LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 19 May 1930 vol 77 cc744-862

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Drainage districts and drainage boards.

1.—(1) For the purpose of the drainage of land there shall be such drainage districts as are mentioned in this section and there shall be a drainage board for each such drainage district.

LORD CLINTON moved, in subsection (1), after the first "shall,' to insert "as soon as may be after the date on which this Act comes into operation." The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment on the Paper in order to get some consideration as to whether in the present state of agriculture it is really justifiable to place any greater burdens upon the industry. My effective Amendment will come later, when I shall ask you to consider whether the operation of this Bill should not be postponed for a period, but I thought there was some advantage in getting the matter before the Committee at a very early stage, because almost every clause of the Bill is increasing the cost to the ratepayers, a cost which in my view they cannot reasonably be asked to pay. The Royal Commission drew particular attention to the fact of the depressed state of agriculture, and in their recommendation No. 28, which appears in summary on page 47, they said:— That, in face of the prevailing agricultural depression, caution should be exercised in carrying out extensive drainage schemes… I presume that His Majesty's Government have paid some attention to that consideration, but the fact still remains that there is nothing in the Bill itself to indicate that agriculture should be relieved from what may be an excessive burden.

It is quite certain that the state of agriculture to-day is no better than it was when the Royal Commission reported. As a matter of fact, it is considerably worse. It is difficult, unfortunately, to make even the best land pay, and it is very doubtful indeed how far these reclaimed lands can be made to yield a profit at all, except at a very great cost. Of course, one looks forward to a time when some Government will do something really to lift agriculture out of the present depths of depression, and I have in my later Amendment given them five years in which to do that. It is, perhaps, a matter of faith rather than of belief that in the course of those five years something may be done.

Recently agriculture has been relieved of a certain portion of its rates. This Bill will do at all events something to re-impose those burdens. We have no knowledge at all of what the cost of this Bill may be, and I do not know whether it has been possible for the Government to form any idea of the capital cost of many of the drainage schemes. But we do know that the Ministry of Agriculture some years ago made an estimate that there were 1,750,000 acres in this country which were in immediate need of drainage. If that land is drained, as no doubt at that time the Ministry intended, the cost would be enormous. Speaking on the Second Reading debate the noble Lord who with such ability looks after the interests of the Thames Conservancy told us that the cost in the Thames valley alone would be £10,000,000. I think there was some evidence put forward before the Royal Commission to the effect that the Ouse drainage into the Wash required an expenditure of something like £5,000,000. Those are enormous figures.

I read just now the caution that the Royal Commission advocated in respect of the danger of imposing burdens on agriculture. Consider also the words in the main body of the Report, which deals more fully with it. The reference is on page 44, paragraph 141:— It may well be that extensive schemes of land improvement by drainage are impracticable so long as the present depression continues, and the recommendations which we make are directed at the moment not so much towards the accomplishment of such schemes, desirable as they may be at the proper season, but rather to the prevention of the further deterioration of land which is at present used for agricultural purposes. It seems apparent from that that the Royal Commission did not visualise any of these vast schemes, but hoped that something might be done to prevent land getting worse than it is at the present moment.

So far as the Bill goes, whatever the cost of these operations it will fall upon the rates. We understand that there is to be a contribution from the taxes, but it is not apparent in the Bill itself. The rates will fall with differing severity upon different people. They will touch agriculture, no doubt, very hardly. In the case of the uplanders, who will be responsible for the dredging of the main channels, they will be rated upon all hereditaments, excepting land, under the general purposes rate of the county council. The farmer will be hit both by the rate on his house and by the rates on his agricultural cottages; and where farmers compound rates, as they often will in these upland districts, the bulk of the cost will then fall upon agriculture is the same way agriculture is brought more closely into it under the internal drainage board. Its land will be directly taxed or rated by the internal drainage board itself. There is some provision for a variable rate being made; that is, those who will get most benefit will have to pay most of the rates. But we do not know very definitely what will be the boundaries of these drainage boards, except from the phrase in the first Part of the Bill, which states that the districts to be constituted drainage districts under the Bill will be such areas as will derive benefit or avoid danger as a result of drainage operations. It may be that under that the order of the old drainage board will be continued, and that the line of benefit will be drawn at, I think, eight feet above the higher flood level. It is not actually laid down in this Bill, but my impression is that that will probably continue. It will cost a very heavy rate, and not all the ratepayers can receive benefit. But the rate, unfortunately, is certain. My whole point is that it will fall very heavily upon the agricultural industry, and I doubt very much if this is the time to impose it. I hope the noble Earl will be able to deal with that point, and, of course, there is the subsidiary point, which probably he will not be prepared to answer at the moment, as to some estimate of the cost of some of these schemes.

Amendment moved— Page 1, hue 9, after ("shall") insert ("as soon as may be after the date on which this Act comes into operation").—(Lord Clinton.)

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL DE LA WARR)

The noble Lord has put me in a position of some slight embarrassment by making really a Second Reading speech, if he will forgive my saying so, on this small Amendment. The fact of the matter is that, whatever I were to reply to him on his general points, actually this Amendment, because of its drafting, is unacceptable. And the question arises in my mind whether we should have a general discussion which could only properly come on the noble Lord's final Amendment about 1935, or whether I should reply to him on the particular point he has raised.

LORD CLINTON

I brought it forward now in order that we might have a general discussion at the very outset of the Bill, because I regard the point of the burden of rates on agricultural land as one of the first importance in this Bill. If the noble Earl would be good enough to speak on the subject now, I think it would be convenient.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord has put his points, and I must do my best to answer them, though I think we did deal with a great number of these points on the Second Reading. The noble Lord asks whether really it is desirable to introduce legislation at the present moment that might possibly result in laying greater burdens upon agriculture. Perhaps I might put these few points to your Lordships. Firstly, I think the noble Lord suggested that what we were doing in this Bill was really to re-impose the burden of rates from which agriculture had been freed by the De-rating Act.

LORD CLINTON

No I only suggested that you were re-imposing some portion of it.

EARL DE LA WARR

Well, that we were re-imposing some portion of it. I want to make it clear that we are not re-imposing any rates whatsoever that were removed by the Derating Act. It is true that we are setting up machinery that may enable drainage boards to carry out drainage schemes if they so desire to a greater degree than they were able to do before the passage of this Bill. But they will not be in a position to impose on agriculture any new rate altogether. They will be in a position to impose drainage rates on agriculture; but agriculture was not freed from drainage rates by the Derating Act of last year. Therefore, no new burden whatsoever, no new species of burden is laid on agriculture at all. To a certain extent I think it could be argued that actually the rates of the internal drainage board might be decreased, because under this Bill the liability for the main channel will be taken right off the shoulders of the internal drainage board and made the responsibility of the main catchment board, which can only raise its money by the county rate and the county borough rate from which the agriculturist is free. It can also make a precept, if it so desires and feels that it is suitable, on the internal board, but only in so far as the area has actually benefited by the work being carried out. Therefore, I think it can be argued that actually the farmer will be relieved of as much drainage rate as he will have imposed upon him.

In regard to the other points the noble Lord raised, I think he has forgotten, in speaking of the great expenditure that is likely to be imposed for drainage on localities, that the localities have no less than a two-thirds majority on these local boards and that, therefore, if the localities (that is the county council representatives) are of opinion that their local ratepayers are not in a position to pay for these schemes and that they would not benefit from them, there is no obligation on them to carry out any drainage operations. It is perfectly true, as noble Lords may say, that Clause 12 gives the Minister power to intervene, but if your Lordships will look at the Amendments I think it will be seen that we have met the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, to the full on the Amendments that he has put down, and the Minister will not be in a position to inter- vene unless he is actually requested by a county council. He will not be in a position to intervene on his own.

Consider for a moment the position of the Minister dealing with a great conservancy, say, the Thames Conservancy, or some great catchment board consisting of a large number of county councils and county boroughs. First of all, he cannot intervene unless he is asked to do so by one of those county councils or county boroughs. Secondly unless the necessity for his intervention is of the strongest possible kind, unless the behaviour of the catchment board is such that public opinion would be likely to give the Minister the strongest possible backing, is it likely that a Minister would "take on" a great body of that character and act lightly in regard to it? I put it to your Lordships that it is not likely he would do so. Further, we have gone a very great way in meeting the noble Lord's objection by our Amendment to Clause 12.

I am restricting myself really to the specific points that the noble Lord mentioned. One further point that he raised is the question whether this reclamation is likely to pay. Let me go back again to the point I have already made—that it is open to localities to decide whether or not the expenditure of their money is going to be worth their while. Further, it is not quite accurate to speak of this as a reclamation. It is not a matter actually of reclaiming land. It is a matter of making land farmable which at the present moment is rapidly going out of cultivation. I suppose we all know perfectly well what it means to try to farm land that is becoming year by year more and more soured by lack of drainage. We are endeavouring to rectify that position. We know, and we had it put before us by the Report of the Royal Commission, that year by year hundreds and thousands of acres are going out of cultivation, and this Bill is simply introduced to correct that situation.

I might remind your Lordships that it was made very clear from all sides of the House on Second Reading that this Bill is in no sense merely the child of this particular Government. It carries out as far as any legislation can carry out, the Report of a Royal Commission. That Commission was appointed by a Conservative Government. It was presided over by Lord Bledisloe who had been Under-Secretary for Agriculture in the Conservative Government. It had as one of its members Major Courthope, who, as your Lordships know, is a Member of Parliament in the Conservative interest. Finally, Mr. Baldwin, the ex-Prime Minister, no longer ago than the last General Election pledged himself to introduce a Bill based on this Report. I would suggest, therefore, that the time is not inopportune for laying down the machinery for a great advance in our drainage legislation.

Let me close by saying that this Bill mainly a Bill of machinery. It is a Bill that will enable the localities, if they wish to deal with drainage, to proceed with it. The power is left very largely in the hands of the localities, who will be able to decide for themselves whether or not it will pay them and the ratepayers whom they represent to carry out this work. If I might, for a moment turn to the specific Amendment, His Majesty's Government are unable to accept it because it implies that the Bill has abolished all drainage authorities, and that it is to start de novo and set up new authorities. That is not so. There are no fewer than 376 drainage districts that will be already in existence. If your Lordships will look at the Bill I think you will see what I mean. "For the purposes of the drainage of land there shall be such drainage districts as are mentioned." If we read it with the Amendment we see that for the purposes of the drainage of land there shall be, as soon as may be after the date at which this Act comes into operation, such drainage districts. That implies that there would not actually be any at the time and that they would have to be set up. This Amendment, therefore, gives a false impression. I hope the noble Lord will not press it as it would really be misleading.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I have listened to the argument of my noble friend opposite with great and growing surprise. He said that this Bill was absolutely founded on the recommendations of the Royal Commission which had been set up by a Conservative Government, but he omitted to state that this Bill leaves out the three most important recommendations of that Royal Commission. I should like to tell your Lordships what those three most important conditions, as I consider them, were. The first was that an appeal tribunal should be set up. As the Bill was introduced there is not one word about an appeal tribunal. I do not suppose there has ever been a Bill introduced before Parliament which puts such absolute power into the hands of any Minister. Looking through the Bill I find that the word "Minister" appears no fewer than 157 times. In the clauses it occurs 124 times, and in the Schedules thirty-three times—that makes a total of 157 times. Yet it is supposed to be a democratic measure. I should rather call it a Ministerial measure. The second main thesis laid down by the Royal Commission was that there should be a Treasury grant. We have not heard one word about any assistance from the Treasury, and I do not see how any of these boards are going to set themselves into operation unless, before they are absolutely constituted, there should be some assistance in money towards the cost of setting them up and to pay expenses. The third item to which allusion has already been made was that the burden of agriculture is so great at the present time that no further burden should be placed upon that industry.

Those are the three conditions of the Royal Commission which, I venture to think, have not been carried out. Again, my noble friend opposite seems to me to labour under an absolute misapprehension as to the rating that is being imposed now on agricultural land under such existing boards as there may be. I happen to be connected with five counties—Bucks, Berks, Hertfordshire, Kent and Nottinghamshire—and in none of those counties do I pay a drainage rate. It will be a new rate as far as I know over very large areas of those counties. I think the same would apply to the fifteen counties which are in the catchment area of the Thames Conservancy Board. As far as they are concerned it is an absolutely new rate. In one county I do pay two rates—one the Sea Breach Commission' rate to keep out the sea in Norfolk, the other a rate for internal drainage. That is an obligation on the landowner who has to keep the land drained by means of picturesque windmills or by machinery. I suppose we shall all be subject to it under this Bill. I hold my Commission direct from the King himself; he signs it; but I suppose under this Bill all those people who have had long experience of water will have to submit themselves to some form of election.

There is one point on Clause 1 which I do not quite understand. All these internal drainage boards—and I see a new board was added to the list the day before yesterday—are to be set up by the votes of the people who pay rates. I understand that is so under Schedule 3, and if they have not paid rates they cannot vote. What is to happen when an internal drainage board is set up in one of the areas to which I have alluded, where nobody has paid rates because there are no rates imposed at present? How do you set up the board? Who votes for them? Does the Minister, on one of the 157 occasions on which he appears? Does he set them up himself? Or who does? I do not think the Bill makes any provision for a drainage board being set up in one of those numerous tributaries in connection with which they must be set up where nobody has paid rates, and, as there are no rates to pay, who appoints the first drainage board—the catchment area board or who? I hope the noble Earl will give an answer to that question before this clause is passed.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF TEE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

I think we shall really make more progress if we deal with the particular matter rather than with the more general question. For instance, I may say in answer to the noble Lord who has just spoken that the question of whether there is to be an appeal from the Minister is one of the matters we are going to consider.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I did not say a word about an appeal in connection with my question.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, the noble Lord did. It shows how far we may get away from the particular point The only point which arises on Lord Clinton's Amendment is simply this, whether there should be postponement, or what we should call a dilatory Amendment, as regards setting up the scheme of organisation which is proposed in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will not accept that suggestion; but that is the only point we are at the present time considering.

LORD CLINTON

The noble Earl suggested that I had caused him some embarrassment by putting the question in this form, and I was going to offer him an apology, but I think it unnecessary for me to do so, as he was so well able to answer from his own point of view the question that I put to him. But the fact does remain, however this is dressed up, that there are going to be increased rates upon agriculture. They are not old rates re-imposed, but there is going to be a larger general purposes rate which does fall upon the farmers in the upland districts, and by contributions to the internal drainage boards agriculture also will have to pay additional rates. I do not think there can be any question that it is going to entail very great cost upon agriculture, and my only point was whether it was wise in these circumstances to do it. The noble Earl offers a technical objection to this Amendment being put in. I think he said that if it was put into this clause all the existing drainage boards would disappear.

EARL DE LA WARR

It would imply that they were not there.

LORD CLINTON

As a matter of fact they would remain, I presume, until the Bill came into operation. I cannot answer the question technically, but it seems to me almost certain that no alteration can be made in the drainage board until this Bill comes into operation at whatever, time it does come into operation.

EARL DE LA WARR

It is only the commissioners of sewers who will be done a-way with by the Bill. The existing drainage authorities will all remain and in certain cases will have their constitutions amended. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, asked who could vote in eases where no rate is paid. Of course it is a question of liability, and if anyone is in default he will not be able to vote. Where there is no rate, then whoever is liable for rating would have the vote.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not think the noble Earl quite understood my question. I have given instances where nobody is either liable or pays. Does the noble Earl imagine that the whole of England is liable to drainage rates? It is not so.

EARL DE LA WARR

If there is nothing to drain and no rate to pay, there would be no drainage authority.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The Thames is 161½ miles long. There is a lot of land to drain, but nobody to drain it.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Is the noble Earl trying to make out that this is riot an additional burden on agriculture?

EARL DE LA WARR

I have already tried to answer that point.

LORD DESBOROUGH

May I be allowed to press my point? What I want to know is who will elect the first board under the Third Schedule in those areas where there is no rate or liability to rates? If there are no rates you cannot pay. What I want to know is who will elect the first drainage board.

EARL DE LA WARR

Nobody who is in default earl vote. If it is not made clear in the Third Schedule I will look into it on Report, but that is the intention of the Schedule. Anybody who is in default will sacrifice his vote.

LORD DESBOROUGH

But how is this internal drainage board to be elected where there are no rates?

EARL DE LA WARR

The board will be set up and it will be settled who is liable to rates. The people liable be assessed and will have votes.

LORD HASTINGS

The noble Lord said the insertion of the words proposed by Lord Clinton assumed that there were now no drainage districts.

EARL DE LA WARR

That there would be none.

LORD HASTINGS

But surely the same thing is assumed by the wording of the clause itself. It seems a great pity that on such a technicality we should be discussing this matter and not be dealing with important matters.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think if the words were "there shall be set up" then it would be appropriate to halve the words "as soon as may be." But as it is the great majority of them will already be in existence. The words "as soon as may be" imply that the words "shall be set up" would be appropriate and they would not be.

LORD CLINTON

Without abating in any way my view that the words impose additional rates upon agriculture, it may not be worth my while to press this Amendment, but I hope to be able to make it clear at a later stage that there shall be an actual date—not this year or next year—at which the Bill will came into operation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Catchment areas.

2.—(1) The areas specified in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act shall be catchment areas for the purposes of this Part of this Act.

(2) 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 be 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 insert "Subject to the right of appeal given by this Act." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I move is in substance the same as the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, although it is in a slightly different form. This Amendment is really introductory to the Amendment on page 10 of the Marshalled List of Amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Bayford and Lord Dynevor, to insert a new clause after Clause 11. That new clause which they will propose sets up an appeal tribunal to which appeals can be brought from Orders and schemes made by the Minister. Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if we now had a general discussion upon the best mode of securing this object—namely, of controlling the absolute and unfettered power given by the Bill to the Minister to come to a final decision as to the making of schemes and Orders under this Bill. The Government themselves have recognised the necessity of controlling this absolute power of the Minister which is given by the Bill, and on page 40 of the Amendment Paper they have put down as an Amendment to the Second Schedule a proposal which, as I shall show in a moment, is the most extravagant, costly, dilatory and ineffective method that could possibly be proposed for the purpose. I hope I have not described it in uncertain terms.

Many of your Lordships and many important associations and public bodies throughout the country who will be affected by this Bill are in favour of the appeal tribunal which is proposed by my noble friends Lord Dynevor and Lord Bayford, and their proposal is in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission in paragraph 139 of their Report. Speaking broadly, the proposal is that a tribunal should be set up consisting of a Judge of the High Court or other high dignitary with two expert technical assessors, an engineer and surveyor. To that proposal I venture to ask your Lordships to give the strongest support. I do so myself, and I do so not only in my private capacity but because I am authorised to give that support on behalf of an important association, the Canal Association. The Canal Association was constituted in 1855 of many important bodies interested in inland navigation for the purpose, among other things, of watching legislation affecting inland navigation. That Canal Association includes amongst its members almost all of the largest inland navigation authorities throughout the country.

I said that by the Bill the Minister was given these extraordinary and, I might say, unprecedented, but at any rate grossly improper powers. Let me remind your Lordships of some of these powers as to which he is to have uncontrolled discretion, because it may be important to summarise these powers for the purpose of showing the absolute necessity of having an appeal from the Minister to a tribunal in which the country would feel confidence and a tribunal which would be relatively inexpensive, efficient and quick in its operation. Some of the powers are given under Clause 2. He may decide what areas are to be catchment areas under the control of these new bodies the catchment boards. These catchment boards are invested with very wide powers of executing works and, what is rather worse in some ways, very wide powers of spending money on those works. Then the Minister can decide What powers of the drainage authorities should be transferred to these new catchment boards. He can also alter the boundaries of drainage areas and confer upon drainage boards such powers of levying drainage rates and such borrowing powers as he may think necessary. I need not go through all of them, but I may add that he can revoke, vary or amend local Acts of Parliament relating to navigation rights.

