which gives a further appeal to Quarter Sessions. I suggest that, as the Government thought it right to deal with the question in Scotland in this way, it would be desirable to do the same for England and Wales. I have put in an assessor of skill and experience whom the court can call in, if it likes, to assist it. I think this very necessary, for justices are not usually very skilled in drainage questions, and, although I myself am a magistrate and do know a little about drainage questions, I should be very sorry to have to decide a big question, sitting as a magistrate, unless I had some skilled person to advise me, because in these questions one knows that very much more harm than good is done unless you know the exact levels and falls of the ground. I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept this Amendment, or whether he has any special reason against it, but it is one that is very desirable.

Amendment moved— Page 51, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("if he thinks fit") and insert ("apply by complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction for a warrant authorising him to").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, this clause is pure re-enactment of Section 14 of the Land Drainage Act, 1847, so that the machinery has been in operation now for over eighty years. I hope, therefore, that unless the noble Lord has some very strong reason for saying that it has not acted fairly—and I do not know whether lie will contend that—he will not press this. The position is that the owner of the adjoining land has been entitled to serve a notice requiring the adjoining owner to remedy the defect causing the injury. If the adjoining owner has failed to comply with the notice, he has been able, if he thinks fit, to do the work himself and to recover the cost by summary jurisdiction before the justices. That is a very simple, inexpensive procedure. If he has no right, if he cannot make out his case for having gone on the land and done the work, what cost there is will fall on him and not on his opponent. Alternatively to this simple form of procedure, the noble Lord suggests a very complicated and elaborate procedure, providing in fact that a court of summary jurisdiction shall say whether or not the works should be executed. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is rather using a sledge-hammer to crack a not very large nut. The existing system so far as it has been enacted and used, is operating I think quite fairly and I really see no reason for changing it.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, the answer of the noble Earl rather fortifies me in pressing my Amendment, because he has told us that the words in the Bill are taken from the Act of 1847. They have been going on for somewhere about eighty years, and why does the Government suddenly say that the Act must be altered? When they brought in the Scottish Drainage Bill the other day they put in all the words I have suggested here. The heading is the same and the clause has eight subsections while mine has nine. I think there is very good reason for giving to England and Wales what the Government have given to Scotland.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 58 [Protection, of waterworks]:

Amendments moved— Page 53, line 18, leave out ("drainage authority") and insert ("person") Page 53, line 30, after ("lock") insert ("bridge") Page 53, line 31, after ("lock") insert ("bridge") Page 53, line 37, after ("thereto") insert ("or the flow of water therefrom").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept these Amendments.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 58, to insert:—

Protection of fisheries.

"—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, or any rights, powers or duties conferred or imposed thereby.

(2) In the exercise of the powers conferred by this Act due regard shall be had to the fishery interests."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause has already been discussed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 58 insert the said new clause. —(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59:

Power of canal companies, etc., to divert sewers.

59.—(1) Where any sewers under the control of a drainage authority pass under or interfere with, or with the improvement or alteration of, any river, canal, dock, harbour, basin or other work (including any towing-path adjacent thereto) which belongs to or is under the jurisdiction of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority, that authority may at their own expense and on substituting for the said sewers, other sewers certified by the engineer or other proper officer of the drainage authority to be equally effective, take up, divert or alter the level of the said sewers and do all such matters and things as may be necessary in connection with the works authorised to be done by them as aforesaid.

(2) In this section the expression "sewers" includes drains, culverts and pipes.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 54, line 14, leave out ("sewers") and insert ("watercourses") Page 54, line 21, leave out ("sewers") and insert ("watercourses").—(Earl de La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, this also is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 54, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert ("other equally effective sewers").—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, these are two further drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 54, line 22, leave out ("sewers") and insert ("watercourses") Page 54, line 24, leave out ("sewers") and insert ("watercourses").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:— If any question arises under this section between any drainage authority and any other authority as to whether any sewers substituted or proposed to be substituted by such other authority for any existing sewers are equally effective to the existing sewers, that question shall be referred to a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or failing such agreement to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers on the application of either party after notice thereof to the other. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether the word "watercourses" should not be substituted for "sewers," because the word "sewers" has been struck out by the noble Earl's Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

We will see to that on Third Reading.

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 27, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 28, leave out subsection (2). —(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), after "drains" to insert "dykes, ditches, cuts, sluices." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the insertion of these words would include certain things which possibly might not be included under the word "drains." Is there any objection to putting in dykes, ditches, cuts and sluices?

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I am informed by my legal advisers that this is really covered by my Amendment to line 14 on page 54, to leave out "sewers" and insert "watercourses."

LORD DANESFORT

Then I will not move it.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 60, to insert the following new clause:—

Application of Act to Doncaster drainage district.

".This Act, in its application to the Doncaster drainage district, shall have effect subject to the following modifications:

(1) No direction shall be given by the catchment board under Section seven to any drainage board which is a district board within the meaning of the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1929; and

(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section seven, and Sections eight and ten shall not apply."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in 1929 an Act was passed dealing specially with the Doncaster area on the ground of the complicated state of the land drainage works due to mining subsidence. That Act set up a special drainage board to supervise the whole area. This Amendment will have the effect of leaving the direct supervision of internal drainage districts in this area as it is now instead of the internal drainage districts coming under the direct supervision of the catchment board. In the event of the catchment board considering any directions to be necessary, they will be given to the Doncaster Board itself. The remainder of the new clause is necessary as similar powers to those contained in Clauses 8 and 10 of this Bill are already conferred upon the Doncaster Drainage Board in their Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 60 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62 [Compensation to existing officers]:

EARL DE LA WARR

The Amendments to Clause 62 are drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 20, leave out ("authority") and insert ("board"). Page 57, line 3, after ("Minister") insert ("of Health").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 68:

Regulations.

68.—(1) The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of prescribing anything which may be prescribed under this Act and generally for the purpose of carrying this Act into effect.

(2) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and unless a Resolution approving the regulation be passed by both Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight clays on which both Houses have sat after such scheme is laid before Parliament, the regulation shall be void, hut without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder, or to the making of new regulations.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "unless a Resolution approving the regulation be passed by both Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which both Houses have sat after such scheme is laid before Parliament the regulation shall," and to insert "if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight 'days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled it shall thenceforth." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to reinsert the common form of provision for regulations being laid upon the Table of the House for twenty-eight days, and only becoming void if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House. When the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, moved to insert the words which are now in the Bill, the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition stated in answer to my assertion that the clause ought to be as it was in the Bill on the ground that the regulations proposed were mere machinery, that if I could convince him on the point he would be prepared to meet me.

THE MARQUESS OT SALISBURY

The noble Earl is referring to me?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes. The noble Marquess said that he would meet me if I could convince him that these regulations were of a trivial nature, as I was contending they were. If your Lordships and the noble Marquess will look at the Bill, I will explain exactly what regulations should be made under it, and I think that should satisfy you that they are not the sort of regulation which need be made the subject of an affirmative Resolution. The following are the matters in respect of which regulations may be made. Clause 21 (4)—

TEE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is the noble Earl giving all the matters or 'only a selection?

EARL DE LA WARR

There are seven kinds of regulations which I propose to read quickly to your Lordships so that you will know what they are. Clause 21 (4), prescribing the form of statement in making a precept showing in respect of what expenditure the precept is being demanded. That is the first regulation. Clause 25 (3), prescribing the form in which drainage demand notes are to be made. Clause 39 (4), prescribing the form of the notice to be published in the London Gazette setting out voluntary arrangements made between drainage boards and navigation authorities. Clause 47, subsection (3), prescribing modifications which may be made in the accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the catchment boards under the clause. Clause 50, subsection (2), prescribing the form of notice to be given to the owners and occupiers of the land in respect of small drainage schemes under the clause. Clause 56, subsections (1) and (2), prescribing the form of application of the particulars to be given by an owner to an adjoining owner. Clause 57, prescribing the form of application, of the particulars to be contained therein, and the manner in which the notice is to be given under Clause 57, and the time within which objection is to be made. I am afraid I have wearied your Lordships, but the reading of the list will, I think, show you that these are purely matters of form with which the Minister is dealing. I think your Lordships will see it is not necessary to have an affirmative Resolution for allowing the Order to go through. I hope the noble Marquess will be prepared to meet us on this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 26, leave out from ("and") to ("be") in line 30 and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I cannot pretend to be a master of this Bill, and to have the encyclopædic knowledge of it that the noble Earl possesses. I have listened as well as I am able to the very kind and courteous method in which he approached it. He used the word "form" over and over again. Of course, if it is merely form the matter is trivial, and I take it from the noble Earl that he means there is no substantial change which could be made in the provisions under cover of the word "form."