I have said that all parties are agreed as to the necessity of some effective method of controlling the powers of the Minister. What are the methods proposed in the Amendments upon the Paper? The Government have a method of their own. Their proposal is to proceed by way of Provisional Orders. I think it would be impossible to devise a more costly and futile method. What steps would be necessary if that proposal were adopted? If any one were aggrieved, he would call upon the Minister to hold an inquiry, and that inquiry would involve the aggrieved person in having to instruct Parliamentary agents and Parliamentary counsel, witnesses would have to be called and the hearing might last over several days, at a cost which many of us can at once imagine and deplore. But that is not all. When that inquiry was over, if the result was not satisfactory to the person aggrieved, he would have to present a petition under the Order, which would then be dealt with as a Provisional Order. Then he would have to go before a Select Committee of one House, or possibly of both Houses, again with Parliamentary agents, Parliamentary counsel and witnesses. There would be long delays and immense costs, and when all those processes had been gone through the Bill would have to pass through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament.

Let me add that, even if the person aggrieved, who put all these processes into operation, were right upon every single point on which he insisted, he could not get a farthing of the costs that he was put to out of any one. What would be the result? Surely, the result would be that no private individual could possibly embark upon that form of costly and ruinous procedure in order to obtain his rights, and the only bodies that could possibly resort to the procedure would be very wealthy local bodies, which perhaps might feel bound to spend the money of the ratepayers or shareholders in pur- suing this course. I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more about that method of procedure. I earnestly hope that your Lordships will not accept it.

Then I come to the procedure which is suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Halsbury, in an Amendment which he has put down to the effect that any Order made by the Minister should not come into operation at once and should become void unless it is approved by Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. I do not think that this is a satisfactory mode of procedure, and I doubt if my noble and learned friend will insist upon it. One unanswerable objection to it is that, if it were followed, the scheme which is objected to could not be amended by this Resolution, but would have to be either accepted or rejected; and inasmuch as these Orders will embrace a great number of technical points, it is essential that in any appeal against the Minister the tribunal that hears the appeal shall be able to alter or vary the Orders made or, if necessary, reject them in toto.

That leaves your Lordships to consider the only other alternative proposed by the Amendments on the Paper. I refer to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Dynevor and my noble friend Lord Bay-ford. As I have said, this follows closely the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which your Lordships will find in paragraph 139 of the Report. The effect of it would be that you would have a thoroughly competent tribunal, presided over by a Judge of the High Court or some high judicial authority, who would have the assistance of two expert assessors, would hear witnesses and could confirm, reject or vary the Order. The precise procedure of this appeal could be discussed upon the Amendment of my noble friend. All that I ask your Lordships to do at present is to accept the Amendment standing in my name, and thus, in effect, decide that the appeal shall not be of the kinds that I have previously mentioned.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, at the beginning of subsection (2), insert ("Subject to the right of appeal given by this Act").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Although this is only a comparatively small Amendment, I am told that it will be to your Lordships' convenience, as the noble Lord has suggested, that we should discuss the general principle upon it. This is the first of a number of Amendments that deal with the question of the powers of the Minister under this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I pointed out that there was no provision dealing with this matter. At that moment we all knew that a Committee was sitting to deal with the question of the power of the Minister ranging over the whole field of legislation, and it was therefore thought advisable to leave the matter over in the hope that the Committee would have reported by the time we got further with the Bill. We now understand that the Committee has not reported, and, judging by the expression of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, it will be a little while before it does report. It is therefore obviously essential that the question should be determined for the purposes of this Bill.

At the present moment three alternative methods are suggested on the Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, suggests in this Amendment—and he is supported in his contention by a number of other noble Lords—that a special appeal tribunal should be appointed to decide a number of questions on an appeal from the Minister's decision. Then the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury, has put down a series of Amendments providing that all Orders made by the Minister should be laid before both Houses of Parliament; but I gather from a private communication received from the noble and learned Earl that he is satisfied with certain alterations that we have made in our proposal and is willing not to press his Amendments. The Government have sought to adopt a third alternative—namely, to re-apply the provisions that were in the Land Drainage Act, 1918, whereby Orders, if opposed, should be confirmed by Parliament under the Provisional Order procedure. There is probably a good deal to be said for all three proposals, but whichever we ultimately adopt I think it is probably clear to your Lordships that no one of these methods of procedure will apply automatically to every clause of the Bill.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. There is no real objection, speaking generally, to the decision of the Minister being subject to one or other of the proposed methods in regard to some of the clauses, but in others it would be obviously impracticable. If your Lordships will look at Clause 2, you will see that subsection (1) provides that there should be a catchment area in respect of certain districts that are specified in the First Schedule. Subsequent Orders made by the Minister under Clause 3 in regard to such an area will be mere machinery carrying out the orders of Parliament that a catchment board is to be set up in respect of that area. That matter will have been already discussed in Parliament. There is therefore no need for an appeal. On the other hand, with regard to the additions to, or subtractions from, the Schedule, which can be made under Clause 2, subsection (2), that might very properly be made the subject, shall we say, of confirmation by Parliament or the other methods of procedure proposed by your Lordships.

Perhaps I might give you another instance. If you look at Clause 4, subsection (1) (a), you will see that a duty is imposed upon a catchment board, as soon as may be after it has been constituted, to submit a scheme to the Minister for the transfer to the catchment board of the banks and channels of the main river, which, according to the scheme of the Bill, will subsequently be looked after and maintained by the catchment board. If any one else is exercising these powers when the catchment board has been constituted, it is quite clear that the authority's powers must be absorbed by the catchment board, otherwise the catchment board, having been set up, would not be in a position to function as it had been instructed to do by Parliament. Clearly, therefore, this is not a case where any complicated procedure for appeal is necessary. It is merely a matter of issuing an Order carrying out the expressed intention of Parliament. On the other hand, if you look at Clause 4, subsection (1) (b), you see that the position is different, and it may be that further schemes will have to be submitted, which might very well be made the subject of discussion.

The Government have given very careful consideration to the respective merits of the different methods for dealing with this matter, and they have come to the conclusion that the best way of proceeding at the present moment would be to continue the existing machinery, that is, the machinery as laid down in the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and as now reintroduced in this Bill. I have already pointed out to your Lordships that a Committee is sitting to deal with this question, and while it may well be that the Committee will not be reporting in the very near future, there is no doubt that when it does report the whole of our national legislation in certain directions may well be subject to review. It will be necessary to consider all our legislation from the point of view that is expressed by the Committee that is now sitting, and therefore we have come to the conclusion that the best way, until that Committee reports, will be to carry on with the existing methods. At the same time, the matter is in your Lordships' hands, and if your Lordships on this Amendment decree otherwise, then, of course, without in any way committing my right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture as to his future action, I can give your Lordships an assurance that we will endeavour as far as possible to accept the decision of your Lordships' House, and further proceedings in Committee by helping your Lordships with the insertion of any necessary Amendments. I would ask you, however, seriously to consider the point of view of the Government. After all, it is not an entirely unreasonable one, to say that we should continue with existing methods until new decisions are taken. I ask you, therefore, not to insist upon the insertion of this Amendment.

LORD BAYFORD

I had hoped that the noble Earl would have given us some rather more definite answer on this Amendment than he has vouchsafed to give us, because I am not an opponent of the Bill, and I think it would ease its passage enormously if he could set our minds at rest upon this subject. It is a matter to which we attach the greatest importance. His proposal seems to be that at' the moment nothing should be done, and that we should wait until some rather distant future, when the Committee now sitting has reported, not on matters affecting this Bill specifically but affecting the whole range of Acts of Parliament. I do not think that that is a proposition which is likely to commend itself to the House. I want to put it to the Government that it would ease the passage of the Bill enormously if we were, as soon as possible, to come to a definite decision on this point. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has suggested that we should not lay down any fixed appeal tribunal, but that we should have one method with regard to matters arising under one clause and another method with regard to matters arising under another clause. That had not occurred to me before, but looking at it from a simply prima facie point of view, it seems to be a rather confusing and muddled method of dealing with such a subject as this, to know that there is an appeal of some sort but that you have to go into an Act of Parliament to see whether, in respect of a particular clause, you have to go to one sort of appeal or to another sort of appeal. That is a new thing in our legislation, and it does not seem to me at first sight to be a very desirable innovation.

The reason I want particularly to press this upon the Government, in the interest of the Bill itself, is that people are getting suspicious about the Bill. They think that if these very big powers are given to the Minister and if, in spite of the very definite recommendation by the Royal Commission, no effect is given to the recommendation that there should be a Court of Appeal, then there must be some reason behind it. I do not want to accuse the Government of having any sinister ideas on the subject at all, but agriculturists are apt to be rather a suspicious race sometimes. They can conceive a state of things when a Government might have come into power after an Election in which it had promised to do great things to deal with unemployment. They can conceive of a state of things where after such Government came into office unemployment, instead of getting better, got steadily worse. They also can conceive of a state of things in which the taxable capacity of the country has very nearly reached the breaking point, and it is hard for the Government to deal with unemployment through a direct inroad upon the pockets of the taxpayers, and in which such a Government, searching its brains for a method of getting out of its difficulty, might conceive the brilliant idea that as they could not find the necessary money for themselves it was just possible that the ratepayers or landowners might be able to find it for them.

They can conceive a state of things in which such a future Government might bring forward great schemes of land drainage, to be applied even though those in occupation of the land did not wish that they should come into force; and that they should then charge those schemes, not upon the resources of the nation at large, but upon the resources of the ratepayers and the resources of the landowners. I am sure that nothing could be further from the thoughts of the present Government than such ideas, but people are suspicious, and I want to give the Government the opportunity of allaying those suspicions; it is because I want them allayed—not from hostility to the Bill, but because I want to make the passage of the Bill easier—that I urge the Government to accept this Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not follow him in his references to his general thoughts of this Government on unemployment and taxation. It is quite impossible not to be impressed by the feeling in your Lordships' House on this question of the power of the Minister, and, while I cannot at the moment in any way commit my right hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, I think that, in view of the feeling of your Lordships, I might take it on myself for the moment, for this stage, to accept one of these Amendments. The question is which of them we should take. I think that the preference of the Government would be for Lord Danesfort's, though I think that Lord Danesfort himself prefers Lord Bayford's.

LORD DANESFORT

I very much prefer my noble friend's to my own. I do not think one should be in love with one's own baby when one sees a better one.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think as we have gone so far in giving the noble Lord his baby, we might stick to it for the moment.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I have been approached by dock and harbour authorities in regard to similar proposals to these. It is open for the respective babies sitting behind to settle which one should be the chosen one. Many of us think that Lord Bayford's is the better of the two. It is clearer and would set up a better tribunal; but if the noble Earl will say that he accepts one or other, it could be left for discussion afterwards which would meet the case.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am just accepting the principle of the Amendment. No doubt we can adjust it later.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We are very much obliged to the noble Earl.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think it is the desire of your Lordships to pass Lord Danesfort's Amendment?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "either." The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) says:— The areas specified in Part 1 of the First Schedule to this Act shall be catchment areas for the purposes of this Part of this Act. Then those areas are enumerated in the Schedule. Now you come to subsection (2), which clearly contradicts what Parliament has already decided. Subsection (2) begins:— 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 … So What this subsection (2) does, after Parliament has specified what the areas are to be, is to introduce a subsection which on the face of it looks as if the county councils or the borough councils might advise the Minister to make some alteration in an Act of Parliament, though the subsection then says that the Minister may "if he thinks fit, without any such application" direct that certain areas should be scheduled. That is another instance of the extraordinary powers given by this Bill to the Minister, and the object of my Amendment is to prevent the Minister acting, except on the request of the county councils or borough councils.

My noble friend Lord Bayford has said he is desirous of assisting the passage of this Bill. If the Government want to get the Bill through quickly, they might effect that object much better than they probably will do, by withdrawing this Bill and bringing in another Bill consisting only of two clauses instead of 74. This Bill would read as follows, and I shall be happy to give the manuscript copy of it to the noble Earl. Clause 1 is as follows:— The Minister may repeal or amend any Act of Parliament relating to drainage or navigation. That is already in the Bill, and I have only adopted a simple way of stating it. Clause 2 is as follows:— The Minister may construct any work anywhere which in his opinion will improve the drainage of land, or alter or enlarge or abolish any existing works. Any expense incurred under this Act shall be defrayed by a rate levied by the Minister on such owners or occupiers of agricultural land as he may select. The result of that would be that he would put the burden upon the shoulders of those most able to bear it.

EARL DE LA WARR

Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment in favour of that new Bill?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If the noble Earl will withdraw this Bill and then bring in a Bill like that, I certainly will withdraw my Amendment; but I reserve the right to vote against my own Bill, when it comes on, if it is introduced by the noble Earl. My Amendment, however, seems to me to be perfectly reasonable, because it preserves to the county councils and the borough councils the right of saying whether or not certain alterations shall be made in the catchment areas. This will appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, because I am sure he is in favour of local self-government, and what I want to do is to see that local self-government is really local self-government, and not nominal local self-government if the Minister allows it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out ("either").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we might consider at a later stage the noble Lord's helpful suggestion with regard to another Bill. We will see in what state this Bill leaves your Lordships' House before we come to any decision on that matter. The effect of these two Amendments—this one should be taken with the one that follows—is to render it impossible for the Minister on his own initiative to add to or subtract from the list of catchment boards set up in Part 1 of the First Schedule, in which catchment areas are required to be set up. This Amendment cannot be accepted. The Royal Commission most specifically recommended that the Minister should have this power. They said:— In default of the local authorities concerned preparing such a scheme, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries should proceed to set up the catchment area authority on the lines which we have recommended, and charge the costs to the defaulting authorities. While this is another discussion on the powers of the Minister, I suggest to your Lordships that your feelings about the Minister should now be modified by the Amendments that we have already adopted regarding his powers. Apart from that, even if we had not accepted those Amendments, as we have, I would point out to your Lordships that a matter of this kind would certainly never be settled without a public inquiry which is amply provided for in Clause 65 of the Bill. Apart from this, if the principle be accepted that the rivers of this country should be looked after by a catchment board provision must obviously be made for a board to be set up, and we cannot leave it purely to the chance request of one county council who is probably only one of the authorities affected. There must be this over-riding general power of the Minister, governed, as it is, by the qualification that your Lordships have already asked shall be inserted. I would ask your Lordships, therefore, not to pass this Amendment as it would very seriously affect the working of the Bill.

LORD BAYFORD

May I ask the noble Earl one question? As the clause stands would every county and every county borough have to make this application before the Minister could set up a catchment area? That is how the clause seems to me to read. Would it have to come from all those concerned? If so, a single recalcitrant area could block the whole scheme.

EARL DE LA WARR

I must confess that I am not quite clear on that matter of drafting and I will look into it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not understand the explanation or rather the objections of the noble Earl. He read something out of the Report of the Royal Commission. I notice that when he thinks that the Royal Commission's Report is favourable to his Bill he quotes it, but when a portion of that Report is against his Bill he will have nothing whatever to do with it and wants to wait until some other body has reported. The noble Earl says that the Royal Commission stated that catchment areas should be set up. My Amendment does not prevent that. If the noble Ear] will look at Clause 2, subsection (1), he will read:— The areas specified in Part I of the First Schedule of this Act shall be catchment areas for the purposes of this Part of this Act. Then all those areas are specified in the Schedule. Therefore, as far as I understand it and unless I am mistaken, the catchment areas are already set up.

The catchment areas having already been set up by Act of Parliament because they are in this Bill—if it becomes an Act—subsection (2) gives power not to the local government bodies to point out that some alteration might be necessary, but to the Minister. The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, without any application from a local authority, by order under this Part of this Act direct that any areas which are not for the time being included in the First Schedule shall be added to the said Schedule or that any area for the time being included in the said Schedule shall be removed therefrom … Therefore, if you look at this clause superficially Parliament is setting up certain catchment areas which are defined in the Bill, and, that having been done, we pass a further subsection which says that notwithstanding Parliament having passed these areas and included them in the Bill, and notwithstanding that any local body does not want any change, the Minister may come and alter all these things. What does the Minister know about it, to begin with? What does he know about the feeling in the locality and about whether these areas are required or not? He may be actuated by the motive which my noble friend Lord Bayford has just mentioned—that he is desirous of doing something to alleviate the enormous increase in unemployment which has taken place under this Government. I cannot see that the noble Earl has shown in any way that my Amendment will prevent areas being set up. That being the case I shall certainly go to a Division if I can get any support.

LORD DARLING

As the noble Earl opposite has no lawyer on the Bench to give him any assistance I think that one who has the misfortune in your Lordships' House to be called a lawyer is really bound to answer the question which my noble friend Lord Bayford asked. I should, therefore, like to say—it is only my own opinion of course—that on the words of subsection (2), of Clause 2 [that 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 such application, by order under this Part of this Act direct any areas to be included] it does look to me, reading the Bill as it is written, that it would be necessary for all the councils or county boroughs concerned to make the application, or else there would be no application whatever before the Minister. I have come to the conclusion that this view of it rather helps the Minister and is a reason why your Lordships should not accept my noble friend's Amendment. If the Minister had to wait until they all made this application any one within the area might obstruct him and prevent his exercising a function for which he exists. Therefore, I think that either the first lines should be altered so that if any one authority within the area made the application then the thing could be included in the area, or if it stands as it is I think we should reject Lord Banbury's Amendment and leave the Minister the power as it is given him by this clause.

EARL PEEL

One point has occurred to me and I do not know whether it would be of any value to my noble friend behind me because I see a certain difficulty about giving the Minister in no case the opportunity of intervening under certain considerations which one might easily have in mind. A little later in the subsection, after "if he thinks fit without any such application," you might insert the words "but after consultation with the councils concerned." My noble friend Lord Banbury, as I understand, is naturally very anxious that everything should be done, if not on the initiation anyhow with the full assent of these councils. I dare say in any case the Minister might, and probably would, consult them. I do not know whether it would meet my noble friend if it was definitely put into the Bill at this stage in order to make sure that the county councils or county boroughs concerned were actually consulted before any decision was taken?

VISCOUNT SUMNER

I think the Committee is hardly being well treated by the Government on this occasion. The interesting point that has turned upon this subsection appears to be this. If the alteration in the statutory Schedule can, so far as county councils are concerned, only be made on the application of all the county councils concerned it will never be made, because you will never get them all to agree. That seems to be one hypothesis. If, on the other hand, it means the county councils concerned, or some or one of them, it may quite probably be agreed and you will not want a Minister at all. In the first event there is no doubt a case for saying that as the first limb will never work you must have a second limb and keep it busy. On the other hand, if the words mean that any county council concerned can set it in motion, what do you want with the virtuous activity of an over-laden Minister who had much better be left to his Ministerial functions? That is the dilemma.

My noble and learned friend Lord Darling has expressed one view; I think my noble friend Lord Banbury expressed the contrary view; and, I must add that, with the most becoming modesty, the Minister in charge of the Bill said he really was not quite sure which it was. Yet those Benches opposite were adorned until a few minutes ago by three legal luminaries, any one of whom could have resolved these doubts in the absence of the other two. Although there might have been two opinions, I could hardly have supposed there would be three. No doubt great constitutional necessities have called them elsewhere, but just at this point neither the Lord Chancellor, nor the Lord President, nor, until a moment ago, the Under-Secretary for India, has been here to give your Lordships what we really require—some legal guidance. Would it not be possible for the Minister in charge of the Bill to withdraw this clause without prejudice, and take the best advice from the Attorney-General upwards, or downwards, so that at the next stage we might have some definite Ministerial view and not be left to wander in the darkness as we are?

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Might I suggest that the difficulty which Lord Darling anticipates, and I gather Lord Bayford also, might be met if my Amendment were accepted, and if the word "councils" were put in in the singular and also the word "borough"? The clause would read: "The Minister may at any time, either on the application of a council of the county and county borough concerned." That would alter what I understand from Lord Darling might take place, requiring every county council and every borough to appear and ask the Minister to make an alteration. If it were put in the scheme that any county council concerned, or any county borough concerned, could appear, then I think that would avoid the difficulty which Lord Darling has mentioned. It would also meet, I think, the point of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sumner, because it would enable the Minister to attend to his own business in his own office instead of running about into the various counties of England and Wales to find out what the local feeling was.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sorry if the noble and learned Viscount thinks that I was treating the House unfairly in not answering straightway a legal point. I have now obtained the information, and I find that the view of His Majesty's legal advisers agrees with the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Darling. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, made a suggestion that we should insert words to the effect that the Minister should consult with county councils.

EARL PEEL

These were not quite my words.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we probably could make some such alteration" after consultation with the councils concerned."

EARL PEEL

I made that suggestion with a view to helping my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam).

EARL DE LA WARR

There is no objection to that suggestion, and we will accept it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

In those circumstances, as I think it is the feeling of the House that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Peel should be accepted, I will withdraw my Amendment, and move it later on in the form which Lord Peel suggests. I do not think it is quite as satisfactory as I should like. I should like to eliminate the Minister altogether. We get too much Minister.

EARL DE LA WARR

If the noble Lord likes we will make the alteration on Report. We will accept the words and put them in on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Schemes for reorganisation of internal drainage authorities in catchment areas.

4.—(1) Every catchment board—

1. (a) shall as soon as may be after it has been constituted prepare and not later than such date as may be appointed by the Minister for the purposes of this provision, either generally or in relation to a particular catchment board, submit to him for confirmation a scheme making provision—
1. (i) for the transfer to the catchment board of all such rights, powers, duties and liabilities over or in connection with the main river as were immediately before the commencement of this Act vested in or to be discharged by any drainage authority, and of any property held by the authority for the purpose of, or in connection with any functions so transferred; and
2. (ii) for any matters supplemental to or consequential on the transfer aforesaid; and
2. (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 second scheme making provision for the following matters:—
1. (i) the alteration of the boundaries of any internal drainage district:
2. (ii) the amalgamation of the whole or any part of any internal drainage district with any other such district:
3. (iii) the abolition as from such date as may be specified in the scheme of all Commissioners of Sewers exercising jurisdiction within the catchment area:
4. (iv) the constitution of new internal drainage districts within the catchment area:
5. (v) the constitution of drainage boards for all or any of the separate drainage districts constituted by the scheme:
6. (vi) where it appears desirable so to provide in the case of any existing drainage board, the amendment of 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 of this Act:
772
7. (vii) any matters supplemental to or consequential on the matters aforesaid for which it appears necessary or desirable to make provision, including the transfer to new drainage boards of any property, rights, powers, duties and liabilities vested in or to be discharged by the catchment hoard or internal drainage boards affected by the scheme.

(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.

(3) Any scheme under this section may from time to time he amended by a subsequent scheme submitted by the catchment board and confirmed in the manner aforesaid.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved; in subsection (1) (a) (i), after "duties," to insert "obligations." The noble Viscount said: I myself make no distinction between the word "duties" and "obligations" but—

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept this.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, after ("duties") insert ("obligations").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), after "date," to insert "not being less than two years after the commencement of this Act." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to give a rather longer time than appears likely in the Bill, so that there should be a full and ample opportunity of delimiting the various catchment areas. There are several other Amendments coming on later to postpone the time at which the Bill should begin to operate, but the Amendment that I move is a modest one, that there should be a period of not less than two years after the commencement of the Act. It is a very important matter to the Thames and other catchment areas that a definite time should be allowed for making the numerous inquiries which are necessary before these various areas are delimited. It makes a very great difference as to the amount which the various areas will have to pay. I think two years after the Bill will not be at all too long a time. As regards the Thames very important considerations arise. The Thames has to supply water to London. Another important matter is the question as to how much water is likely to come down the Thames, and perhaps increase the danger from flooding. I know my noble friends of the Port of London Authority and the London County Council have Amendments later on to postpone the time still further than I suggest. I think that there should be two years to give ample consideration for the drawing up of the various areas before the Bill comes into operation.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 29, after ("date") insert ("not being less than two years after the commencement of this Act").—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The reason the Government would prefer not to accept this Amendment is that the matters which have to be dealt with under this Part of the Bill are very various. In some cases we feel that two years might be too long, while in other cases two years might not be long enough, and it might be necessary for the Minister to apply some special procedure of extension which would make it regrettable that this limitation was ever inserted.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I say, "not less than two years." I do not say it might not be more.

EARL DE LA WARR

That is quite true, but I think that the noble Lord will concede me this, that when one inserts a specific time it does tend to become a minimum, and there are certainly quite a number of tasks which these boards could accomplish probably in a few months, and it would be a great pity if, by inserting in the Bill a minimum of two years, we gave these authorities the feeling that there was no hurry, and that they could keep on waiting for two years. I quite realise that the noble Lord wants to see the whole Bill postponed, but I would suggest to him that if he wants to press that point it. would be very much better to discuss the question on subsequent Amendments. This, after all, is merely a small question of procedure and of discovering the most efficient and convenient machinery. I would suggest to him, therefore, that he should leave the question over and allow the words to remain as they are in the Bill.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, in this matter. I have Amendments later on the Paper intended to exclude the whole Thames drainage system from this Bill. That proposal is made at the instance of the London County Council, who are very much concerned with flooding and who feel that not enough consideration has been given to this problem. As your Lordships are aware, some years ago we had a very disastrous flood in London and the London County Council are exceedingly anxious that the cause of this flood should be very fully investigated before any legislation is put into force with regard to the drainage system of the Thames. I understand that discussions are proceeding with the Ministry, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give an assurance that the position of the London County Council will be met and that there will be some postponement before the Bill becomes law.

EARL DE LA WARR

I would suggest to the noble Earl that we should allow this question to remain over until the Report stage. He is quite right in saying that there are discussions in progress at the moment as to whether or not the London County Council could be given some locus standi in the event of floods being caused in London by operations higher up the Thames. If therefore he would withdraw his opposition and leave the matter over, I think I might be able to give him more information on the Report stage.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not know whether I am right in understanding from my noble friend that this matter will come up later, with regard to these works?

EARL DE LA WARR

No, I was really asking that this Amendment should not be pressed and saying, with regard to the point raised on behalf of the London County Council, that I would be obliged if that could be left over until Report, when certain discussions that are now in progress would be completed. Meanwhile, I would ask the noble Lord not to ask us to insert this Amendment in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I only rise to say that of course the noble Earl is quite right in promising my noble friend the Earl of. Cranbrook that the special case of London shall be postponed, but I think many of us hoped that he would go a little further in reference to my noble friend's Amendment. In his speech he said there might be many subsections of the Bill in respect to which a considerable time would be required before arrangements could be made. He said other matters might be dealt with more rapidly. I yield to him, of course, in knowledge of the intricacies of the Bill, but I think, if I may say so very respectfully, that one would expect a Minister in those circumstances to promise at once that in respect of matters which on his own admission require longer consideration, he would see what could be done to provide for that in the Bill. To say that certain matters are so intricate as to require long consideration and to make no suggestion as to how That is to be provided for is, I think, to leave your Lordships a little dissatisfied.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid I am rather to blame.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

No, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. It is not that.

EARL DE LA WARR

At the present moment there is no time limit in the Bill at all. Therefore it would be quite possible for any authority which considered that it needed four or five years to complete certain schemes to adopt that course. There is nothing in the Bill, except Clause 12, which is a general qualifying clause, to say that a scheme should not take four or five years to complete. All I am anxious is that those authorities which have tasks before them which could be done in three or four months should not be given the impression that they need not be done for two or three years.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not know whether my noble friend would be willing to let this be confined to the Thames. I should be quite willing to do that for the moment, and to say that as regards the Thames this Bill should not come into operation for two years. You must consider what weighty matters have to be considered in regard to the Thames. There is the water supply of London to be considered and haw far these drainage works may drain off the water in winter so that there will be comparatively little in the summer. This year, of course, that question would not arise because the springs are full. Both the Port of London Authority and the London County Council want a careful survey made of the whole of the Thames Valley before any scheme of drainage is begun. There are very many questions which have to be considered in connection with other districts as regards the Thames and two years is a very short time in which to accomplish all that must be done. The Thames is a long river, and we shall have to settle with the drainage boards of this great area. I have a map which shows in yellow where the drainage rate will be paid and in green where people will come under the universal county rate. I understand the catchment board will have to delimit all these areas, and if you suppose we can make a map covering 3.812 square miles and delimit all these areas in this time I think you are miscalculating.

EARL DE LA WARR

With all respect, I would suggest to the noble Lord that his argument is a powerful argument for saying that certain major works cannot be carried out before two years have elapsed, but really the point is that this Amendment is not necessary because obviously if that is the position no one is going to insist that the work should be done immediately. I would remind the noble Lord that it is his own authority, the Thames Conservancy, that is responsible for deciding what work requires to be done and whether that work shall be done.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl would be good enough to say that he recognised that there are many cases for which some provision ought to be made and that he will look into the position carefully between now and the next stage, I think my noble friend ought to be satisfied, but if he will not e us any hope that these difficult matters will be looked into, I do not see how we can avoid a Division.

EARL DE LA WARR

We recognise perfectly well that there are a great number of pieces of work that cannot be undertaken in less than two years. We will discuss whether it is necessary to make provision for that in the Bill. My own opinion is that it will not be found necessary, but we will consider it.

LORD DESBOROUGH

In that case I do not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DESBOROUGH had given Notice to move, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "second scheme" and insert "scheme or schemes." The noble Lord said: My noble friend has met my point by the next Amendment on the Paper. I do not think his Amendment is quite as good as mine, but I will not move.

EARL DE LA WARR

Then I will move the Amendment standing in my name

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 33, leave out ("second scheme") and insert ("further scheme or further schemes").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (b) (iii) of subsection (1), after "Sewers," to insert "and all or any existing drainage boards." The noble Lord said: I am not quite certain of the meaning of the Bill in this respect. In the Thames area we have not many drainage boards, but there is one above Clifton Hampden. I understand these boards which will be more or less obsolete are to be swept away by the Bill. Therefore I suggest that, after the word "sewers," we should insert "and all or any existing drainage boards." I think that is really the meaning of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 42, after ("Sewers") insert ("and all or any existing drainage boards").—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think what was felt by those who drafted the Bill was that the commissioners of sewers were on the whole so archaic in their constitution that it would be very much better simply to abolish them altogether and to set up proper elective bodies in their place. On the other hand, it was felt that the majority of drainage authorities were sufficiently near to what we desired to be capable of having their constitution amended in accordance with this Bill. That is the reason why this difference has been made, and I think that in actual practice it will be found to be the best way of dealing with the matter, if the noble Lord will accept it.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I quite accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 21, after ("duties") insert ("obligations").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:— (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.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment that stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Bayford and myself. I would point out to your Lordships that, as the Bill stands, a catchment board does not have to give notice of a scheme to the public. The scheme has to be submitted to the Minister. This Amendment compels the catchment board to send copies of their scheme to every county and county borough council and every drainage board affected thereby, and to publish a notice in one or more newspapers—

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not know if I could save your Lordships trouble by saying that my reply to this is simply that it is in the Bill. We accept all the noble Lord says—

LORD DYNEVOR

May I ask the noble Earl where it is in the Bill?

EARL DE LA WARR

In Clause 13, under the procedure that is prescribed in the Second Schedule. The noble Lord is really reading out the same procedure as is in the Second Schedule, which applies to the making of Orders and schemes under Clause 4 to which the noble Lord is referring.

LORD DYNEVOR

Surely what is alluded to in the Second Schedule is what the Minister does. Mine is the quite different point of what the drainage board does. I am sure I am right.

LORD BAYFORD

May I point out to the noble Earl that he has an Amendment to leave out the Second Schedule and insert something different? Which is it that he is referring to?

EARL DE LA WARR

We put in a new one which, I think, would suit your Lordships even better.

LORD BAYFORD

Is the noble Earl referring to the new Schedule or to the present one?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am referring to the intentions of the Government, as expressed on the Amendment Paper.

LORD DYNEVOR

I have still grave doubts whether the noble Earl is right. The Second Schedule refers to what the Minister does. I am not discussing what the Minister does but what the catchment board is to do when it has framed a scheme. I do not think that this is provided for in the Bill, so perhaps I may be allowed to proceed.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord, but I think that he will find that this point is covered, if he turns to Clause 13. Would the noble Lord be satisfied if I said that it apparently does apply under the existing Second Schedule? The amended Second Schedule—I was wrong on this point—ws.s prepared on the assumption that the clause regarding the appeal was not going to be altered. If the noble Lord will accept my assurance that it does apply, and will bring the point up again on Report, I think he will find that I am right.

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask the noble Earl where we shall find the provision that it is now proposed to insert in the Bill, either in the Second Schedule as originally put forward or in the proposed new Schedule? This Amendment deals with the catchment board, not with the Minister. It is the catchment board which has to send copies of the scheme to the councils. Is there any provision of that sort in either the original or the amended Schedule? I cannot find it.

EARL BEAUCFIAMP

Perhaps it would be equally convenient if the discussion were taken on the Second Schedule. I think that would probably satisfy the noble Lord. He is always open to move to amend the Second Schedule. I quite agree with him. He is right when he says that there is a difference between the two things. The Second Schedule deals with what the Minister is to do, and the Amendment of the noble Lord quite clearly with what the catchment board is to do. There is no doubt about that, but it is quite possible that His Majesty's Government would be willing to make the necessary alteration when we come to the Second Schedule.

LORD PARMOOR

We shall certainly, do that. I understand that it is the undertaking. I do not know that it is necessary to discuss that point now. We have given that undertaking, which will certainly be carried out.

LORD DYNEVOR

I am afraid I cannot accept this suggestion. The Second Schedule, as it is proposed to amend it, concerns what the Minister can do before making an Order. I want the catchment board to act long before we get to that stage. Directly they make a scheme I want them to tell the public and the county councils that they are putting forward a scheme to the Minister.

LORD PARMOOR

May I say that, whatever the exact position may be, when we have undertaken to put in an Amendment such as the noble Lord is now moving I should have thought that was sufficient?

LORD DYNEVOR

Why not accept the Amendment right away?

LORD PARMOOR

Very well. I do not think it matters which way we do it.

LORD DYNEVOR

Will you accept my Amendment now?

EARL DE LA WARR

If you will allow me to leave it subject to reconsideration. We do not seem to be quite clear on this point.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Dynevor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

The Amendment which follows is consequential upon that which has just been accepted. Without it, the Minister would not be allowed to consider any representations made to him.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 25, leave out ("forthwith") and insert ("after considering any representations made to him and making such inquiries as he considers necessary").—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I have the same note on this Amendment as on the last, but I think we can do the same thing, and accept it subject to reconsideration.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

I have now to move a drafting Amendment to make it quite clear that a scheme confirmed by the Minister under this clause shall be made in conformity with the Second Schedule.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, leave out from ("by") to ("this") in line 29 and insert ("an order of the Minister under").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT The next two Amendments that stand in my name are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line30, at end insert ("subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act") Page 5, line34, at end insert ("subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act").—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:— () 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. The noble Lord said: I am not quite sure exactly what your Lordships would like me to do with this Amendment. We have already largely discussed the question of an appeal tribunal, which I understand the Government have accepted. The Amendment really is in reference to the setting up of an appeal tribunal, the details of which we must deal with in a later Amendment. As your Lordships know, under the Bill the fiat of the Minister is final, and the Government, having ignored the recommendations of the Royal Commission on land drainage, that there should be an appeal tribunal, I have put down two new subsections, and this Amendment really raises whole question.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, at end, insert the new subsection.—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept Amendment as consequential.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I will put the first of the new subsections first.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DYNEVOR

I beg to move the second new subsection, which is as follows:— () If the catchment board or any drainage board or any other persons 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 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. The two Amendments, I think, should be read together, so that if the Minister refuses to approve a scheme, or makes an Order approving a scheme, he should give public notice and then the catchment boards and drainage boards, and other aggrieved persons, can appeal within three months against the Minister's decision to the appeal tribunal hereafter by this Act established.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 34, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Dynevor.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept that as consequential, subject, of course, to drafting considerations.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Maps of catchment areas.

(3) The map of any catchment area prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be conclusive evidence for all purposes as to the extent of the catchment area and as to what is the main river.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, at the end of the clause, to insert "and the provisions of Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1831, shall apply to every such map." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which may not seem to be very important, but it is of some substance with regard to the Thames Conservancy. Under the Act of 1924 a map was approved on that occasion, but in all cases where we have to take anything into Court we have to take the original map, and also the clerk who saw it signed. That happened a few days ago, when we were prosecuting a sugar beet factory, which was fined for polluting the river. I understand that the noble Earl, on behalf of the Government, is willing to propose an alternative Amendment, which I am sure will meet the case.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes. I have given the noble Lord a draft of the proposed Amendment, and perhaps he will move it in that form.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Very well, I will move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 7, at end insert ("(4) A map prepared under this section shall for the purposes of the Documentary Evidence Acts, 1868 to 1895, be deemed to be a document issued by the Minister.")—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Powers in relation to main rivers.

6.—(1) A catchment board shall, for the purposes of this Act, have exclusive powers and jurisdiction with respect to the main river, including the banks and bed thereof, and shall have power to construct new works of arterial drainage within the catchment area in connection with the said main river.

(2) A catchment board shall have power to execute all such works and do all such things as are necessary for maintaining in repair the banks and bed of the main river.

(4) If any question arises under this section whether any proposed work will, if constructed, be a work of arterial drainage, the question shall be referred to the Minister and his decision shall he final.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (1), after "have" ["have exclusive powers"), to insert, "except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act." The noble Lord said: This is really more or less a drafting Amendment, and is intended to preserve the rights which are given to certain navigation and other authorities in a later part of the Bill. I think it right, as a matter of drafting, to put in this safeguard here. It cannot do any harm and may prevent possible discussion or litigation later on.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 9, after ("have") insert ("except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not know whether it is really important, but I am given to understand that the words in the Bill now fully cover the noble Lord's point. If he looks at lines 8 and 9 he will see the words "for the purposes of this Act," and they are just as much a limitation as the words which he now proposes. There is an Amendment with regard to protection for these various water works and harbour undertakings, but the place where the Amendment should be inserted is at Clause 56, and I hope to show that very little alteration is there required.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK had given Notice of an Amendment at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "but nothing in this Act shall confer on any catchment board any powers or jurisdiction with respect to any dam, weir, intake, conduit or other work vested in or controlled by the owners of any water undertaking under or in pursuance of any Act of Parliament or Order having the force of an Act." The noble Earl said: As I understand the noble Earl has come to an agreement to insert an Amendment in Clause 56, I shall not move my Amendment to this clause, at page 6, line 13.

LORD DANESFORT

I do not agree that the words "for the purposes of this Act" cover the point. Possibly they do, but I want to make it clear without the possibility of future discussion. The special provision which I want to call attention to is a provision which is going to be proposed at page 30 of the printed Amendments, and standing in the name of Lord Ritchie, Lord Bayford and myself:— Page 48, line 6, at end insert the following new subsection: () Nothing in this Act or any Order made thereunder shall affect any statutory power, authority or jurisdiction from time to time vested in or exercisable by any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority. Unless the words which I suggest are now put in I think it is doubtful whether that clause or those exemption rights would be safeguarded. Therefore, I suggest that the noble Earl should accept my present Amendment, and, if necessary, it. can be deleted at a later stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps the noble Lord will accept my assurance on behalf of the Government that we do think the Amendment is unnecessary. If at a later stage we are found to be wrong, an Amendment can then be inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "including the erection of defences against water." The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment to ensure that catchment boards can safeguard themselves with regard to sea walls and defences, and so On. If sea defences were to break down thousands of pounds worth of damage might be done to drainage works.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 17, at end, insert ("including the erection of defences against water").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think the next Amendment is in the name of Lord Banbury of Southam.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (4), to leave out "Minister and, his decision shall be final" and insert "High Court." The noble Lord said: I do not propose to move this Amendment now because the Government have accepted the right of appeal, and the machinery can be dealt with later.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (4), after "Minister," to insert "who may after holding a local public inquiry make such an Order in the matter as he thinks fit." The noble Lord said: The words are proposed in order to give to people some right of being heard, and it is apparently recognised in other parts of the Bill—Clause 20, subsection (3) for example. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, after ("Minister") insert the said words.—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think the parallel of the noble Lord is quite accurate really, because Clause 20 is a matter of contributions to be assessed by one body to another, whereas this clause really is to determine a purely technical point as to whether a certain work is a work or not of arterial drainage. It is really an engineering matter, to be settled by an expert—a matter of fact. The Bill, therefore, provides that it should be referred to the Minister in case of dispute, and he will honestly discuss the matter, take the advice of his engineering experts, and then give his decision. I cannot help feeling that the wording in the Bill is the most appropriate on this point. As things are, if the Minister felt that there was something more than an engineering technicality in the question he could, under Clause 65, have a public inquiry. But a public inquiry is a big business, and obviously you do not want to have one unless it is on some really vital difference of interest, which requires some impartial body to assess it. I suggest that the noble Lord leaves the matter as it is for the Minister to settle, either in consultation with engineering experts or, if he thinks fit—as he can under Clause 65—by a public inquiry and leave it to his judgment whether such an inquiry really is necessary.