EARL DE LA WARR

I assent to that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I agree that the noble Earl has made a very strong case, and I have no desire to interfere with the proper conduct of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, and, of course, I shall accept the assurance of the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 69 [Service of notices]:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the Amendment down in my name to this clause is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 40, leave out ("who can be served") and insert ("to whom the notice or copy can be delivered").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72:

Provisions as to drainage board of Thames catchment area and Conservators of River Thames. 72.—(1) The drainage board of the Thames catchment area shall consist of the persons who are for the time being the Conservators of the River Thames, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the constitution and membership of drainage boards for catchment areas shall not apply in relation to the Thames catchment area. (2) The Conservators of the River Thames shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, consist of thirty members who shall be appointed in the manner specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act together with such additional members, not exceeding three, as the Minister may determine who shall be appointed by him after consultation with the internal drainage boards in the Thames catchment area to represent such internal drainage boards. (9) Save as otherwise in this section expressly provided this Act shall in its application to the Thames catchment area come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, which date is in this section and in the Sixth Schedule to this Act referred to as "the appointed day.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "consist of the persons who are for the time being' and to insert "be." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this question was discussed very fully in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, representing the Thames Conservancy Board, and we have been able to come to an agreement on these alterations as suggested in the Amendments upon the Paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 61, lines 37 and 38, leave out ("consist of the persons who are for the time being") and insert ("be").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Page 61, line 38, after ("Thames") insert ("(hereinafter in this section called the Conservators')") Page 61,line 43, leave out ("of the River Thames").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" and to insert "next after the commencement of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the matter is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 61, line 44 and page 62, line 1, leave out ("nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("next after the commencement of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Page 62, line 9, leave out ("nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("next after the commencement of this Act") Page 62, line 10, leave out ("of the River Thames") Page 62, line 17, leave out ("for the said") and insert ("of the Thames") Page 62, lines 35 and 36, leave out ("section of this Act of which the marginal note is") and insert ("provisions of this Act relating to") Page 62, line 38, leave out ("authority") and insert ("board") Page 62, line 44, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("commencement of this Act"). Page 63, line 2, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("commencement of this Act") Page 63, line 7, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("commencement of this Act") Page 63, line 18, leave out ("appointed day") and insert ("commencement of this Act,").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsection (9) and to insert:— (9) The powers conferred on drainage boards by Section thirty-three of this Act with respect to the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works shall not in the case of the drainage board of the Thames catchment area become exerciseable until the expiration of two years from the commencement of this Act but nothing in this subsection shall be taken to prevent the said board from exercising before the expiration of the period aforesaid any other powers vested in them under this Act notwithstanding that such other powers are only exercised in anticipation of the exercise after the said period of the first-mentioned powers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords this has been agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 63, line 32, leave out subsection (9) and insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD PHILLLMORE

My Lords, I should like to ask what is the exact effect of this in connection with the Amendment that was agreed to that the Act should not come into force for the next five years. How does this clause deal with that?

EARL DE LA WARR

There is a drafting Amendment later that deals with that point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73:

Provisions as to drainage board of Lee catchment area and Lee Conservancy Board. (2) As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, the Lee Conservancy Beard shall consist of twenty-one members who shall be appointed and elected in the manner specified in the Seventh Schedule to this Act, and the Lee Conservancy Act, 1900, shall have effect as if the provisions of the said Schedule were therein substituted for Section three thereof. (3) The persons who on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, are members of the Lee Conservancy Board shall go out of office on that date, without prejudice, however, to their eligibility for re-appointment or re-election under this section.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" and insert "next after the commencement of this Act." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment meets the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 64, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("next after the commencement of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved— Page 64, line 3, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-two") Page 64, line 9, leave out ("nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("next after the commencement of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY had given Notice to move after Clause 73, to insert as a new clause:—

Provisions as to drainage board of Weaver catchment area and Weaver Navigation Trustees.

".—(1) The drainage board of the Weaver catchment area shall consist of the persons who are for the time being the Weaver Navigation Trustees, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the constitution and membership of drainage boards for catchment areas shall not apply in relation to tile Weaver catchment area.