LORD DYNEVOR

Has Lord Desborough considered whether his Amendment is really necessary now, because we have been assured that we are going to have an appeal tribunal. When this Amendment was put down there was no certainty that there would be an appeal tribunal, and it is more than possible that there will be on the appeal tribunal a surveyor or engineer, who can make any inquiries he likes.

LORD DESBOROUGH

The noble Earl treats this rather lightly, but I think if he had had a little more experience he would find that it was a question of great importance. The river Thames is an arterial drain, and it is necessary when you straighten that drain or do anything to it very often to cut through people's property. They are engaged in doing that at the present time, and these people feel that they have a right to be heard if you go through their property.

EARL DE LA WARR

This is limited to subsection (4), where it is purely a question of fact, not a question of cutting through anybody's land.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Very important fact. But I will not press it, as I understand the matter will be dealt with later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "and his decision shall be final" and insert "for decision." The noble Lord said: I take it this is a matter of drafting. If there is to be an appeal tribunal this decision cannot be final.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, leave out ("his decision shall be final") and insert ("for decision").—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We will accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved to add to subsection (4), "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." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Supervision of internal drainage boards and districts.

(2) If and so long as no provision is made for constituting a drainage board for any new drainage district constituted under this Part of this Act, the catchment board shall in relation to that district exercise all such powers and perform all such duties as may be exercised or are to be performed by a drainage board, including the power of making and levying drainage rates under this Act.

(5) 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
3. (c) whether any work was begun before the commencement of this Act;

that question shall be referred to the Minister, whose decision shall be final.

EARL DE LA WARR

There is an Amendment here which is really drafting. It is found that this subsection is unnecessary.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 36, leave out subsection (2). —(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

There is a printer's error in subsection (3) (b). Instead of "otherwise then" it should be "than".

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think your Lordships always give authority to the printer to put the thing into English. I am assured that that will be corrected in the next copy of the Bill.

LORD DESBOROUGH had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (2), to substitute "may" for "shall". The noble Lord said

The whole matter is going to be carefully considered, and I do not press it.

EARL DE LA WARR

As a matter of fact the individual does not come in here. I t is just between the catchment board and the drainage board.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (3) at the end of paragraph (b), to leave out "Minister" and insert "High Court". The noble Lord said I am not sure that I ought to put in my Amendment here. I understand from my noble friend that there is an Amendment down later on in the name of Lord Bayford, which has the same effect. If that is so, I can leave it to him.

LORD DERAMORE moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) A catchment board may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough, the whole or any part of the area of which is within the catchment area, direct that all or any of the powers and duties conferred upon the board by this section shall, as respects land in the area or that part of the area of the county or county borough, be exerciseable by the council of the county or county borough instead of by the board. If a catchment board refuses to comply with any such application the council by which the application was made may appeal against the refusal to the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, require the board to comply with the application. A catchment board may, subject to the consent of the Minister, and on giving the council concerned not less than six months' notice of their intention so to do, revoke any direction given under this subsection, without prejudice to the power of the board to give a new direction.

The noble Lord said: I move this on behalf of the County Councils Association. It is for the purpose of allowing the catchment board to delegate some of its powers in regard to internal drainage to the county council, if it thinks fit, because it is thought that a county council with a large catchment area would know more about the internal drainage than the catchment board could. If the county council does not do its duty the catchment board can apply to the Minister to have its powers revoked. It is merely a permissive Amendment, to delegate certain powers to the county councils.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 32, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Derantore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The object of this Amendment is to enable a catchment board to delegate to a county council within its area the duty conferred upon the catchment board under this clause of supervising the area within its district, involving giving directions for the guidance of the internal drainage board. This Amendment would be quite unnecessary in cases where a catchment area is wholly within the area of the county council, because the catchment board in that case would be, in effect, the county council itself; and if the principle of the Amendment is applied to a catchment area where portions of several county councils are included it would be quite impracticable to delegate to any individual county council the powers of supervising the internal board of this area, for the simple reason that the catchment board as a whole is charged with the control and maintenance of the main river. The volume of water passing into the main river from the internal drainage district is a matter of very great moment to the catchment board, and I think it is obvious that the catchment board must be in a position to supervise the whole of its district having regard to its responsibilities over the main river. It would be impossible, therefore, for it to delegate its powers to a county council in whose area there was only a portion of the main river.

I am sure that the noble Lord will seer therefore, that it would be impossible to accept this Amendment especially in its application to the larger catchment areas comprising several counties. At the same time, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the power contained in paragraph 8 (c) of Part II of the First Schedule on page 60 of the Bill, in which provision is made enabling a catchment board to constitute committees. As a matter of fact, that really carries us a very long way, I think, in the direction in which the noble Lord wants to go, because if it was appropriate in the particular situation there is no reason why the catchment board should not constitute the committee of a certain county council. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, but, will be satisfied with what is already in the Bill which goes a long way, I think, to meet his point.

LORD DERAMORE

I am obliged the noble Earl. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BAYFORD moved to add to subsection (5): "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." The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon what has already been done. I therefore beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 42, at end insert the said, proviso.—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to move, in subsection (5), to leave out "Minister, whose decision shall be final" and to insert "High Court."

EARL DE LA WARR

If the noble Lord likes to move the insertion of "appeal tribunal" I will accept that pending consideration for the Report stage. It will put the Bill more into order.

LORD BANBURY OF S0UTHAM

Then I will move it in that form.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 41, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 42, and insert ("appear tribunal").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think the second Amendment in the names of Lord Bayford and Lord Dynevor is consequential on what was done just now.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, that is all right.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "whose decision shall be final" and to insert "for decision." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 41, leave out from ("Minister to the end of the subsection and insert ("for decision").—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Power to vary awards.

8.—(1) Where any award made under any public or local Act contains any provision which in any manner affects or relates to land drainage in a catchment area (including any provision affecting the powers or duties of any drainage authority or other person with respect to land drainage in the catchment area) the catchment board may submit to the Minister for confirmation a scheme for revoking, varying or amending that provision.

(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.

(3) A scheme under this section with respect to any award may—

1. (a) provide for commuting on the basis on which the obligations to Which the next following section of this Act relates are to be commuted, the obligation of any person under the award to repair or maintain any drainage works;
2. (b) contain such incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary or proper for the purpose of the scheme;
3. (c) be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme submitted by the catchment board and confirmed in manner aforesaid.

LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to add to subsection (2) "subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act." The noble Lord said: Instead of moving this Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Paper may I, with the permission of your Lordships, move it in the form of the last Amend- ment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford? It is only a matter of drafting, and it would read: "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." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, at end 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.")—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to add to subsection (3) "subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the same form as that to which the Committee has just agreed.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 29, at end 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.")—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD

I think the next Amendment is covered by the appeal just given, is it not? If I get that assurance I will not move it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I have something to say on this Amendment if the noble Lord would move it.

LORD BAYFORD moved to insert as a new subsection:— () Where a scheme under this section provides for the commutation of obligations, any person who is aggrieved by any determination under the scheme with respect to the sum for which any obligation is to be commuted may, at any time within three months after the date on which the determination of the catchment board with respect to that sum is notified to him by the board, appeal to the appeal tribunal. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Your Lordships may remember that on the general debate I said there were some portions of this Bill where I did not think the appeal would be the most appropriate method of proceeding.

LORD BAYFORD

Yes.

EARL DE LA WARR

This is one of them. We have to remember that the tribunal is to (be composed of a number of important and hard-worked men and we want to be sure that it is really worth while to call them together before we say that certain matters shall be referred to them. I suggest to the noble Lord that there will be very few cases of this kind under the clause.

The question will only arise very infrequently, and it would be better to leave the matter as it is, subject to confirmation by Parliament. If the noble Lord would allow this to remain as it is—I am not trying at all to get round the general decision—I think it would be more appropriate.

LORD BAYFORD

Might I leave it over to Report? I withdraw it now on the understanding that if, after consideration between this and the Report stage, I think it ought to come in, I shall be quite entitled to move it.

EARL DE LA WARR

Quite.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DERAMORE moved to insert:— (4) A catchment board may, on the application of the council of any county or county borough, the whole or any part of the area of which is within the catchment area, direct that the powers conferred upon the board by this section shall, as respects land in the area or that part of the area of the county or county borough, be exercise-able by the council of the county or county borough instead of by the board. If a catchment board refuses to comply with any such application the council by which the application was made may appeal against the refusal to the Minister and the Minister may, if he thinks fit, require the board to comply with the application. A catchment board may, subject to the consent of the Minister, and on giving the council concerned not less than six months' notice of their intention so to do, revoke any direction given under this subsection, without prejudice to the power of the board to give a new direction. The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the same point as the last Amendment I moved about application through county councils, but in this ease I think it is rather different. There are a lot of old awards which probably do want altering, and I think county councils would be a more suitable body to find out what these awards are and to suggest variations to them than a catchment board would be. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 29, at end insert the said subsection (4).—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We prefer to leave the Bill as it is on this point. The noble Lord is quite right in saying this is not quite the same as the last Amendment he moved, but I think the altered circumstances rather strengthen our case against it. I think if the noble Lord refers to the Report of the Royal Commission he will see that we are amply justified in our attitude by it. The Royal Commission do specifically state that this question of awards is a very difficult and complicated one, and should be dealt with therefore by the larger body—the catchment board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Lord said: I rise to move the deletion of this clause. I do not know whether my ideas are very old-fashioned. The clause is entitled "Power to vary awards," and it begins in this way: "Where any Award made under any public or local Act contains any provision" which people do not like, then the Minister may vary it. First of all that is retrospective legislation, which I was always brought up to consider to be absolutely wrong. There were other times when the noble and learned Lord who now leads the House held that view quite strongly. I can remember hearing him on former occasions making almost the same sort of speech as I am making now, only in a much more effective way. I do not know what has changed him. It was always the idea that no legislation should be retrospective. Not only is this legislation retrospective, but it alters awards made under a public or local Act. Again we are going by the ipse dixit of a Minister to alter an award made under an Act of Parliament. It may be the Minister is a very excellent man, but Ministers change, and it is not really the Minister who does all this; it is the officials in the Department. Why should we give the officials in a Department, who are already in receipt of a great deal too much power, the power to alter or vary Acts of Parliament? I hope I shall have the support of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in this.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD PARMOOR

I might say to the noble Lord—I will not argue with him—that this is not a case of retrospective legislation at all. You can, of course, alter rates by legislation, but I do not think it is necessary to argue this matter any further. The clause, I think, is generally accepted.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Parliament can do anything—I have never quarrelled with that. But the point is whether it is right for Parliament to do what it has never considered a proper course to pursue.

LORD BAYFORD

I am sorry to differ from my noble friend but I have been trying to find the part in the Report of the Royal Commission and I have not been able to find it until this moment.

EARL DE LA WARR

Page 33.

LORD BAYFORD

I think the purport of that Report is that there are a lot of antiquated customs, as one might call them, by which particular men have to repair a particular dyke. Very often the man who has to do it is a man of straw, and so the dyke does not get repaired. These awards were made sometimes a hundred years ago, and are quite out of date. The object of the clause of the Bill which follows out the recommendation of the Royal Commission is that these antiquated obligations should be swept away, and an ordinary money rate put in their place.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My own idea is that an award made a hundred years ago is certainly much more likely to be proper and very much more effective than an award made during the last year. I much prefer anything made a hundred years ago to anything done in the last eleven months. However, as I have not the support that I had hoped for, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

9.—(1) It shall be the duty of every catchment board to take steps for the commutation of all obligations imposed on persons by reason of tenure, custom, prescription or otherwise, to do any work (whether by way of repairing of walls, maintaining of water courses or otherwise) in connection with the main river.

(2) It shall be the duty of the catchment board to give in such manner as the Minister may direct, notice of any proposal to commute any obligation to which this section applies, the terms on which it is to be commuted and of the time within which objection to the proposal may be made, and if within one month after such notice as aforesaid has been given the person on whom the obligation is imposed gives notice to the board of his objection to the proposal the question whether the board shall proceed to commute the obligation shall he referred to the Minister, whose decision thereon shall be final.

(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, as the board think fit, and shall be charged on the land in respect of which the obligation existed and shall have priority over any other incumbrances on the land on which it is charged 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 due state of efficiency the works which are required to be executed and maintained by virtue of the obligation to be commuted and shall fix the capital sum or terminable annuity accordingly.

(5) If any person is aggrieved by any determination of the catchment board under this section as regards the sum to be paid in respect of the commutation of any obligation, he may, at any time within three months after the date on which the determination of the catchment board is notified to him by the board, require the matter to be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors Institution, and on any such reference the arbitrator may either confirm, vary or set aside the determination of the catchment hoard as he thinks proper.

(6) A record of any such charge as aforesaid shall be entered in a register to be kept for the purpose by the clerk of the catch- meat board, and a copy of any such record purporting to be certified by the said clerk as a true copy shall be receivable in evidence in all legal proceedings.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the duty of" and to insert "lawful for." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it permissive. I am told on advice that it is a very difficult matter to find out what all these obligations arc, and there will be very great expense when they are found out. It is stated in the White Paper that this clause substantially re-enacts the provisions of Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act of 1861, which was permissive.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 30, leave out ("the duty of") and insert ("lawful for").—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think what the noble Lord says about the difficulty of this commutation is one of the reasons why it is necessary to make it compulsory. After all, it has been permissive since 1861, and, quite definitely, the coin-mutations have not been carried out. To make it compulsory is not a very new principle. It was introduced in 1887 in a special Act for the drainage of Somersetshire—the Somersetshire Drainage Act, 1877. It was recognised even then that it was best to have the power made compulsory and it was made compulsory. It becomes even more necessary now. I think, when we are making a catchment board responsible for the main channel of a river, it is essential that they should be responsible for the whole of the channel, and not have a lot of these indefinite liabilities hanging about that nobody is really able to identify. I think I have already said that the Bill follows strictly the recommendation of the Royal Commission. They say that the voluntary system has broken down and that we must resort to compulsion.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My point was that in the White Paper which the noble Earl issued it is stated that it is specifically a re-enactment of the Land Drainage Act of 1861, and I would like to point out that it was only permissive and not obligatory in that Act.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps that is the reason they put in "substantially" and not "completely."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "thirty years" and to insert "at the option of the owner." The noble Viscount said: In the first place it seems to me that it is ultra-bureaucratic that the catchment board should have a right to settle in what manner they should have the commutation carried out. The second point is that it is objectionable that mortgagee securities should be interfered with. On those two grounds I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 11 to 17, leave out from ("years") in line 11 to end of line 17, and insert ("at the option of the owner").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope the noble Viscount will withdraw it. I think this is the only one of his Amendments we have not accepted so far. In the first place, the effect of this Amendment by leaving out lines 11 to 17 would be to place a terminable annuity charge on the land in an inferior position to other incumbrances created by the owner of the land. This would be contrary to the Land Drainage Act, 1861, upon which this clause is founded. In the second place, the question whether or not the amount should be paid as a capital sum or by a terminable annuity ought not really to be left to the option of the landowner, but ought to be determined by the catchment board responsible for all this after considering all the circumstances. Therefore I would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

The noble Earl has given no reason why the landowner should not have the option. It seems very hard that he should not have it. If I get any support, I shall certainly go to a Division on that point.

EARL DE LA WARR

It is a very important point of principle where the catchment board is to be made definitely responsible for the whole of the main channel and the banks of the main river. In all the circumstances I think it is absolutely essential—this is a very strong reason which I think ought to interest the noble Viscount—that the catchment board should have full responsibility put upon it to decide these complicated questions on which it is dependent for carry- ing out its work efficiently. I therefore hope the noble Viscount will not press the Amendment to a Division.

LORD DYNEVOR

May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether his next Amendment does not deal with this question? I understand the point raised now is whether, if a charge is to be a capital sum or a terminable annuity, the owner is to have no say in the matter. In the next Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, he proposes to add the words "whether before or after the passing of this Act." Therefore the proprietor may have a mortgage on the property and there may be a new charge put on the land which is to come in front of the mortgage. Yet when the question arises of that charge being paid as a capital sum or as a terminable annuity he is to have no say in the matter.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

This really is an important Amendment, because what it does it this. A landlord has already borrowed a certain sum of money upon a first charge upon his property. Now comes this clause which says that a catchment authority may call upon the landlord to pay them a certain sum, and if he does not pay then the board shall have a mortgage on the land which is to rank in front of the mortgage already existing. This really is a horrible precedent. I really hope my noble friend Lord Bayford will support me here because this is an old precedent no doubt, existing 100 years ago. It always has been an understanding up to now that where a man advances money on security the owner of that security cannot borrow fresh money on that security in front of the other loan. That is what this is going to do. It really is a most iniquitous proposal, and if the noble Viscount divides I shall "tell" with him even if we only get my noble and learned friend Lord Darling in the Lobby.

LORD DANESFORT

There are really two questions involved here. One is whether the owner shall have the option of saying whether he will pay a capital sum or a terminable annuity, and the other is the very important question raised by Lord Banbury as to priority of charges. May I suggest that it would be more convenient if, by leave of the Committee, the noble Viscount could divide his Amendment and take a Division on the first part—namely, to leave out "as the board think fit," and to insert "at the option of the owner." Then, when that is disposed of, we could go on to the matter of priority of charge. I think that would be convenient because some noble Lords might vote for one who would not vote for the other.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I think that would be a very good method and I should be pleased to move my Amendment in that form.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can only say that this clause is purely re-enactment of the Act of 1861. My Amendments are purely drafting, in order to put in exactly the same words as have been in existence since 1861. I believe the charge has always come before a mortgage. It is no new principle, and I hope your Lordships will not insist on this Amendment which really would introduce an entirely new principle into the law. I mention my own Amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, asked a question about it. That is the form in which the Government would like to see it and I assure your Lordships it is the same form, word for word, as has been in existence since 1861. I should have thought that 1861 was almost far enough back to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Banbury.

LORD DANESFORT

Will the noble Earl accept the Amendment to put in the words "at the option of the owner"? Then we could deal with the question of priority of charge afterwards.

LORD PARMOOR

I hope this Amendment will not be accepted. I do not want to go into the technical legal point now. That might be considered afterwards, particularly because of the suggestion to divide the Amendment into two parts, which makes it difficult to see at the moment exactly how it will work out. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed at this stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

With the leave of the House I shall simply move now to leave out the words "as the board thinks fit" and to insert "at the option of the owner." I shall withdraw the other part of the Amendment reserving to myself full liberty to bring it up again on the Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

We would accept that, without committing ourselves on the other point.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl will accept the insertion of the words "at the option of the owner"?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, without committing ourselves.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("as the board think fit") and insert ("at the option of the owner").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection 3, to leave out "on the land on which it is charged" and to insert "charged on that land by the owner thereof whether before or after the passing of this Act." The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment to reproduce exactly the Act of 1861.

Amendment moved— Page 9, lines 14 and 15, leave out ("on the land on which it is charged") and insert ("charged on that land by the owner thereof whether before or after the passing of this Act").—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DANESFORT

Why is the word "proprietor" used instead of owner, which is the more ordinary word?

EARL DE LA WARR

This is simply a case of inserting words as a pure reproduction of the old Act.

LORD DANESFORT

As you have accepted the word "owner" in the previous Amendment, surely you must take the same word now and not draw a distinction between owner and proprietor?

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

It is owner.

LORD DANESFORT

But it says in another Amendment, in line 15, insert "by the proprietor thereof."