(2) The Weaver Navigation Trustees shall as from the 1st day of April, 1931, consist of the persons who are for the time being the Weaver Navigation Trustees under the Weaver Navigation Acts, 1721 to 1928, or any Act amending the same, together will one person appointed from time to time by the Minister, and such additional persons not exceeding two as the Minister may determine who shall be appointed by him from time to time to represent those portions of the Weaver catchment area for which drainage boards might be but shall not have been constituted under this Act.

(3) Any person appointed by the Minister under the provisions of this section may be at any time removed by the Minister, who may thereupon appoint another person in his place."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment put forward on behalf of the Weaver River Navigation Trust. I understand there are negotiations in progress between the County Council of Cheshire and the trustees of the river navigation. Those negotiations have not yet reached a final conclusion, and, therefore, I do not propose to move the Amendment, at any rate in its present form. It may be moved in another place. I understand the Government are favourably disposed to the principle for which the trustees are contending, but they desire to have more time to negotiate.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We are sympathetic to the principle, but we do not want to do anything that will go against the Cheshire County Council, who are very interested in the matter.

Clause 76:

Extent and short title.

(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "thirty-five" and insert "thirty-three." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that in the Committee stage Lord Clinton moved the Amendment by which the word "thirty-five" was inserted. I have Lord Clinton's authority for saying that he is content that it should be moved in the way that I have put down on the Paper. When the original Amendment was made the Minister said it was practically killing the Bill. That I do not think it is the wish of the House to do, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he can say when this Bill really will come into operation. It seems to me that 1933 is not at all an unlikely date to be the first at which it can come into operation. In any circumstances I should like to hear when the noble Earl thinks it would come into operation if things were left alone and the Bill stood as it was originally framed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 66, line 26, leave out ("thirty-five") and insert ("thirty-three").—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the Amendment which has just been moved certainly does render slightly less harmful what was done in the Committee stage, which was to prevent this Bill coming into operation for a period of five years. When that Amendment was moved in Committee I pointed out what an unfortunate situation would arise if this Bill were prevented from coming into operation for five years. I can only say that the same argument applies with regard to three years. With your Lordships' permission I might be permitted to make it quite plain what the position in regard to this Bill is. As your Lordships are aware, the Acts relating to land drainage are in the main old and out-of-date, and this Bill, apart from the financial clauses and the setting up of catchment boards, is largely a reenactment and consolidation measure. It is perfectly true the Bill enables the catchment boards to spend money, but there is nothing in the Bill to compel any catchment board to spend a penny on new works. The majority on the catchment boards has decidedly been placed in the hands of county councils, and, therefore, you have a safeguard against rash and unwise expenditure of money, a fear which, I gather, has been all along in the minds of many of your Lordships.

If this Bill is postponed, which is desired by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, the position will remain that cases of serious flooding such as occurred in Somerset during the last winter and in other places, actually endangering property and I understand even in some cases endangering lives, cannot be effectively dealt with. For these reasons I would suggest to your Lordships' House that it is really unwise and unnecessary to prevent this Bill coming into operation at the earliest possible moment. There is just one additional reason which I do not think I mentioned on Committee stage. In the case of a good many of the large rivers there has never been any effective drainage authority and consequently it will take considerable time for the new catchment boards even to consider the results of surveys.

If the noble Lord will look at the proposal as regards the River Thames he will realise that although the carrying out of works has been postponed for a period of two years the Thames Conservancy Board will be entitled otherwise to administer the Act, more especially in the direction of carrying out necessary surveys to enable work to be done, if necessary, at the end of the two years' period. No provision is made for that in this Amendment for the general postponement of the Bill. Therefore catchment boards will not be set up and they will not even be in the position to start the work of survey or to prepare for work until 1933 or 1935. Then it is very probable that in a very large number of cases even after that another year or two will be needed to get on with the work. Therefore I do not think I used language in any way exaggerated when I said to your Lordships that that Amendment and this Amendment do virtually for a very considerable time kill the Bill.

I have been asked if it is not possible in some way to meet your Lordships on this point of your nervousness about finance. We have been asked if we could not give your Lordships some assurance that this rating limitation, for instance, which Lord Phillimore suggested, or inserted in the Bill rather, could not be given some degree of certainty by being officially accepted on behalf of His Majesty's Government. But at the Committee stage I pointed out that that was impossible. Since then—I think I have already mentioned this—we have gone carefully into the figures and we find that this Amendment actually means that in one case such as that of the Stour no more than £385 can be raised by a ½d. rate. Your Lordships will realise what a farce such an Amendment makes of the whole Bill.

Loan PHILLIMORE

Without the consent of the council.

EARL DE LA WARR

But, of course, that means that where you have a large number of county councils represented on the catchment board one council will be in the position of being able to upset an arrangement. I do not know if it is possible to persuade your Lordships to make any change at this last moment. I feel rather unwilling to do so because I feel it is difficult to do that without traversing ground already very fully traversed in Committee, and that would obviously be disrespectful to your Lordships' House and procedure. At the same time I would ask your Lordships whether you have not had time to consider more carefully the financial clause that is intended to be inserted in another place. Your Lordships will remember that I read it to your Lordships' House on the occasion of a debate which we had here. I do not think the noble Marquess was able to be present ht that time and I believe it did come as rather a surprise to him in Committee. I have been wondering whether perhaps in the meanwhile he may not have been able to consider that clause and see how very open it is and how very generous it could be.

I know it has been said that it is vague, but I tried to explain at the Committee stage why it was vague. It was because it was felt that some areas in this country are undoubtedly quite prosperous and also are likely to gain a great deal from expenditure on drainage, whereas other areas are in a very poor condition and it is going to be very difficult in any way to increase their rates. It was, therefore, felt to be a great mistake to insert anything in that clause that would tie us down to treat each area on the same basis. It has been suggested that we might put in a limitation of 50 per cent., but some areas could do perfectly well—and indeed it would be a paying proposition for them—on a grant of very much less than 50 per cent. On the other hand probably many areas would find it difficult to raise anything. It may very well be necessary to give them a larger grant than 50 per cent. That is the sole reason, I can assure your Lordships, for this clause being what some of your Lordships have described as "vague." Therefore in saying that we accept this Amendment in preference to the five-years' Amendment I would take the opportunity of appealing to your Lordships to reconsider the position and to allow this Bill to go to another place without this limitation of either three years or five years.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl in manner has been courteous as he always is, but I am sorry about the substance of his speech because really I thought my noble friend Lord Bayford, in moving his Amendment on behalf of many other noble Lords, myself included, had shown how very anxious we are to meet as far as we possibly can the position which the Government have taken up. We had carried, in Committee, this five-years' limitation. It is a long period, I admit, but then the Bill is a very important Bill. We are anxious, and my noble friend is anxious, that there should be no appearance whatever of approaching this subject in a spirit of obstruction or of trying to prevent the carrying out of what is admittedly necessary work. Therefore, my noble friend has moved to reduce the period of waiting from five years to two and a half years. I thought we had behaved with great moderation. I do not think the noble Earl and the Government quite realise the feeling with which we approach this Bill. We want land drainage, but we are frightened. We are alarmed at the public burden.

We cannot understand how the Labour Government do not see the rising tide of feeling against undue expenditure. I can assure them quite candidly that it is a feeling going right through the country from one end to the other. It is one of those powerful matters which will make itself felt in due time when the country has the opportunity of expressing an opinion. They are afraid of the expenditure and they are perfectly right. The public burdens are enormous. The Government propose a Bill which is admittedly in outline a very important Bill and a useful Bill. All we are anxious is to do one of two things—either to get some limitation of coercive expenditure, or, if not that, then at any rate to give the country a little time in which to make the necessary arrangements to meet the new situation. Those are alternatives. We put the latter alternative at five years. We are prepared to reduce it to two years and a half. That is a very considerable concession.

If the Government would say that they realise, as we do, that the country is afraid of these heavy burdens, and if they were willing to leave it to the elected representatives of the people in the local authorities to determine how much they would be taxed in this matter beyond a certain limited figure, then we should he prepared to go even further than this reduction. My noble friend who is moving this Amendment would be prepared to meet the Government still further in the matter of time. We cannot ignore the feeling of the country about economy. Surely this is very democratic of us. All we want is that the elected representatives of the people should have a say in the matter after a certain limited figure—it has been put at a halfpenny rate, but that is a detail—and after that figure, not that there shall be no further expenditure if the representatives of the people wish, but that it shall be voluntary for them.