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it is only a drafting point. We might consider it later and leave it for the moment.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I wish to make a formal protest because I may have to move to omit the words on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "and shall fix the capital sum or terminable annuity accordingly" and to insert:— 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.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

EARL DE LA WARR

We can accept this Amendment, subject to consideration on Report.

LORD DANESFORT

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I will not, trouble your Lordships further, if he will give me an assurance that he will consider it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept it, if we can have a discussion of the exact wording later.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 25, leave out from ("commuted") to the end of subsection (4), and insert the said new words.—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "require the matter to be referred to the arbitration of a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Surveyors Institution, and on any such reference the arbitrator" and to insert "appeal to the appeal tribunal and the tribunal." The noble Lord said: This really follows upon the decision already arrived at. I do not attach any very great importance to one form of Court of Appeal rather than another, but that point can be discussed later if the noble Earl will accept the Amendment now.

EARL DE LA WARR

I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied with my Amendment on this point which follows next upon the Paper. We feel that this is really an engineering and technical problem, and it is hardly worth while calling together a highly skilled appeal tribunal. If a further appeal is needed it would really be better to have a civil engineer, appointed by the Institution of Civil Engineers, rather than an appeal tribunal.

LORD BAYFORD

Then I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 35, leave out ("Surveyors Institution") and insert ("Institution of Civil Engineers").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 9. The noble Lord said: I wish to ask the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill for a little explanation of this clause. The clause begins by saying:— It shall be the duty of every catchment board to take steps for the commutation of all obligations.… And, having done that, and having determined upon the price, the owner of the land has to pay to the catchment board a certain sum. After doing so he is supposed to be relieved of his obligations to keep certain works in repair. The county council make a precept on landowners and on hereditaments. Will they make a precept upon this unfortunate man who, having paid a sum to be freed of his obligation, will now have to pay his share of the expenses incurred by the catchment board or the drainage board in keeping these things in order? That seems to me to be absolutely clear as the clause stands now. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame did not move his Amendment dealing with priority, because it seems to me to be absolutely impossible that your Lordships should sanction a proposal which would enable a public body to compel a person to pay them money and to put a mortgage on his land in front of the mortgages that he already has. I hope that the noble Earl will at any rate be able to assure me that I am wrong in supposing that the unfortunate owner of the land, having paid a considerable sum to avoid his liability, will again have to pay the rate. With regard to the other point, I should very much prefer to see the clause left out and a proper clause introduced on Report. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 9.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

My noble friend seems to forget that I have reserved full rights for the Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

This follows very closely the Report of the Royal Commission. It is simply a reproduction of what they say is absolutely necessary, and I hope that your Lordships will not omit this clause.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHIM

But does the man have to pay twice over? That is what I want to know.

EARL DE LA WARR

At the present moment a man within an internal drainage area has certain liabilities. He has to fulfil those liabilities. He is also subject to the ordinary rate in the area to which any other occupants of the area are subject. He will free himself from one liability and not from the other. I think that is clear.

LORD DANESFORT

Are these sums which an occupier or owner of land near a river has to pay for keeping up the hanks and so on already charged on the land? If they are so charged I can understand the form of the Bill, but if they are not already charged upon the land and are only a personal obligation upon the occupier or owners for the time being, it seems to me that there is great force in what my noble friend says—namely, that you ought not to add to the sums which are paid for a commutation of a charge upon the land a new charge which would override previously existing charges.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can assure the noble Lord that they are charges on the land.

LORD DANESFORT

Let me tell the noble Earl that in the only case that I have looked at carefully, an award made, I think, under the Enclosure Acts, some 50 or 60 years ago, they are not made upon the land but are made a charge upon the personal liability of the owner or occupier.

EARL DE LA WARR

They would be, at the present moment, a first charge on the land, if he commuted under the existing voluntary powers, and we propose that this situation shall continue.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If that is so, all I can say is that what I said was right. The owner, having paid a certain sum in order to avoid a liability, will also have to pay—I understood that the noble Earl admitted it—his share of the rate that is levied by the drainage board or catchment board in order to do the repairs which he has paid to get out of. I shall certainly divide the Committee if I can get anybody to go with me. It can do no harm to get this clause out, and on the Report stage we shall know where we are.

LORD PARMOOR

After the commutation of the liability, which is the ordinary principle of all compensation, he is in the same position as the ordinary person and he takes his ordinary share. This is a charge on the land and it is quite an ordinary case. Every compensation case is dealt with in this way and always has been up to this point.

THE MARQUESS OF' SALISBURY

I understand from the Government that this is only a reproduction of the existing law.

LORD PARMOOR

Hear, hear.

EARL DE LA WARR

With the qualification that it is now being made compulsory instead of permissive.

THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY

Then I think my noble friend's passion for antiquity might feel itself justified.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Exercise by catchment board of powers of drainage board in, default].

LORD DERAMORE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert: (5) The council of a county or county borough to whom powers have been delegated under subsection (4) of this section, may, if they so desire, issue to any drainage board in whose default they have exercised all or any of the powers of the board a precept requiring payment from the board of the expenses thereby incurred by the council, and the board shall thereupon pay, in accordance with any such precept, the amount thereby demanded.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns the case where the local drainage authorities are in default. They have been told to do something and have failed to do it, and the county council or catchment board have to collect money from them. The county council is not a rating authority and the catchment authority may be in two or more rating districts, and may find it very inconvenient to collect for the county council. If the county council is enabled to order the local drainage authority to collect the money and hand it over to them for the catchment authority, it will be much simpler. They have means of collecting their rates and they know who their ratepayers are. They could collect the rates very much more easily than the county council. This Amendment is for the purpose of enabling the county council or catchment board to indent upon the drainage authority for the money. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 15, at end insert the said new subsection (5).—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid that we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment. In Clause 10 power is given to a catchment board to delegate to a county council in its area the power to act in default of an internal drainage board, and this power has been deemed desirable because it is already possessed by county councils under the Land Drainage Act, 1926. The noble Lord's Amendment seeks to enable a county council, in a case where it decides to act in default, to require the drainage board to raise the necessary money for the works which the county council, acting in default, have decided to carry out. The noble Lord's Amendment is restricted to county councils, but if it is desirable that county councils should be entitled to precept on a drainage board in these circumstances, it is equally desirable that a catchment board, which does not delegate its powers to a county council, should have the same power when acting in default, and therefore, the noble Lord's Amendment should not be accepted without largely widening its scope.

I think, however, that on reflection the noble Lord will realise that this Amendment is going a little further than is fair. If a county council or a catchment board decide to assume the powers of an internal drainage board by default, they are entitled to exercise all the powers of that drainage board, and it is surely a little unfair to expect that, having exercised the powers of that drainage board, they should be able to precept on that board and leave them with the somewhat onerous and un- pleasant task of collecting the money required to pay for what the county council or the catchment board may have done. On grounds of equity, therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which, as I have said, in any case can clearly not be confined only to county councils and county borough councils.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Power to transfer functions of internal drainage board to catchment board]:

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after "duties," to insert "liabilities." The noble Viscount said Does the noble Earl accept this Amendment?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 19, after ("duties ") insert ("liabilities") —(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had on the Paper an Amendment to omit Clause 11. The noble Lord said: This is not quite so objectionable as other clauses, and as the hour is getting rather late I will not take up time by moving its rejection.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD had on the Paper an Amendment to insert, after Clause 11, a new clause, consisting of fourteen subsections, providing the machinery for a Land Drainage Appeal Tribunal. The noble Lord said: I understand that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, wishes to postpone the consideration of this clause. Would he rather that I moved it now and explained its provisions, or would he rather that I should postpone it until later?

EARL DE LA WARR

We are prepared to accept the wording, but we would rather have the clause inserted after Clause 52.

LORD BAYFORD

Then I will not move the new clause now, on the understanding that I am at liberty to move it after Clause 52.

Clause 12:

Power of Minister to enforce performance of duties by Catchment Boards.

12.—(1) If it appears to the Minister, whether on a complaint made to him by the council of any county or county borough, any drainage board or any other person appearing to him to be interested in the matter of the complaint or otherwise, that a catchment board have failed properly to exercise any of their powers, or have failed to perform any of their duties under this Act, the Minister may, after giving notice of his intention to the catchment board and subject to the provisions of this section, either—

1. (a) himself exercise in such manner and by such person as he thinks fit any such powers or perform any such duties; or
2. (b) give such directions in the matter as in the circumstances of the case appear to him to be proper,

and it shall be the duty of the catchment board to comply with any direction so given.

(2) Where the Minister in pursuance of this section exercises any of the powers or performs any of the duties of a catchment board, he may also exercise any power vested in the board for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred in the exercise of the said powers or performance of the said duties, or for any purpose incidental to the exercise of any such power or the performance of any such duty.

(3) Where the Minister is exercising any of the powers or performing any of the duties of a catchment board any person authorised in that behalf by him may, so far as is reasonably necessary for the purpose of the exercise of those powers or the performance of those duties, at all reasonable times inspect and take copies of any deeds, maps, books, papers or other documents which are in the possession of the catchment board and relate to land drainage in the catchment area.

(4) Any person who obstructs or impedes any person authorised under this section in the execution of his powers under this section shall be liable on a summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words down to the end of paragraph (a) and insert:— On complaint being made to the Minister by the council of any county or county borough that a catchment board have failed to exercise any of the powers conferred on the board for the purpose of maintaining in repair the banks and bed of the main river which they ought to have exercised, the Minister shall, if he thinks that there is reasonable ground for the complaint, call on the board for an explanation and if the board do not within such time as the Minister may fix give a sufficient explanation or remedy the cause of complaint the Minister may".

The noble Earl said: This is the first of a series of Amendments which I have placed on the Paper to alter the provisions of Clause 12, and as all these Amendments fit into one another, and are consequential, I propose, if I may, to deal with them altogether in a general statement. When this Bill was before your Lordships on the occasion of the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, expressed some alarm at the form in which Clause 12 was drafted. I should like to say at the outset that ii was never anticipated that Clause 12 would be more than a mere power existing in the Bill, because it must be assumed that all catchment boards set up under this Bill will perform their duties and obligations to the satisfaction, not only of the Minister, but also of the areas under their jurisdiction. In view, however, of the representations which have been made to me by the noble Lord and others since the Second Reading of this Bill, I have come to the conclusion it is better to recast this clause in the way that appears on the Amendment Paper, following the precedent of Section 8 (7) of the Port of London Act of 1908.

Your Lordships will observe that the effect of these Amendments is that if a complaint is made to the Minister by a county council or county borough council that a catchment board has by any chance failed to carry out its duties under the Bill, of maintaining in repair the main river, the Minister, if he thinks that the complaint is reasonable, can call on a catchment board for an explanation, and should the catchment board fail to give sufficient explanation or remedy the cause of complaint, the Minister may give such directions in the matter as appear to him to be proper.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 29, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 41, and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

Clause 12 is, of course, a very important clause, and I took upon myself to put down certain Amendments, but if the Amendments of the noble Earl are carried they will meet the point that I personally wished to raise, and I willingly accept them.

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM

It seems to me that this proposal is most unsatisfactory. The Amendment does not appear to me to make the slightest difference, although it is very cleverly drawn. The clause as it stood enacted that if a catchment board did not do certain things then the Minister might come in and do them. The Amendment is to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) to the end of line 41, and to insert the words on the Paper, and then the clause will go on to say that the Minister "may give such directions in the matter as in the circumstances of the case appear to him to be proper, and it shall be the duty of the catchment board to comply with any direction so given." What difference is there between that and the original draft when the Minister may do the thing himself? He may give any directions he thinks proper, and who, except the Minister, is to decide what is proper? It seems to me that the Amendment means nothing at all.

LORD DESBOROUGH

He cannot do it on his own motion.

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM

He cannot move unless complaint is made by the county council, but the county council having made a complaint, the Minister can do exactly what he could do before, and the objection, I understood, was to having a Minister interfering in these things at all. Except the fact that he cannot move now, except on the complaint of the county council, he still can do the things which he could have done before and which I think he ought not to do.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:— () 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. The noble Lord said: This is giving an appeal. If you give an appeal anywhere it must be in this case.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think that is all right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out subsections (2) (3) and (4). The noble Earl said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 5, leave out from ("given") to the end of the clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DANESFORT had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out Clause 12. The noble Lord said: I do not move; I am quite satisfied with the Amendments of the noble Earl.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not say I am satisfied, but I do not think the clause is quite as bad as it was.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Procedure for making orders and confirming schemes]:

LORD DANESFORT

The new subsections of which I have given notice are postponed till after Clause 52.

Clauses 13 to 15 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.

(2) Provision may be made by an order under this Part of this Act—

1. (a) for altering the boundaries of any drainage district or drainage area;
2. (b) for conferring on any drainage board or other drainage authority such additional powers of levying drainage rates or borrowing powers as may be necessary or expedient, or altering or supplementing in any other respect the provisions of any local Act, or of any award made under any such Act where in the opinion of the Minister 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;
3. (c) subject to the consent of the Minister of Transport, for making any river, canal or inland navigation, or the cuts, reservoirs, feeders or other works belonging thereto liable to the control of a drainage hoard, notwithstanding the provisions of any local Act exempting the river or works from such control;
812
4. (d) for abolishing as from such date as may be specified in the order any Commissioners of Sewers;

and any such order may contain any incidental, consequential or supplemental provisions which appear to be necessary or proper for the purposes of the order.

LORD BAYFORD moved, at the end of subsection (1) to insert, "Provided that any person aggrieved by such order may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal." The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, I think that is all right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 16. The noble Lord said: I am sorry to have to object to these clauses, but here again power is given to the Minister under subsection 2 (b) to make an order for "altering or supplementing in any other respect the provisions of any local Act." It does seem to me to be a very strong order to give a Minister indefinite power to alter any local Act. The paragraph also applies to "any award made under any such Act". I do not see why we should give the Minister such powers, and I really must ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider whether it is desirable. I hope the noble Earl will agree to the omission of this clause.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 16.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The three clauses of which the noble Lord is proposing to move the omission are purely enactments of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and if we left them out it would leave those sections of the country which need draining, but which at the same time do not justify the setting up of a catchment board, entirely in the air. In great blocks of country there would be no machinery at all for draining them.

LORD DANESFORT

I am not very much impressed with the fact that some of these provisions come from an Act of 1918. At that time we were thinking of very different things from drainage, and in the years 1916, 1917, and 1918 we passed a number of Acts which had much better not have been passed. So the fact that these provisions were in the Act of 1918 does not necessarily make them good. But why is it necessary to give the Minister power to confer on a drainage board the right of levying a drainage rate or of exercising borrowing powers? That seems an extraordinary power to give to a Minister. It should be done by Act of Parliament, surely, if at all.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Is this clause in order? I always understood that this House was unable to impose a charge on the subject. This clause certainly does impose a charge on the subject, because it gives the Minister power to levy a drainage rate. If it were passed in this form in another place the Minister would then, without any Act of Parliament, without going into a Committee of Supply in another place, have power to authorise every year the levying of a drainage rate. Surely that is not right.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord is referring to paragraph (b). It does not give the Minister power to levy charges. It gives the Minister power to set up a drainage board or other drainage authority, with the ordinary powers that all drainage boards or drainage authorities possess of levying an internal drainage rate.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Additional powers. It says, "where in the opinion of the Minister."

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes, it starts off by discussing existing drainage boards, and under this Bill drainage boards are subject to an amendment of their constitution and an alteration of their powers. The exact constitution of a drainage board to-day will probably not be its constitution as an internal drainage board acting under a catchment board. Therefore, he has to take powers to make those necessary adjustments. The noble Lord must not see the Minister in every single clause he looks at, because in this clause he does not exist excepting from the point of view of giving perfectly normal powers to the drainage board that has to be set up. Ordinarily, of course, in the great catchment areas these boards can be set up by the catchment board. Where a catchment board does not exist somebody else has to do it; and who else can do it? I hope that your Lordships will leave this clause in the Bill, because it would be a very serious matter to a large part of the country if it were taken out.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

It seems to me to be giving the Minister very wide powers. Your Lordships will see in subsection (2) (b) the words "altering or supplementing in any other respect the provisions of any local Act." What does "any other respect" mean? It may mean anything.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have some difficulty with what my noble friend has said about this clause. May I, first of all, very respectfully differ from him on a matter of procedure? He asked your Lordships whether this was not out of order. May I point out, because it is really important that there should never be any mistake made about this, that it may be a breach of Privilege, but a breach of Privilege is not out of order. It may be a matter which the House of Commons have a right, under constitutional usage, to protest against, but your Lordships are not out of order in passing it as a matter of the order of the House—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

May I apologise to my noble friend and withdraw the words "out of order" and substitute "breach of Privilege"?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

; I mention this not because I want to differ from my noble friend—I never want to differ from my noble friend—but in order that it should not be left on record that your Lordships are not entitled to deal with matters which are matters of Privilege. You are, of course. There is no Order of your Lordships' House which prevents it. It is a matter for the House of Commons and a matter for the two Houses in their relations one with another. But it is not out of order. It is not a matter that we cannot entertain if we think fit so far as our own House is concerned.

Having said that, I turn to the substance of the clause, and I admit that it is a very drastic provision. Your Lordships will forgive me if I make the confession that I do not pretend to be a master of this very intricate Bill, but I do realise that we are conferring very considerable powers upon the Executive in these matters. Powers are given to the Executive which hitherto it has been very often thought necessary to have a private Act of Parliament or a Provisional Order to carry into effect. However, that is a vice which, I am afraid, applies to a good deal of the Bill; but then I am afraid it is also a vice which applies to a good deal of the legislation which this Bill amends. We have gone a long way already, and there are some awkward precedents for this measure. I frankly admit that I do not feel certain whether this clause does not go beyond the point, and I should very much like to have time to consider very carefully how far it ought to be amended. It is only in that spirit that I would ask my noble friend not to press his Amendment for the moment in order to give us an opportunity of looking into it carefully. I agree with him that this power of imposing a charge by the Minister alone is a dangerous power and ought to be very carefully regarded. Whether it has got to the point when it ought to be stopped I am not sure.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I would rather see the clause left out and another clause brought in afterwards. If that is satisfactory to the noble Marquess, I would ask him to agree with that.

EARL DE LA WARR

We could not possibly consider cutting out the clause. But after what the noble Marquess has said and having regard to his obvious anxiety not in any way to hurt the Bill while safeguarding certain principles in which he is interested, I should like to try to meet your Lordships, and possibly we may make some alteration in the wording of the clause. I should like to be given an opportunity of considering the matter. The words that are in my mind at the moment are at the end of line 16, "powers of leving drainage rates or." Those I would cut out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Those are the peccant words.

EARL DE LA WARR

Those are the words that certain of your Lordships dislike and, subject to reconsideration, I would leave them out for the moment; but I do not in any way tie my hands on Report.

LORD CLINTON

There is another thing I would ask the noble Earl to consider. He has told us this is a reenactment of previous legislation. But by subsection (2) (a) the conditions, it will be recollected, are very considerably changed. Under the older Acts there could only be included in the boundaries of a drainage district such lands as were actually receiving benefit from the drainage. Now you are bringing into the Bill not only the benefit-receiving lands but those which, in the words of the Bill "avoid danger"; that is, those who do not receive direct benefit. I imagine that under subsection (2) (a) the Minister would include in the drainage area some of these other people who are merely avoiding danger and of whom we have hitherto spoken as uplanders. If he can do so under that subsection it is a very large power to give him, and it may bring certain heavy rates on to the lands of those uplanders who, at present, would only be rated upon their house or cottage. I think that requires consideration by the noble Earl. Perhaps he cannot answer now, but I should like him to consider it between now and another stage of the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

If land was included which did not benefit or avoid danger—mark you, that definition still remains in respect of the internal drainage board, and it is only the internal drainage board which we are discussing under this clause—the ratepayer would have a right of appeal against the rate to Quarter Sessions. That is not in any way altered because we are dealing now purely with internal drainage and the definition of rating for internal drainage remains the same.

THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY

I am extremely obliged by the very courteous way in which the noble Earl has met us. The striking out of those words would be, from our point of view, a very considerable advance, yet I cannot say for certain that we should be entirely satisfied with that change. There are also, of course, the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, who is a very great authority on these matters and whose opinion ought to be taken into account. So I almost think the wisest plan would be for us to strike out the words which the noble Earl proposed, in his courteous speech, to omit, but for the moment to reserve our right between now and the Report stage to look really carefully into the rest of the clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Earl moves to omit, in lines 16 and 17, the words "powers of levying drainage rates, or"?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

Amendment moved— Page 13, lines 16 and 17, leave out ("powers of levying drainage rates, or")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

Provision as to petitions and procedure for making orders.

(4) An order made under this Part of this Act may be revoked, altered, or amended by a subsequent order made by the Minister under and in accordance with the provisions of this section.

LORD DANESFORT had on the Paper an Amendment to move, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "subject, however, to the right of appeal given by this Act." The noble Lord said: I move my Amendment in the form of the proviso printed on your Lordships' Amendment Paper at the top of page 15.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 30, at end insert: ("Provided that any person aggrieved by such Order may, at any time within three months after the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal.")—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18:

Expenses in, connection with orders.

18.—(1) The expenses of the Minister and, if and so far as the order so directs, the expenses of the petitioners, in relation to the making or confirmation of an order under this Part of this Act, shall be defrayed as follows:—

1. (a) Where a petition has been presented for the order and the order is made and comes into force, then—
1. (i) if the order is made on a petition for the constitution of a separate drainage district, the expenses shall be a first charge on the rates leviable in the district constituted by the order;
2. (ii) if the order is made on a petition for the alteration or definition of the 818 boundaries of a drainage district or area, the expenses shall be a first charge on the drainage rates leviable by the drainage board or drainage authority in the district as altered or defined by the order, or where more than one district or area is so altered on the drainage rates leviable within those districts or areas in such proportions as the Minister directs;
3. (iii) if the order is made on a petition for altering or supplementing the powers conferred on the drainage authority by a local Act or award, the expenses shall be a first charge on the drainage rates leviable by the drainage authority;
4. (iv) if an order is made on a petition for the abolition of Commissioners of Sewers and the area of the Commissioners is constituted a separate drainage district or amalgamated with an existing drainage district the expenses shall he a first charge on the drainage rates leviable in that district, or where one part of the area of the Commissioners is amalgamated with one drainage district and another part of the area is amalgamated with another drainage district shall be a first charge on the drainage rates leviable in those districts respectively in such proportions as the Minister directs;
2. (b) Where a petition has been presented for the order and the order is not made the expenses shall be paid by the petitioners:
3. (c) Where a petition has not been presented for the order, the expenses shall, if the order is made, be defrayed if and so far as the order so directs in the same manner as if a petition for the order had been presented, and subject as aforesaid the expenses shall be defrayed by the Minister.

(2) The petitioners for an order under this Part of this Act shall give such security for expenses as may be required by the Minister.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 18. The noble Lord said: It seems to me that this clause gives too much power to the Minister. It says:— The expenses of the Minister and, if and so far as the Order so directs, the expenses of the petitioners, in relation to the making or confirmation of an Order under this part of the Act, shall be defrayed as follows: Then it gives the various proposals, which mean that there shall be a separate rate, and that the expenses should be charged on the rates leviable in the districts constituted by this Order. I do not know whether this should be considered a breach of the privileges of the other House. Personally I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury. We have heard from the other side of the House when various matters have arisen, terrific upbraidings of the Conservative Party for having put in in this House something which deals with the levying of charges. Now, apparently, when it suits them, noble Lords opposite are prepared to waive all their former objections to the breaches of Privilege. That is the reason I put this down. It does not seem to me you can have it both ways. Either noble Lords opposite are against this House interfering in any kind of way with the levying of charges, or they are not against it. It cannot be that they are in favour of it when they are in power, and against it when they are in opposition.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 18.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the point made about that has been clearly expressed by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and I have nothing further to say. I can only add that this clause is consequential on Clause 16. At any rate the noble Lord's argument is rather unfortunate. If this is really a matter of Privilege I doubt whether he could make this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 18 agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR We have got to the end of Part III, and I rather think the next Amendment may take a little time. I do not know if it be to your Lordships' convenience to adjourn now till a quarter past nine.

[The sitting was suspended from a quarter before eight o'clock till a quarter past nine o'clock.]

Clause 19:

Expenses of Catchment Board.

19.—(1) The expenses under this Act of a catchment board, in so far as they are not met by contributions from the boards of internal drainage districts, shall—

1. (a) if the catchment area is wholly comprised within, or is co-terminous with, one administrative county, be paid to the board by the council of that county; and
2. (b) in any other case, be apportioned by the board among the councils of the several counties and county boroughs which 820 are situate within, or extend into, the catdhment area on the basis of the totals of the rateable values of all such hereditameats in the respective areas of those councils as are situate within the catchment area.

(2) For the purposes of any apportionment of expenses to be made under this section the rateable values of hereditaments shall be taken to be the rateable values thereof as shown in the valuation lists in force on the first day of the period of account in which those expenses are chargeable.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "Subject to the limitation prescribed by Section 21 of this Act." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name relating to Clause 19 which in itself brings in the question of Clause 21, so it may be convenient if I speak on both those clauses. I should not have ventured to address your Lordships if I had not been asked by a number of county councils, and in particular those of Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire and the Thames Valley, to put forward an Amendment of this kind. I venture to say that this Part of the Bill has not yet been dealt with, because I do not think it will be contended that the right of appeal which has been granted on the other clauses of the Bill affects the question which I am now raising. In effect, as has already been pointed out, this Bill in many ways gives a blank cheque. That cheque has already received one crossing. I am anxious to add another crossing, and the "and co." in my case stands for "and county council." What I am suggesting is that it is an impossible position in which it is suggested the county councils should be placed. They are bodies responsible for practically the whole of local government in this country. A great many fresh duties have been laid upon them by the Local Government Act, 1929, and their estimates are now complicated affairs. Their loans run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

EARL PEEL

Millions.

LORD PHILLIMORE

It would be an impossible position for the finance committee of any county council to put forward a satisfactory picture of the council's financial position if some extraneous body such as a catchment board were enabled to precept up to an unlimited extent on the rates. It is of course true, as your Lordships know perfectly well, that a county council is not a rating authority but a county council is very nearly the precepting body—I might say almost entirely the precepting body—on the rating authority. In fact the finances of any county are in the hands of the county council to-day. It will be therefore unnecessary, I hope, for me to labour the point that the position in which the county councils are left under Clauses 19 and 21 is an impossible one as the Bill is now drawn. I would point out, however, that my Amendment does not in any way conflict with the main purpose of the Bill—at any rate it has no such intention—and that with the consent of the county council concerned it will be possible, and probably quite easy, to extend the amount of contributions which the catchment board may require. It is not therefore an absolute limitation that I am proposing, but only a relative one.

I may be told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that in effect these catchment boards will be so constituted that it would be only the county councils gathered together voting away their own money. I may be told that county councils suffer from the same suspiciousness as the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, pointed out was sometimes the case with the farmers; but the fact remains that the county councils, even in areas outside the Thames Valley, will be sitting together, not as individual counties in the first place, but as land drainage authorities, that they will in no case represent more than two-thirds of the total catchment board and that they will be subject to other considerations than those which may apply to them as county councillors. On the Second Reading the noble Earl answered me to the effect that in the Thames Valley the county councillors had a clear majority of 19 as against 11. As a matter of fact, that majority would be made up of bodies such as the London County Council, whose interests are totally different, from the point of view of land drainage, from those of the up-river counties. It is open to the Minister concerned to appoint, from interests which have nothing to do with land drainage or county administration, the remaining eleven members. The Thames Valley counties in particular, therefore, feel that some limitation is absolutely necessary, and I trust that I shall obtain the support of noble Lords in endeavouring to insert into this Bill some limitation of the precept which a catchment board can levy.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 3, after ("(1)") insert ("Subject to the limitation prescribed by Section twenty-one of this Act.")—(Lord Phillimore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am glad to hear that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment has done so with the feeling that the intention behind it is not in conflict with the Bill. Perhaps if I can show him that it will very seriously affect the working of the Bill and will, in fact, make it inoperative I shall persuade him to withdraw the Amendment. As the noble Lord said, we shall have to take this Amendment in conjunction with the Amendments that he proposes to Clause 21. The noble Lord desires to limit the contribution of county councils to the expenses of catchment boards to a rate of ½d. in the £ or in special circumstances ¼d. in the £.

EARL PEEL

Without their consent.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yee. The essential point is that it is quite impossible at the present moment, until schemes are worked out by each catchment board after taking their own surveys and assessing the desires and demands of their own districts in relation to land drainage, to say how much it is going to be necessary for them to spend. Accordingly, if at the present moment we were to limit the expenses to ½d. or ¼d. in the £, it would really so fetter the operations of catchment boards as to make the Bill virtually inoperative. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I endeavoured to lay before you the tremendous variation in the amount that a penny in the £ in the different county areas and county borough areas would raise; or rather I think the way it was put was the amount of rate in the £ that would be needed to raise £100,000, and the figure in the Thames catchment area would be 1d., and in the Stour catchment area 7.1d. —I think that would be about seventy times as much. Really, when you get a comparison like that, you see how hopeless it would be to limit the expenditure of an individual county council, a member of a catchment board of which perhaps a dozen other county councils or county boroughs are members, in any such manner as the noble Lord suggests. We cannot forget that these bodies are composed of a two-thirds majority of the county councils themselves, and surely we can leave it to these bodies, who have such very strong county council representation, to see to it that their individual rates will not be too high, because, after all, we all of us know, who have anything to do with county council work, how much this question of rates is in the minds of county councillors, whether sitting in their central hall or in some meeting place of the catchment board.

We can rest assured that a body so heavily representative of county councils is never going to undertake work of this character unless it is regarded as absolutely essential for the benefit of the district and ratepayers. For these reasons, because of the tremendous variation in the rateable values of the county council districts, and because of the heavy representation that county councils do have on these catchment boards, I hope the noble Lord will be prevailed upon not to press this Amendment, especially as we have been in the closest touch all along with the County Councils Association. The noble Lord said he was speaking for a certain number of county councils, but certainly this point has never been in any way brought up by the County Councils Association at any time during our discussions with them. I hope, therefore, that he will not press this Amendment, as it would really very seriously affect the usefulness of this measure.

EARL PEEL

Would the noble Earl mind dealing with this particular point, because I was rather surprised to hear that none of the county councils have given any support to this Amendment?

EARL DE LA WARR

I did not say that. I said the County Councils Association had not raised the point.

EARL PEEL

I happen to know one county council that presses very strongly this particular point. Would the noble Earl be good enough to deal with this point? He, has treated this Amendment as if it put a limitation upon the amount that could be raised by the catchment area board. I understand that the Amendment does nothing of the kind. It is merely that the county catchment areas should not raise more than a certain amount without the assent of the county councils represented on the board. If these county councils are really so anxious tot spend money out of the rates upon these schemes it follows that they will not resent, and will assent to, any raising of the rates above the amount suggested. Because what a curious position these gentlemen will be put in. Does the noble Earl really suggest that these representatives of the county councils on this catchment board should agree to raise a rate which their own county councils would refuse to assent to It seems rather a curious position. I do not think the noble Earl dealt quite fairly with the Amendment. He treated the Amendment as if it was a limitation and a suggestion that no more than halfpenny or three farthings should be raised by the catchment area. As I understood my noble friend it is nothing of the kind. It is that a rate almost to any amount should be raised provided the county councils from whom these representatives are drawn assented to the raising of this rate. And surely the noble Earl does not suggest that the representatives of the county councils should agree to the raising of a rate which the county councils themselves disagree with.

LORD DERAMORE

On behalf of the County Councils Association I may say that a good many of these Amendments have been put down since we last met. They will be considered by the executive committee next week. In Yorkshire—the River Ouse drainage area—a penny rate brings in, in the East Riding, £2,500. We shall be joined up with the West Riding, where it brings in £26,000. A sum which is nothing to the West Riding is an enormous amount to the East Riding. There is also the North Riding; I do not know how much a penny rate brings in there, but it is a good deal more than in the East Riding. Then a penny rate in one of the county boroughs brings in an enormous sum. All of them will be represented on the catchment board; we shall be out-voted entirely. Are we to pay 10d. in the £ for what only costs the West Riding a penny in the£? That is the effect in our case. The various authorities in the catchment areas vary very considerably in their rateable values.

LORD AMPTHILL

I must really try to persuade the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to take a different view of this matter. As my noble friend Lord Peel said, he has not really understood the effect of the Amendment. There is no question of a limit. It is merely a question of getting the consent of the county councils before a certain amount is exceeded. But when the noble Earl talks of that as rendering the Bill virtually inoperative, that is the language of exaggeration and cannot be taken seriously. If this Amendment were adopted, so far as my own county council is concerned, the catchment board would be able to raise £1,200 without going to the county council, and that is a very considerable sum. But what we have to remember is that we are adopting entirely new principles in this Bill. In the first place the principle of making counties contribute for the benefit of individual landowners is an entirely new one which is unknown to our legislation. There ought to be some limit to demands of this character upon the public purse seeing that a very considerable area of each county will not benefit at all. All we ask is that those who are responsible to the ratepayers should have some say in the matter before any considerable demand is made.

Another point is that the actual effect of Clause 21 is that county councils could be rated to an unlimited extent by these catchment boards. It is without precedent that any authority should be given such power as that. In the case of the Ouse Drainage Bill, which was on similar lines, we had some idea of what the contribution of the Government was going to be. We knew that the Government had promised to contribute £1,500,000. But in this Bill we have no notion what the Treasury will provide towards the expenses of these drainage schemes. Any way, it is left entirely to the discretion of the Minister who will, first of all, I suppose, advise the Treasury what they should contribute and then, secondly, give his ipse dixit as to what the county councils should contribute. I submit that my noble friend's Amendment is a perfectly harmless one. It certainly cannot render the Bill inoperative. That is ridiculous. All it will do is to impose a little caution upon these newly-constituted bodies, these catchment boards. I should like to assure your Lordships that the county council for which I am speaking, the County Council of Bedfordshire, and the councils of the other counties with which we generally co-operate have given this matter very careful consideration and feel very strongly about it. I beg the noble Earl to give the matter further consideration.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I think the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Phillimore is something more than a merely harmless one; I think it is an extremely good one and I hope he will press it to a Division. Let me endeavour to answer the point made by the noble Earl. I am speaking, not for a county council or the County Councils Association, but as a mere ratepayer who is the lamb that is going to be fleeced unless the noble Lord's Amendment is carried. Let us see what his Amendment does. All he says is that there shall be some check—because that is what it comes to—put upon the Minister and this new body to prevent them spending too much of other people's money. We all know that it is very easy to be generous with somebody else's money. If you start boards with officials and a variety of people of that sort, in order to maintain their position and to justify their salary, they are most anxious to spend money. All that happens is that they cannot spend more than a penny rate unless the council says that they may.

As a ratepayer I am not sure that I put very much trust in the economical proceedings of any county council, but there is a check, and without this there would be no check whatever. We know perfectly well that at present the country is very hard up. I do not know whether that is a slang expression which I ought not to have used, but there is very little money in the country. Yet that never seems to occur to noble Lords opposite. They are always so anxious to have new expenditure. The noble Earl asks: "How can they tell what the expenditure is going to be?" Of course they cannot. One does not know what may not happen under this Bill. We may have to spend £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year. Where is it coming from? The noble Lord says that there shall be a little check, and unless the county council proposes that there shall be more than a halfpenny rate there shall not be a penny rate. I must admit that I have never heard of a more reasonable proposal, and I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division.

The noble Lord below the gangway said something about what was to happen with regard to the Government, and what were they going to contribute? What will Mr. Snowden contribute? He will not contribute anything; he has nothing to contribute. He has already put such taxation upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it that he could not put on any more, because there would be no shoulders left. In those circumstances I am astonished at the moderation of the noble Lord. I should have thought he would have made a much more stringent provision, but I shall be happy to support him if he goes to a Division.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not know if I might say one word upon this. As representing a catchment board I suppose I ought to welcome the Bill because it gives unlimited powers of spending money, but I must say I rather hesitate to have those powers entrusted either to my board or to any other board. I think there ought to be some limit to the amount of money for which one could precept a county council. I do not see how the county council can make up their accounts if they have entirely outside bodies, like the catchment boards all over England, being able to precept them to any amount. If the county councils do not pay up, they can, as the Bill is drafted, be proceeded against by mandamus. In regard to the Thames, which is to have a catchment board, I should be very sorry to embark on any of these vastly expensive schemes unless I had the support and full concurrence of the county councils concerned. It so happens that some years ago we did put before the various county councils a scheme which would have done a great deal to minimise the Thames floods. At that time it would have cost £3,000,000. Now, owing to the rise in the price of land and labour and various other things, I suppose it would cost £8,000,000 or £9,000,000. Even the smaller scheme costing £3,000,000 was turned down with complete unanimity by the county councils and county boroughs and the various towns which the scheme was supposed to benefit. Although personally I ought to welcome these powers of spending money, I think the responsibility is too great, and there ought to be some limit upon the amount these catchment boards can indent the county councils for.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the difficulty seems to arise mainly from the fear that the representatives of a rich county on a catchment board may go to the board wishing to see a scheme go through, and disregard altogether the fact that there are also poorer counties which may be unable to meet the expenses that would be imposed upon them by the scheme. That is a serious point and one that needs consideration, but it is really met by Clause 19, subsection (1) (b). Your Lordships will there see that the contributions of county councils are based upon the rateable value of the respective areas. That means that the rich county council will have to pay a very much larger share of the scheme than the poorer county council. That. I think, meets the main fear.

I was accused of exaggerating the danger of this Amendment by saying that it would in some cases make the Bill inoperative because I omitted to emphasise the point that the rate could be more than a halfpenny in the £ if the county council consent. Let us suppose a scheme has been approved by the catchment board and the costs have been worked out and in the case of one or perhaps two county councils the cost comes out at slightly above a halfpenny in the £ rate. The representatives have to go back to their county council in order to get permission to make this added contribution towards the scheme and that permission is refused. What is the position of the scheme? Is the whole scheme to be held up by one county council refusing to pay up its full share to the cost of the scheme? Under this Amendment, as far as one can see, the whole scheme would be held up. For that reason I feel that the Amendment would in a certain number of cases render this Bill inoperative and make it impossible to provide that schemes that are of vital importance should be proceeded with. I conceive that many of your Lordships are very keen on this Amendment, but I hope that your Lordships will consider this matter very carefully before you take it to a Division because it will undoubtedly have most serious limiting effects upon the whole operation of this Bill.

LORD DANESFORT

If the noble Earl could make that point, that this Amendment would really seriously hamper good schemes, there would be some argument against the Amendment, but is not the real truth of the Amendment that, if this Amendment is carried, it will only prevent extravagant schemes from being carried into operation? The catchment boards will have to limit their schemes to moderate amounts. They will know how much they will be able to raise if a limitation of this sort is put in and they will consequently avoid proposing schemes which would involve an excessive expenditure, which the ratepayers are probably at this time totally unable to meet. Therefore, instead of saying that this Amendment is going to wreck the scheme, the truth is that it will only make the catchment boards anxious to embark on schemes which we can pay for and which the country can pay for. It will not wreck the Bill but will make the catchment boards embark on schemes with proper caution. People nowadays have to cut their coat according to their cloth. Why should not the catchment board do the same? An individual has to do it; a great many public bodies have to do it. Why should not the catchment board act on a similar principle when they embark upon expenditure If the expenditure is unlimited there will be intense dissatisfaction and very great difficulty upon the part of the ratepayers who are charged with this unlimited expense in meeting the Bill.

LORD AMPTHILL

The answer to the noble Lord is the power of the Minister found in Clause 12, subsection (1), by which the Minister himself can exercise the power.

Several NOBLE LORDS

That is gone.