The noble Earl says that the county councils may be obstructive. I have never found county councils obstructive. I am, and have been for many years, a member of a county council and have watched them in other ways, and I have never found them obstructive. My honest opinion is that, if county councils make a mistake, it is in spending much more money than they should, not too little. That is their prevailing error. All we ask is that they should be given some authority in the matter. The noble Earl was unable to give us an assurance that the Government would be able to support your Lordships' view on this point in another place, and therefore we were compelled to give the country a little time. We thought that five years was best, but upon reflection we decided that it was wiser to meet the Government at any rate half-way in the matter of time, and we are reducing it. I hope that the Government on their side will think this question over. I am quite certain that we can do nothing more. If your Lordships are willing to insert my noble friend's Amendment, we must leave the Government to take the course which they think fit.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule:

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out the Second Schedule and to insert:—

"SECOND SCHEDULE.

PART I.

General Provisions.

(1) Before making an Order the Minister shall cause notice of the intention to make the Order and of the place where copies of the draft Order may be inspected and obtained, and of the time within and manner in which objections to the draft Order may be made, to be published in the London Gazette and in such other manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, and to be sent to the council of every county or county borough in which any part of the area proposed to be affected by the Order is situate and to every drainage authority or navigation authority which is known to the Minister to be exercising jurisdiction within the area proposed to be affected by the Order.

(2) Before making an Order the Minister shall consider any objections which may be duly made to the draft Order and may in any case cause a public local inquiry to be held with respect to any objections to the draft Order.

(3) The making or confirmation of an Order shall be prima facie evidence that all the requirements of this Act in respect of proceedings required to be taken previously to the making or confirmation thereof have been complied with.

(4) The Minister may make regulations in relation to the publication of notices and advertisements under this Schedule and to the holding of and procedure at public local inquiries under this Schedule and to any other matters of procedure respecting the making of Orders to which this Schedule applies.

PART II.

Provisions applicable to Orders which are provisional if opposed.

(1) After an Order has been made by the Minister it shall be published in such a manner as he thinks best adapted for informing persons affected, together with a notice that the Minister has made the Order, and that the Order will become final and have effect unless within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a memorial is presented to the Minister by some person affected by the Order and having such interest as may be prescribed as being sufficient for the purpose praying that the Order shall not become law without confirmation by Parliament.

(2) if no such memorial has been presented within such period as aforesaid or if every such memorial has been withdrawn, the Minister shall confirm the Order and the Order shall thereupon have effect, but if such a memorial has been presented and has not been withdrawn the Order shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament.

(3) The Minister may submit any Order made by him to Parliament for confirmation.

(4) If, while the Bill confirming any such Order is pending in either House of Parliament, a petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Bill so far as it relates to that Order, may be referred to a. Select Committee, and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose as in the ease of Private Bills.

(5) The Minister may revoke, either wholly or partially, any Provisional Order made by him before the Order is confirmed by Parliament, but such a revocation shall not be made while the Bill confirming the Order is pending in either House of Parliament."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential upon our Amendments to Clause 2.

Amendment moved— Leave out the Second Schedule and insert the said new Schedule.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

PART II.

Provisions as to members and proceedings of drainage boards.

2. The first members of the board shall hold office until the first day of November in the calendar year next following the calendar year in which this Act comes into force.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I can accept the three Amendments to this Schedule which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 72, line 28, after ("is") insert ("or the agent of a person who is") Page 72, line 29, after ("body") insert ("or person") Page 72, line 33, after ("aforesaid") insert ("and no such agent as aforesaid"). —(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after "shall" in paragraph (2), to insert "be persons appointed by the Minister and shall". The noble Earl said: My Lords, you may remember that when this Bill was in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, raised a question as to the appointment of the first members of the boards. I think this is usually done in what is called common form, but in order to make the matter perfectly clear, I beg to move to insert these words.

Amendment moved— Page 72, line 3S, after ("shall") insert ("be persons appointed by the Minister and shall").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Provisions as to the compulsory acquisition of land by drainage board.

(2) An Order under this Schedule shall he of no force unless and until it is confirmed by the Minister, and the Minister may confirm the Order either without modification or subject to such modifications as he thinks fit, and an Order when so confirmed shall, save as otherwise expressly provided by this Schedule, become final.

The confirmation of an Order by the Minister shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act.

(5) If within such period as may be prescribed no objection to the Order has been presented to the Minister by a person interested in the land, or if every such objection has been withdrawn, the Minister shall, without further inquiry, confirm the Order unless he is of opinion that the laud is unsuited for the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired, but, if such an objection has been presented and has not been withdrawn, the Minister shall forthwith cause a public inquiry to be held in the locality in which the land is proposed to be acquired and the drainage authority and all persons interested in the land and such other persons as the person holding the inquiry in his discretion thinks fit to allow shall be permitted to appear and be heard at the inquiry, and the Minister shall, before confirming the Order, duly consider the report of the person by whom the public inquiry was held:

Provided that the Minister may dispense with the holding of a public inquiry and may confirm the Order without holding such an inquiry in any case where he is of opinion that the objection or all the objections presented relate exclusively to matters which could be dealt with by the arbitrator to whom questions of disputed compensation are to be referred under the Order, and the Minister may, for that purpose, require any objector to state in writing the grounds of his objection.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in paragraph (2), after "final," to insert "and effective." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am simply moving the insertion of these words in order to make the machinery workable, for I propose next to move to leave out lines 32 to 35.

Amendment moved— Page 74, line 31, at end insert ("and effective").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this Amendment and that which follows should be taken together. These Amendments seek to omit from the Bill the words providing that— The confirmation of an Order by the Minister shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with, and that the Order has been duly made and is within the powers of this Act.

LORD DYNEVOR

On a point of order, the noble Earl is dealing with my second Amendment. At the moment I was dealing only with my first. I did not explain the meaning of my second Amendment, as I could have done. I only wanted to know if the noble Earl would accept the words "and effective."

EARL DE LA WARR

For the purposes of debate, I will accept them if the noble Lord likes. I think we have to take the two Amendments as one.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

There can be no objection to the words. "and effective."

EARL DE LA WARR

There is no objection.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think I will put the two Amendments together, if I may. They depend on one another.

LORD DYNEVOR

I propose to move to omit all words in the paragraph after "final"—lines 32 to 35—because this is one of the many objectionable provisions that have appeared in this Bill. We have already removed a similar provision from the Second Schedule. The Minister wants to say that whatever he has done, even if what he has done is illegal, shall have the force of an Act of Parliament. A great deal is being said in the Press and in books of the powers of Ministers. Here we have another case of a Minister trying to set himself above the law. I think your Lordships will be very wise to take this provision out of the Schedule. I beg to move.

Further Amendment moved— Page 74, leave out lines 32 to 35.—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, the lines that the noble Lord wishes to omit are word for word the same as those of subsection (3) of Section 39 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, though in that Act there appear other words to the effect that, when confirmed, an Order shall become final and have effect as if enacted in this Act. In the case of the Act that I have just mentioned, the powers of compulsory acquisition have been extensively used. In this Bill the necessity for the use of compulsory powers of acquisition is obviously not likely to arise very frequently, and therefore I would suggest that, if we are satisfied to have the words in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act and they have given no trouble there and have operated quite fairly, we ought to be content to keep them in this Bill. There must of necessity be some sort of finality in these matters and having regard to the safeguards imposed by paragraph (5) of the Schedule, I do not think it is unreasonable to retain these words, which have been the law of the land for twenty-two years.

If your Lordships will look at paragraph (5), it will be seen that, if objection is made to an Order, the Minister is required to hold a public local inquiry, and is also required to consider the report of the person holding it, and if it transpires at the inquiry that the conditions applicable have not been complied with, it is not likely that the person holding the inquiry would recommend confirmation, and in the absence of such a recommendation no Minister could possibly agree to confirm. The addition of the words "and effective" would not add anything to the Schedule, but would be a departure from the established law and practice, which has worked well and as far as we are informed without any hardship whatever. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment, because I really cannot accept it.