LORD AMPTHILL

Is he left no dictatorial power? No? Then thank goodness.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), after "districts," to insert "or otherwise." The noble Earl said: This is quite a small Amendment. The clause provides for the expenses of a catchment board to be defrayed by contributions from internal drainage boards and contributions from the councils of county boroughs. It is possible, however, that there may be other bodies, such as water boards and so on, who might be interested in the carrying out of a scheme and whose policy it might be to encourage a catchment board to carry out a scheme by making some contribution. This Amendment is intended to make that possible.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 5, after ("districts") to insert ("or otherwise.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), after "districts", to insert "if any." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment to make the subsection quite clear. There may be cases in which there is no drainage board set up and in order to make it quite clear I would propose the insertion of the words "if any" so that there should be no doubt on whom it is possible to precept.

EARL DE LA WARR

We have looked into this matter from a drafting point of view and I can assure the noble Lord that this Amendment is not necessary.

LORD DESBOROUGH

In that case I will not move.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert as new subsections:— () In this Act the word 'expenses' includes any costs, charges or expenses incurred or to be incurred by a catchment board in the execution of this Act, including the interest on, and provision for the repayment of any monies from time to time borrowed by the catclunent board under the provisions of this Act.

1. () (a) The councils of the several counties and county boroughs which are situate within or extend into the catchment area of a catchment board shall, from time to time, if and when so required by the catchment hoard, furnish to the catchment board a true and correct list of the rateable values of all such hereditaments in the respective areas of those councils as are situate within the catchment area of the catchment board.
2. (b) Compliance with any request made by a catchment board under this subsection may be enforced by mandamus."

The noble Lord said: I am suggesting to your Lordships that you should insert "In this Act the word 'expenses'—

EARL DE LA WARR

I am prepared to accept the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD DESBOROUGH

In that case I will not go further. I am very grateful to the noble Earl.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord has put down two new subsections. Does he move both?

LORD DESBOROUGH

Omitting the last three lines—paragraph (b).

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 23, at end insert the said new subsections without paragraph (b).—(Lord Desborough).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I do not know whether my noble friend has very much objection to the final paragraph of the Amendment that I put upon the Paper.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not know that it is really important if the noble Lord is very insistent, but I think it is really rather unnecessarily pugnacious.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am quite willing to give way to the noble Earl.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Contributions by internal drainage board to Catchment Board and by Catchment Board to internal drainage board.

20.—(1) A catchment board shall by resolution require each internal drainage board to make towards the expenses of the catchment board such contribution as the catchment board may consider to be fair.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection." The noble Earl said: This Amendment, with that which follows, is necessary to provide for places where there is already within the catchment area an internal drainage board which has supervisory and rating powers over smaller internal boards within its own area. This clause enables a catchment board to require an internal drainage board within its area to make contributions towards the expenses of the catchment board. If the Amendments are not inserted, a catchment board would be enabled to demand a contribution from the same area twice over by demanding a contribution from each small internal drainage board and also from the supervisory drainage board, which is referred to in my Amendment as the main internal drainage board. The proviso in the second Amendment merely enables the main internal drainage board to levy its contribution over the whole of its area. This will adjust the matter and be an improvement of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 24, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding subsection.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD DESBOROUGH

Here we have an entirely new board, a minor drainage board. We have had catchment area boards and drainage boards, and now we have a minor drainage board. I dare say that later on we shall have a minimus drainage board. I should like to know exactly what it means. This is a new drainage board which only appeared this morning.

EARL DE LA WARR

They are already in existence. It is nothing new, I assure you.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My noble friend keeps on telling me that it is nothing new, but I have interests in six counties and in only one have I ever heard of a drainage board. I may be unfortunate. I have no vote, and I do not see even how we are going to elect the drainage board, for nobody can vote unless he has paid rates, and you cannot pay rates when there are no rates to pay. Is this minor drainage board going to be a board as well as the others? Is there going to be a minor drainage board for the minor drainage districts?

EARL DE LA WARR

It will be no new body. There are already in certain districts internal drainage boards, which we are now christening main drainage boards, and which have under them certain minor boards that are already in existence.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I have not seen them.

EARL DE LA WARR

There are just a few exceptional cases. As your Lordships know, this old drainage legisla- tion has been built up piecemeal, and there are a few bodies with rather curious constitutions. There is one of these bodies, apparently, in the Ouse district. It is to deal with these quite exceptional cases that this Amendment is moved, in order to make sure that the catchment board shall not demand a contribution from both bodies, but only from the main internal drainage board. There are apparently a few internal drainage authorities in this country at the moment with minor authorities working under them, and if this Bill was left as it is the catchment board would be in a position to demand contribution both from the main drainage authority and then again from the smaller authorities which work under it. There are only one or two such cases in the country, and this Amendment is purely to provide for those one or two exceptional cases.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Can the noble Earl say what is to happen where there is only one minor drainage authority? Because, in his Amendment, he refers to two or more.

EARL DE LA WARR

Then it would be the drainage board, and not a minor drainage board.

LORD DYNEVOR

The noble Earl referred to minor authorities, but that is not the word put into his Amendment. He talks of minor internal drainage districts. When I read the Amendment for the first time I could not make out to what it referred, because I had no idea what a minor internal drainage district is, or who elects the board, or who sits on it, or how it is elected. I think it would be better to withdraw the Amendment at present and not press it, because we none of us know what a minor internal district is.

EARL DE LA WARR

The only reason why your Lordships cannot understand it is because it is so rarely in existence. As you know our drainage system has been built up over hundreds of years by, this or that small Private Act.

LORD CLINTON

We are not assisting at the birth of more minor districts?

EARL DE LA WARR

No.

LORD CLINTON

This only refers to very peculiar things which happen to be in existence now, and there are not many of them?

EARL DE LA WARR

That is so.

LORD DERAMORE

In the East Riding of Yorkshire there are several drains running down to the Ouse, which is under the Court of Sewers, and these drains are under minor authorities. I think that is what the noble Earl means.

EARL DE LA WARR

Exactly.

LORD DANESFORT

Can the noble Earl refer us to any Act of Parliament where these minor internal drainage boards are referred to, and would it not be well when we are talking about these minor internal drainage boards to put some definition into the Definition Clause, so that people reading the Bill will know what is meant by it?

EARL DE LA WARR

If it is necessary, certainly, but I think Lord Deramore has explained exactly what is meant from his own personal experience. I do not think anything more is necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 27, at end insert "(2) Where an internal drainage district within a catchment area (in this subsection referred to as 'main internal drainage district') comprises two or more minor internal drainage districts, the catchment board shall not, subject as hereinafter provided, require the drainage board of the main internal drainage district to make any contribution towards the expenses of the catchment board except in respect of such part, if any, of the main internal drainage district as is not situate within any minor internal drainage district: Provided that the catchment board, after determining what contribution should be made by the drainage board of each of the minor internal drainage districts, may, if they think fit, require the drainage board of the main internal drainage district to pay direct to the catchment board an amount equal to the aggregate of those contributions, and if the catchment board make such a requisition, the drainage board of the main internal drainage district shall raise the amount so paid by them to the catchment board by means of drainage rates levied by them within the main internal drainage district or, as the case may be, such part thereof as is situate within some minor internal drainage district."—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert as a new subsection:— (5) Nothing in this section contained shall relieve any internal drainage board, or the council of any county or county borough from liability to comply with any precept issued by a catchment board, but the Minister shall, in his decision upon any appeal in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of this section, make such provision as may be necessary for adjusting as between such internal drainage board and the council of any such county or county borough any payments made in compliance with any such precept pending such decision being made. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that when there is any dispute as to payment between two counties the money should be forthcoming to the catchment board. There might be disputes going on and the catchment board would have no money at all. The idea of this subsection is that they should pay out first and dispute afterwards.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 25, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we can probably go a good way in the direction of accepting this Amendment if we could discuss the matter between now and Report. We should probably come to an agreement.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am quite satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20, as amended, 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 a council or an internal drainage board shall pay, in accordance with any precept so issued to it, the amount thereby demanded.

LORD DERAMORE moved, in subsection (1), before "a council," to insert "subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of this section." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and one lower down run together. The idea is that the county council should have some idea—

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 31, after ("and") insert the said words.—(Lord Deramore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 17, line 13, at end insert the following new subsections:— () The amount demanded by any precept issued by a catchment board to the council of a county shall not without the consent of the council exceed the sum which would be produced by a rate of one half of a penny in the pound levied in the county on the rateable value of the hereditaments situate within the catchment area. () 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 hoard 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."—(Lord Phillimore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERAMORE moved, after subsection (1), to insert:— () It shall be the duty of a catchment board to prepare, in a form to be prescribed by the Minister, a statement of the purposes to which the amount demanded by any precept issued by the board under this section is intended to be applied, and to send a copy of such statement with every precept to which it relates. () 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. The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept that.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Rating powers of drainage boards other than Catchment Boards.

(4) A drainage board may, at their option, make a drainage rate as either—

1. (a) an acreage rate, that is to say, a rate assessed on the basis of acreage as regards agricultural hereditaments, but on the basis of annual value as regards other hereditaments; or
837
2. (b) an annual value rate, that is to say, a rate assessed on the basis of annual value as regards all hereditaments;

but, subject to the provisions of this section, every drainage rate shall be assessed at a uniform amount per acre or per pound throughout the area.

(7) A drainage board may, if they think fit, having regard to the varying degrees of benefit to be derived from works of drainage by hereditaments in different portions of the drainage district, make and levy differential rates and may for that purpose from time to time by order divide the district into sub-districts and determine the proportion which the amount per acre, or, as the case may be, the amount per pound of annual value, to be assessed upon the occupiers of agricultural land in any sub-district, shall bear to the amount to be so assessed in any other sub-district within the drainage district.

So long as any such order is in force, the provisions of the five last preceding subsections shall apply in the case of a sub-district as they apply in the case of a drainage district not divided into sub-districts.

LORD DERAMORE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "hereditaments" in paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: This clause provides that a drainage board may make differential rates, but it has been suggested that the lines proposed to be omitted are a little inconsistent in this respect. I am told that this point has been discussed with the Minister of Agriculture, and I was asked to put down this Amendment merely for the purpose of getting an official explanation of the objection to it.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 12.—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I rather think the noble Lord is under the impression that by omitting these lines you will do away with any risk of denying a drainage board the right to prescribe differential rating. Is that so?

LORD DERAMORE

Yes, I think so.

EARL DE LA WARR

Differential rating is provided for. The noble Lord might look at subsection (7) of Clause 23. The omission of these words, therefore, is unnecessary. I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance of the Government to that effect.

LORD DERAMORE

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR

There are several drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 19, line 28, leave out ("subject as hereinafter provided") Page 19, lines 31 and 32, leave out ("provided that for the purposes of this subsection") and insert ("(7) For the purposes of this section") Page 19, lines 38 and 39, leave out ("a railway") and insert ("such a railway as aforesaid").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (7), after "a drainage board," to insert "after consultation in the case of an internal drainage board with the catchment board." The noble Earl said: Under Clause 7 the general supervision of the drainage in the catchment area is placed under the catchment board. Therefore, we feel it desirable that where an internal drainage board wishes to exercise the power conferred by subsection (7) of this clause, it should previously consult with the catchment board which is primarily responsible. This Amendment is designed to ensure that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, after ("board") insert ("after consultation in the case of an internal drainage board with the catchment board.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The remaining Amendments to this clause are either drafting or consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 20, line 16, leave out ("Subject as hereinafter provided") Page 20, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("or that rates at reduced amounts only") Page 20, line 24, leave out ("or in part") Page 20, line 26, leave out ("last foregoing subsection") and insert ("this section.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24, agreed to.

Clause 25:

Operation and incidence of drainage rates.

(4) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the assessing of persons to a drainage rate in respect of any hereditament, and their liability in regard to the rate:— (a) Every rate shall be assessed upon the person who at the date of the making of the rate is, or is deemed to be, the occupier of the hereditament:

(d) Where a person who is, or is deemed to be, the occupier of a hereditament is in occupation thereof for part only of the period in respect of which an occupier's drainage rate is made, he shall, but subject and without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this subsection, be chargeable with such part only of the total amount of the rate as bears to that total amount the same proportion as the number of days during which he is, or is deemed to be, in occupation bears to the total number of days comprised in the said period:

THE EARL OF HALSBURY had given Notice to move, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), to leave out "or is deemed to be."

LORD DANESFORT

Might I be allowed to move the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Earl in order to find out what the words mean? Paragraph (a) on which this Amendment arises says that every rate shall be assessed upon the person who at the date of making the rate is, or is deemed to be, the occupier of the hereditament. What do the words "deemed to be" mean? I looked at the interpretation clause but I could not find what was meant by an occupier who is deemed to be occupier. I suppose it means a man who is not an occupier but for some mysterious reason is deemed to be one. What is the meaning of the expression?

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 9, leave out ("or is deemed to be").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

It is to ensure that if land is unoccupied the owner shall become liable for the rates. Drainage rates are levied in respect of works that are executed on land, subject to the rating. It would be, therefore, obviously undesirable for a drainage authority to be unable to recover a rate if the land were unoccupied. For that reason, we feel that it would be best if the noble Lord did not press the Amendment.

LORD DANESFORT

I accept the noble Earl's explanation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (4), after "here ditament is," to insert "or is deemed to be." The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 21, after ("is") insert ("or is deemed to be.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 26 to 31 agreed to.

Clause 32:

Election of members and proceedings Of drainage boards.

32.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, drainage boards, other than catchment boards, shall consist of elected members, and the provisions set out in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the persons to vote at the election of members of such 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.

EARL DE LA WARE moved to add to subsection (2):— and any such rules shall contain provisions—

1. (i) for allowing any person or body of persons entitled to vote at an election to vote by a deputy; and
2. (ii) for the preparation of registers of electors including provisions with respect to the making of objections to entries in any such registers and the hearing and determination of such objections; and
3. (iii) with respect to the holding and conduct of elections, including provisions as to returning officers, nominations, polls and the counting of votes."

The noble Earl said: This Amendment enables any person or body of persons to vote by deputy; for example, somebody is away and wishes his agent to vote for him. It also provides machinery for the register of electors. It is very largely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 30, after ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33:

General powers of drainage boards.

33.—(1) Every drainage board acting within its district shall have power—

1. (a) to maintain existing works, that is to say, to cleanse, repair or otherwise maintain in a due state of efficiency any 841 existing watercourse or outfall of water or any existing wall or other defence against water:
2. (b) to improve any existing works, that is to say, to deepen, widen, straighten or otherwise improve any existing watercourse or outfall for water, or remove mill dams, weirs or other obstructions to watercourses or outfalls for water, or raise, widen, or otherwise alter any existing wall or other defence against water:
3. (c) to construct new works, that is to say, to make any new watercourse or new outfall for water or erect any new defence against water, to erect any machinery or do any other act not herein-before referred to, required for the drainage, necessary supply of water for cattle, warping, or irrigation, of the area comprised within their district.

(2) A drainage board desiring to execute drainage works for the benefit of their district in lands outside that district shall have the like powers in that behalf as are conferred by this Act on persons interested in land which is capable of being drained or improved and desiring to execute drainage works for that purpose, and any expense incurred by a drainage board under this subsection shall be defrayed as if the expense had been incurred in the district of the drainage board.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Amendment to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 40, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1). The noble Lord said: The clause enacts that every drainage board shall have power to maintain existing works, cleanse, repair or otherwise maintain in a state of efficiency any existing watercourse, etc., and goes on:— (b) to improve any existing works, that is to say, to deepen, widen, straighten or otherwise improve any existing watercourse of outfall for water, or remove mill dams, weirs or other obstructions to watercourses or outfalls for water, or raise, widen, or otherwise alter any existing wall or other defence against water: (c) to construct new works, that is to say, to make any new watercourse or new outfall for water or erect any new defence against water, to erect any machinery or do any other act not hereinbefore referred to, required for the drainage, necessary supply of water for cattle, warping, or irrigation, of the area comprised within their district. In view of the state of the finances of the country it does appal me to consider that we are going to give these enormous powers to a body which will not have to provide a single penny out of its own pocket, but will be able to impose upon the unfortunate ratepayers of the district all these enormous expenses.

I think everyone of your Lordships knows perfectly well that a drainage scheme within the last thirty or forty years has not only cost an enormous sum of money, but has been absolutely useless from the point of view of returning a profit to the person who has spent the money. Some few years ago I happened to live close to Peterborough at a place where I think £100,000 had been spent in redeeming what was called Whittlesey Mere and the only result of that was that when the owner who had redeemed Whittlesey Mere died his successor was so impoverished that he had to sell the property. All your Lordships know that at the present moment even that land which is drained does not make a profit. Is it therefore advisable from a business point of view to spend large sums of money which, if they did succeed in draining the land, would only leave you land which cannot pay, or which will only pay a very small portion of the money spent upon it? The result would be that you would spend your money and lose the interest which you ought to receive on that money and this at a time when practically everybody in the country has no money left. It seems to me nothing short of lunacy to do things of this sort, and in this kind of way. I hope we shall reject these two paragraphs. If it is found that the various boards set up under this Bill are proceeding in an economical, wise and business-like manner, then it will be possible to enlarge them, but to give to unknown people these enormous powers of spending other people's money seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 1, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I presume your Lordships will take the paragraphs separately. If the Amendment is not agreed to Lord Cranbrook's can come at the end of paragraph (b).

LORD PHILLIMORE

Before that question is put may I ask the noble Earl at what point in the Bill compensation to persons whose mill dams, weirs, or other obstructions are removed finds its place? I cannot find anywhere in the Bill, which professes, I think, in most of these matters to follow the precedent of the Act of 1861, any reference to the compensation of the landowner whose property is removed under the guise of being an obstruction, whereas under the Act of 1861 that was properly provided.

LORD BAYFORD

May I ask the noble Earl whether any of these numerous provisions which the noble Lord has read out is a new one? I was under the impression that they were all possessed by existing drainage boards and that this was simply a matter of codifying the existing law.

EARL DE LA WARR

What the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, says is perfectly true. This clause follows, as closely as possible under the altered circumstances, Section 16 of the Land Drainage Act, 1861, which has been in operation ever since. Really I think the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has let his imagination run a little bit when he talks about unknown people spending unlimited sums of money, When these men to whom this expenditure is to be entrusted are very largely county councillors and when he has only a little while ago carried an Amendment which has resulted in a limitation of the expenditure of these county councils, whom these men are representing, to a halfpenny rate. In view of that I think your Lordships will agree with me that really his words "unknown people spending unlimited sums of money" are a little exaggerated, particularly when it is applied to clauses which have been in operation in our legislation between sixty and seventy years. There is one other point the noble Earl asked me, about compensation. If he looks at the same clause subsection (3) he will find the compensation provisions:— Where injury is sustained by any person by reason of the exercise by a drainage board of any of its powers under this section, the board shall be liable to make full compensation to the injured person, 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.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Does that principle carry through to Clause 42?

EARL DE LA WARR

I am inclined to think it applies purely to this clause.

LORD PHILLIMORE

That is really what I wanted to ascertain.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This is exactly the same sort of thing which we have already discussed. I do not see why they should go outside their district. If it is necessary to do this work, it can be done by persons interested in the work. Why they should go outside their own district I cannot conceive. I did not interrupt my noble friend Lord Bayford just now, but it does not follow that, because there are statements in an Act which enable people to do certain things which they have never done or only done in a small way, you should put in snore new people who, by the very fact that they are new, must do something to justify their existence.

LORD BAYFORD

Drainage boards have existed for years.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

But they have not done these things. I am a member of a drainage board myself. We carry out our duties with due regard to proper economy, which the noble Lord. Lord Bayford, does not seem to hear about. I do not suppose it is much use moving this Amendment but in order that we may have some explanation I beg to move formally.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 16, leave out subsection (2) —(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord has probably explained to a good many of us why it is necessary to have new drainage boards. It is very rarely that a drainage board wants to execute works outside its area, but it does sometimes occur that there may be some important outfall that it is necessary should be attended to and the drainage board is the natural authority for the work. This subsection was actually in the Land Drainage Act, 1918, and as between individuals the power has been in existence since 1861. I really do not see why what has been done between individual owners cannot now be done as between drainage districts and individuals or drainage districts and county councils. I hope your Lordships will leave this subsection in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Maintenance of drains]:

EARL DE LA WARR

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 36, leave out ("some").—(Earl De La warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERAMORE

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 14, at end insert ("(3) Any such notice may, if the board think fit, specify the works which they consider necessary for the purpose of putting the drain or any part thereof in proper order.")—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 4, at end insert ("(d) that such work as may be specified in the notice is unnecessary or excessive having regard to what is reasonably required to put the drain in proper order.")—(Lord Deramore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (11), ofter "conservators," to insert "conservancy authority." The noble Lord said: I think this is only a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 14, after ("conservators") insert ("conservancy authority").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I really do not think there is much to choose between the two expressions, but if the noble Lord prefers this we will accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 19, at end insert "() For the purposes of this section the person occupying the land on either side of the drain or part thereof shall be deemed to be the person having control of the drain unless he proves to the satisfaction of a court of summary jurisdiction to whom a complaint shall have been made that such control is vested in some other person."—(Lord Dermore.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35:

Enforcement of obligations to repair watercourses, bridges, &c.