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the Allotments and Small Holdings Act of 1908, which is really a rather bad precedent. It is true that since the war compulsory purchase has seldom been resorted to, but the Act was passed after acute Party conflict, and whenever these compulsory powers were put into force they have usually resulted in very serious heartburning. I do not think the noble Earl could have quoted a worse precedent for the smooth working of the Act which is now before the House. I do not say that such powers are likely to be used very often, but I do think it is a very dangerous power to give a Minister, and I support my noble friend's Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I venture to hope that the Government will recognise that it is necessary for them, at any rate to-night, to give way upon this Schedule. I do not 'say, as I said on the last occasion, that the country is much moved on this matter, but many men who take profound interest in public affairs are very much moved, and notably the Lord Chief Justice who, of course, is a Judge and of no politics; but so far as one can guess his politics from his previous career he is not a Conservative, and yet he is profoundly shocked at the power taken by Ministers, in every Act of Parliament, to supersede the Courts of Justice. This is one of those cases where whatever a Minister says is to be law, and I must ask the Government to accept this Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendments, but I must bow to circumstances, and it is of no use dividing the House.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, in the proviso in paragraph (5), to leave out "he is of opinion that the objection or all the objections presented," and to insert "the objectors agree that the questions raised." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this proviso in the Bill leaves it to the Minister to decide whether an inquiry is necessary or not, and he can confirm an Order without such an inquiry where he is of opinion that the objection, or all the objections presented, relate exclusively to matters which could be dealt with by the arbitrator to whom questions of disputed compensation are to be referred. It is really quite refreshing to find that the Bill allows an arbitrator, and that the Government do not propose here that the Minister should settle the amount of compensation, but even now there is too much left in the hands of the Minister, and my Amendment suggests that the Minister may dispense with the holding of the inquiry laid down in paragraph (5), and may confirm an Order when the objectors agree that the questions raised relate exclusively to matters which could be dealt with by the arbitrator on questions of compensation. I feel that the objector should have some say in the matter, and that it should not rest wholly with the Minister to decide. This Schedule is an important one and deals with the compulsory acquisition of land.

Amendment moved— Page 75, line 29, leave out from ("where") to ("relate") in line 30, and insert ("the objectors agree that the questions raised").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, I think I am on rather stronger grounds now than I was on the last Amendment, because when I quoted the Act of 1908 Lord Bayford defeated me by saying that he had never liked that Act. In 1926 this House passed a Small Holdings and Allotments Act, and what is to be found in this proviso will be found in Section 17, subsection (2), of the Act of 1926. No doubt the object of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and his Government, when drafting that piece of legislation, was to save expense, and therefore not only have we the support of the Front Opposition Bench, but we are also fortunate in the fact that Lord Bay-ford was Chairman of the Committee in the House of Commons, while Lord Dynevor was in the happy position of not feeling himself compelled to move any Amendment on that occasion. If I may now turn to the merits of the case, your Lordships know that the holding of inquiries do cost money, and surely a Minister can be trusted to decide whether or not an objection made in writing is one which can properly be dealt with by the arbitrator when fixing compensation.

If the words sought to be excluded are omitted any objector has only to say that he does not agree and an inquiry must be held. It has been found after many years of practical experience by the Ministry that this proviso was necessary. Accordingly it was passed in 1926, and we wish to continue it. I may again assert that not one of your Lordships opposed its insertion or even objected to it when a Conservative Government made it the law of the land, and I suggest that for the same Party to move now to alter the law would be, to say the least of it, inconsistent. Therefore I hope your Lordships will consent to leave this Schedule as it is, and if you do you will receive nothing but congratulations for following the example of the Front Opposition Bench.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am so pleased that lines 32 to 35 have disappeared from the Bill that I cannot insist on this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fifth Schedule:

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 79, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("applicant, his heirs and assigns for ever thereafter") and insert ("persons for the time being interested in the land for the benefit of which the drains were opened or 1he improvements made") Page 79,lines 17 and 18, leave out ("the applicant, his heirs or assigns") and insert ("any of the persons interested as aforesaid").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Sixth Schedule:

Amendment moved— Page 80, line 36, leave out from ("March") to the second ("and") in Page 80,line 37 and insert ("next after the commencement, of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Can the noble Earl say when he proposes to take the Third Reading?

EARL DE LA WARR

Would it be convenient if we took it to-morrow? I understand some of your Lordships have other engagements on Wednesday, and it might make it more convenient. But Wednesday would suit us just the same. I only meant that it was for your Lordships' convenience.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, as far as the Opposition are concerned, they have no objection to taking the Third Reading to-morrow. The noble Lord realises, I hope, that he has got to have the Bill reprinted, and that he may have to put in one or two little verbal Amendments. Many of the Amendments we have made are not of great importance, although they run into a good deal of wording. Personally, it suits me better to take the Bill tomorrow, but, as an old member of your Lordships' House, I cannot help thinking the noble Lord should think before he commits himself to taking it tomorrow. I should have thought Wednesday would be better.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thank the noble Marquess for his advice, but I understand from my advisers that they think they will be able to get it ready, and it will suit everybody.