(3) Any expenses reasonably incurred by drainage board in the exercise of their powers under this section may be recovered summarily as a civil debt from the person liable to repair, and if any question arises whether any expenses have been reasonably incurred as aforesaid, that question shall be referred to the Minister, whose decision shall be final.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "Minister, whose decision shall be final" and to insert "Court of Quarter Sessions." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I think will be acceptable to all noble Lords. The clause as it stands says that:— Any expenses reasonably incurred by a drainage board…may be recovered summarily as a civil debt from the person liable to repair, and if any question arises whether any expenses have been reasonably incurred as aforesaid, that question shall be referred to the Minister, whose decision shall be final. I wish to refer it to a Court of Quarter Sessions. I think the Minister, who is an interested party, should not be put in the position of a judge. The noble Earl has already accepted an appeal to a tribunal, and I suggest that he should follow up that good example by leaving out the Minister and inserting the Court of Quarter Sessions. If, on Report, it is thought that another Court would be better, I should have no objection. At present I think Quarter Sessions provide the best and simplest way of dealing with the matter.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 41, leave out from ("the") to end of line 42 and insert ("Court of Quarter Sessions").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The first two subsections of this clause are re-enactments of the Sewers Act, 1833. The noble Lord will be glad to see that we get further and further back. The words of subsection (3) down to "ratepayer" in line 39 are also re-enactment. If the noble Lord will refer to Section 15 of the Sewers Act, 1833, he will find that no appeal is given. If the person liable to do the work does not within seven days carry out the instructions given to him by the authority, the officer of the authority is empowered to do the work and the expenses incurred thereby "shall be paid by the person, body politic or corporate liable to such repair as aforesaid". It was felt, in making this re-enactment, that the landowner should be given some protection, and therefore, it was provided that, in case of dispute, the matter should be referred to the Minister, for the reason that this is largely a mechanical and engineering question and the Minister would refer it to his engineering advisers before giving his decision. How it could be referred to the Court of Quarter Sessions I do not know. It would be an entirely new arrangement and would almost need a new Act.

The noble Lord suggests some possible alternative body. No doubt he is thinking of the appeal tribunal. But that tribunal will be a body of very hard-worked men. Your Lordships are naturally anxious to see that individual rights are protected against bureaucratic tyranny, but we must think carefully before we call together a body consisting of a Judge of the High Court and three other important influential and busy men. This question can easily be decided by an engineering expert, whom the Minister would obviously call in. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It will do no good, and it will make the Bill more cumbersome and inconvenience a number of people.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I should be quite pleased to alter the words and put in the appeal tribunal. Perhaps that would be more consistent with the rest. It would be better than the Minister. The appeal tribunal will have the services of two experts. May I move in that form?

LORD BAYFORD

Let me make a suggestion that will probably meet the noble Lord. These last words are not really necessary at all. This debt would be recovered summarily as a civil debt. That means it would go into the County Court, which is quite capable of judging whether expenses are reasonably incurred or not—very much more capable, I think, than the Minister. I speak with experience, for I was once Minister of Agriculture. I would suggest cutting out the last words and leaving the County Court to decide.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I have no objection to the County Court, but certainly you must put in something, and be quite clear.

EARL DE LA WARR

Might I suggest, instead of the County Court, the Justices?

LORD CLINTON

I do not think you want anything after the word "repair" in line 39, because then a court of summary jurisdiction would decide.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I accept that.

EARL DE LA WARR

It would be taking away a protection, but I am willing to agree to Lord Clinton's suggestion.

LORD BAYFORD

I will move the Amendment in that form.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 39, leave out from ("repair") to the end of the clause.—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 36, 37 and 38 agreed to.

Clause 39:

Provision for transfer to drainage boards of powers and duties of navigation authorities. 39.—(1) With the approval of the Minister and of the Minister of Transport a drainage board may, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage district, enter into an arrangement with a navigation authority for any of the following purposes:—

1. (a) the transfer to the board of the whole or any part of the undertaking of, or of any of the powers, duties and obligations of, or any property vested in, the navigation authority as such:
2. (b) the alteration or improvement by the board of any of the works of the navigation authority:
3. (c) the making of payments by the board to the navigation authority or by the navigation authority to the board in respect of any matter for which provision is made by the arrangement.

(2) Any arrangement made under this section shall while in force have effect for all purposes as if enacted in this Act, but without prejudice to the power to provide by any subsequent arrangement so made for the variation or revocation thereof. (3) Subject to the provisions of this section, nothing in this Act shall operate to transfer to a drainage board any property vested in any navigation authority for navigation purposes or any powers, duties or obligations conferred or imposed upon any navigation authority as such. (4) A drainage board intending to enter into an arrangement under this section shall give notice of its intention to the Postmaster-General, and shall publish a like notice in such manner as the Minister may direct in the drainage district. (5) Where an arrangement has been made under this section the drainage hoard concerned shall cause a notice in such form as the Minister may prescribe to be published in the London Gazette stating that the arrangement has been made, and specifying the place at which a copy of the arrangement may be inspected by persons interested.

LORD BAYFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:— () 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. The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 23, at end insert the said new subsection —(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Accepted.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 29, leave out subsection (3).—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 39. The noble Lord said: This is another of these clauses which seem to me to give extraordinary power to the Minister, and this time he is coupled with the Minister of Transport. I do not know quite what the Minister of Transport has got to do with it. I was hoping that the Ministry of Transport would be abolished and I hope that when the next Government comes in they will carry out their original undertaking and abolish that Ministry. The clause says that— With the approval of the Minister and of the Minister of Transport a drainage board may, with a view to improving the drainage of the drainage district, enter into an arrangement with a navigation authority for… the transfer to the board of the whole or any part of the undertaking of, or of any of the powers, duties and obligations of, or any property vested in, the navigation authority as such: the alteration or improvement by the board of any of the works of the navigation authority: the making of payments by the board to the navigation authority or by the navigation authority to the Board in respect of any matter for which provision is made by the arrangement. That means any matter they like, I presume—and get the money I hope from the noble Earl, or at any rate a good portion of it.

The clause continues:— Any arrangement made under this section shall while in force have effect for all purposes as if enacted in this Act. So we are going to give force to certain arrangements by people of whom we know nothing as if the arrangements were enacted in an Act of Parliament. Personally I have always felt that if we were going to pass things we should have them in the Bill and know what we were doing and not give indefinite powers to other people. Then in another subsection the Postmaster-General is apparently brought in and the drainage board may enter into an arrangement with him. That may be for publishing notes, or something of that sort. There, again, I presume the result will be that they will not pay, and therefore the Post Office revenues will diminish. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 39.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This clause is purely permissive. It is also very largely a re-enactment of the Land Drainage Act of 1918. It is very necessary and desirable that drainage authorities should be allowed to negotiate with navigation authorities. To a very large extent their interests are the same, but occasionally, particularly when the navigation authority is not really in full operation, in minor ways their interests do need adjustment, and that is what this clause is designed to make possible. The power has been in operation for twelve years, and it has worked fairly satisfactorily. This is a clause which will, I think, become subject to the appeal tribunal, and the noble Lord will be glad to hear that the Minister does not enter into it at all.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am afraid that the reference to the Act of 1918 leaves me cold. Lord Danesfort pointed out that in 1918 we were thinking about the War and did very many foolish things. But as I understand there is a power of appeal, that does minimise the danger.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40 [Power to vary navigation rights]:

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON, on behalf of Viscount Bertie of Thame moved, in subsection (1), after "provisions," to insert "which deal exclusively with navigation." The noble Lord said: Lord Bertie has unfortunately had to leave the House. It is desirable that it should be made perfectly clear that the Minister can only vary clauses dealing with navigation matters.

Amendment moved— Page 34, lines 10 and 11, after ("provisions") insert the said words.—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think I can assure the noble Lord that the protection he is seeking is already really inherent in the Bill, and that this Amendment is not necessary for the purpose that he desires.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BAYFORD moved, after subsection (1), to insert as a new subsection:— () 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. The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42:

Obstructions.

(2) If where an application is made to a drainage board for their consent under this section the board fail within two months after the receipt of the application to notify in writing to the applicant their determination with respect to the application, the board shall be deemed to have consented thereto, and if any question arises under this section whether the consent of a drainage board is unreasonably withheld that question shall be referred to the Minister, whose decision shall be final, and in any case where a navigation authority is concerned the Minister in determining the question shall act in consultation with the Minister of Transport.

(5) Any person not obeying an order under this section to abate a nuisance shall, if he fails to satisfy the court that he has used all due diligence to carry out such order, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds per day during his default and the board by whom the complaint was made may abate the nuisance and recover summarily as a civil debt from the person in default the expenses of so doing.

LORD BAYFORD

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, lines 26 and 27, leave out ("whose decision shall be final") and insert ("for decision".)—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this is the point which we decided is a matter for the engineering expert rather than for the appeal tribunal.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to omit from subsection (2) all words after "final." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 27, leave out from ("final") to end of line 29.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved, after subsection (2) to insert as a new subsection:— (3) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection (2) of this section may at any time within three months of the date thereof, appeal to the appeal tribunal. The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bayford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move, in subsection (5), to leave out "per day during his default" and insert "for every day on which his default continues."

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

The noble Viscount has asked me to move this Amendment for him.

EARL DE LA WART

We will accept this. We suggest that the drafting would be better if the word "during" was subsituted for "on." The Amendment would then read "for every day during which his default continues."

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 9, leave out ("per day during his default") and insert ("for every day during which his default continues").—(Lord Fairfax of Cameron.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert as a new subsection: (8) Nothing in this section shall apply to any works under the control of a navigation authority or to any works executed under or in pursuance of any Act or any order having the force of an Act. The noble Earl said: This is really a drafting Amendment with the object of bringing the clause into conformity with the Act of 1861. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to amend the Amendment as follows: After "authority" insert "harbour authority or conservancy authority." The noble Lord said: I beg to move my Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Earl.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— After ("authority") insert ("harbour authority or conservancy authority").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We will accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Perhaps the noble Earl would now answer the ques- tion which I put to him on Clause 33, whether the principle of compensation extends to Clause 42? It would appear under the clause that any mill dam or weir may be regarded as an obstruction and thereupon removed as a nuisance without compensation; whereas under Clause 33 (3) compensation is payable to a person whose mill dam, weir or other obstruction is removed. It seems a little arbitrary to leave it open as to whether the mill darn or weir is to be considered a nuisance or whether it is not and in one case give compensation and in the other not.

EARL DE LA WARR

In so far as it is deemed to be a nuisance. There is no compensation for a nuisance.

LORD CLINTON

Should there not be some compensation? This refers to mills put up before this Act comes into operation—either before or after the commencement of this Act. Surely it is not right of any authority to go along and remove mills from a river without paying the owner for their value.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this clause only refers to mill dams or weirs or other like obstructions which are to be erected after the commencement of the Act.

LORD CLINTON

No—before or after the commencement of this Act.

LORD PHILLIMORE

If the noble Earl will refer to subsection (7) he will see:— 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—. In other words, the drainage board, which is simply concerned with drainage, decides whether a mill dam or weir is a nuisance. If it decides that it is a nuisance it refuses to pay for it. That does not seem fair.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

May I point out that a good deal of the flooding in connection with mills is caused by the alterations that have been made in the mills by the putting in of modern machinery in place of the old? Therefore I think we should remember that the old mills did no harm.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps I should point out to noble Lords that in subsection (6) a case has to be made out against them in a court of summary jurisdiction. If either party to the proceedings is aggrieved by the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction he may appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. That means it has to go to a court of summary jurisdiction first and then there is an appeal to Quarter Sessions, and on any such appeal the Court of Quarter Sessions shall have power to make any order which the court of summary jurisdiction might have made. Then subsection (7) provides a certain protection. "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 the person having power to remove the obstruction in the same manner" etc. There is protection there. He has not to prove his case.

LORD PHILLIMORE

Does the noble Earl suggest the Court of Quarter Sessions will decide whether in fact compensation should be paid?

EARL DE LA WARR

It decides whether there is a case or not.

LORD DANESFORT

This is a very strangely drawn clause. You have in Clause 42 a prohibition for a person either before or after the commencement of this Act to erect these mill dams and weirs "without the consent of the drainage board" and it goes on in subsection (3) to say, "If any obstruction is erected or raised or otherwise altered in contravention of this section"—that means, I take it, without the consent in writing—"it shall be deemed to be a nuisance." In other words it might be a perfectly proper thing to erect this dam and the drainage board might refuse their consent unreasonably. Although it says that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld they might refuse it; then it becomes a nuisance ipso facto. That is an extraordinary result, but it is the result of the clause.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble Lord overlooks the protection given—that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld. I do not see how a drainage board can possibly make out its case if it unreasonably withholds consent.

LORD DANESFORT

Then you have a law suit.

EARL DE LA WARR

It has to make out its case that it is not unreasonably withholding its consent.

LORD HASTINGS

Is there not a point that we have lost sight of? It is conceivable that the drainage board might itself make a nuisance by an obstruction which until the existence of the drainage board was not a nuisance at all. Much more water may come down a particular water-course and cause that obstruction to become a nuisance when it was not previously one. That is a point that ought not to be lost sight of. It would be a great hardship on the owner not to be paid compensation for what was not an obstruction before the drainage board came into existence.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it is a case that will have to be dealt with on Report.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am very reluctant to trouble the noble Earl, but I think this clause requires careful consideration. What makes it more difficult to read consistently is that it applies to mills and obstructions erected before the passing of the Act. It is a little difficult to see how, if they were erected before the passing of the Act, they can have received the consent of the drainage authorities created by the Act. In that event it seems to me that an individual might be victimised in a way which the noble Earl does not intend him to be. A man who has erected something before the Act, without the consent of an authority which did not then exist, may be brought before a court of summary jurisdiction and, as he has not got the consent of an authority which did not then exist, he will be guilty of nuisance and that will be the finding of the court. It will not be much good putting in an appeal to Quarter Sessions because Quarter Sessions will be bound to find he is guilty of a nuisance. I see these difficulties and I would ask him to scrutinise the clause between now and the Report stage to see that we have not made a mistake.

EARL DE LA WARR

I shall certainly do so but, at the risk of prolonging the proceedings, I would point out something which the noble Lord may not have noticed. According to the clause a man may not raise or alter an obstruction, whether erected before or after the Act, without consent. Where it is erected he may not raise it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The drafting is obscure.

EARL DE LA WARR

I shall look into it. I think the intention is fairly clear.

LORD PHILLIMORE

In subsection (7) the description is "erected before the commencement of this Act."

EARL DE LA WARR

I shall look into it.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 43 [Power to buy, sell or exchange land]:

LORD DANESFORT moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:— () Nothing in this section or any order made thereunder shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of this Act of any land which has been acquired by any authority, company, body or person for the purposes of a railway, harbour, dock, canal, water or other public utility undertaking. The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment which I understand the Government are willing to accept.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 44, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Danesfort.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44:

Borrowing by drainage boards.

44.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a drainage board may, with the sanction of the Minister, for the purpose of defraying any costs, charges or expenses incurred by them in the execution of this Act, or for the purpose of discharging any loan contracted by them under this Act or under any enactment repealed by this Act, borrow or reborrow on the security of any property vested in the board or any rates to be levied by or contributions to be paid to the board under this Act.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1), after "of," ["security of any property"] to insert "and may for that purpose mortgage." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment and I understand it is consequential on the incorporation of subsection (4) of the provisions of the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847, regarding mortgages and is necessary.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 16, after ("of") insert ("and may for that purpose mortgage").—(Lord Desborouyh.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 44 conferring upon the drainage board the powers of borrowing, he will understand that the powers of borrowing include powers of mortgaging. He will observe that the words in Clause 44 are "borrow…on the security of any property vested in the board." This clearly covers mortgaging.

LORD DESBOBOUGH

On the assurance of the noble Earl I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I understand they have no property and may be penniless for years.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR

The three following Amendments are drafting Amendments.

Amendments moved— Page 37, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("on the recommendation of the Minister"). Page 37, line 34, leave out ("any purpose for") and insert ("the purpose of any works for the purpose of Page 37, line 35, leave out from ("borrow") to end of line 38, and insert ("and in the case of a loan to a catchment hoard on the security of any contributions to be paid to the board under this Act").(Earl De La Warr.)

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45 [By-laws]:

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert the following new subsection:— () Notwithstanding anything in this Act no by-law made by a drainage board shall apply to any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority or to any part of the undertaking of any such authority. The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new 'subsection relating to by-laws.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 29, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I cannot agree to this subsection.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I should like to know why. I consider it most objectionable that we, for instance, in the Port of London Authority should have another authority coming in and making by-laws which might possibly clash with ours. We ourselves have wide powers for making by-laws and I do not see why another authority should come in and make their by-laws.

EARL DE LA WARR

The whole object of this Bill is to place the management of rivers, in so far as drainage is concerned, in the hands of the catchment boards. In the interests of land drainage it is essential that a catchment board shall have power to make its own by-laws. It would be quite useless to confer those powers if certain users of the river are to be exempted. After all, I think the interests the noble Lord represents are really amply and fully protected in Clause 56. The noble Lord will observe that the power cannot arbitrarily be exercised by a catchment board. Advertisement of proposed by-laws is provided for and also the by-laws have to be confirmed by the Minister, who will see that the interests of all persons affected by these by-laws shall not be affected unreasonably.

LORD DANESFORT

May I ask where the noble Earl is reading from?

EARL DE LA WARR

I was really paraphrasing, but I referred the noble Lord to Clause 56 where his protection really lies. I think the noble Lord will find when we come to Clause 56 that the interests he represents are really fully protected.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

Will the noble Earl point out which words protect the interests of our authorities?

EARL DE LA WARR

If the noble Lord looks at paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 56 he will see it says:— …any river, canal, dock, harbour, lock, reservoir or basin (being a river, canal, dock, harbour, lock, reservoir or basin which any persons are, by virtue of an Act of Parliament, entitled to navigate or use or in respect of the navigation whereon or the use whereof any persons are"— and so on. Then paragraph (c) says:— to execute any works in, through or under any wharves, quays, docks, harbours or basins belonging to any navigation authority"— and it goes on to subsection (2). I think the noble Lord will see there is very full protection there.

LORD DANESFORT

I think that the portions of Clause 56 which the noble Earl has read do not give the protection which is sought by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. What we ask is not to prevent these people making by-laws but to prevent them making by-laws which interfere with by-laws made by navigation and other authorities. Navigation and other authorities have power to make by-laws and have in many cases made them and made them legally. These by-laws are binding. Why should you give these new authorities power to interfere in any way with these by-laws? The noble Earl says we are sufficiently protected by Clause 56. I do not think the words he has read give any protection at all. They do not apply to by-laws. But even if he were right I think this Amendment is necessary in order to make the matter clear. At any rate if his intention is that the by-laws of navigation authorities shall not be interfered with, and if he says that it is the right thing to do, surely he could have no objection to accepting my noble friend's Amendment. It is in accordance with reason and, I gather, with the intention of the Government.

EARL DE LA WARR

I might point out to Lord Ritchie, who is speaking for the Port of London Authority, that there is no drainage board that can interfere with them, so the noble Lord, at any rate, is quite safe.

LORD DERAMORE

There are other navigations. I happen to represent the Aire and Calder Navigation of the River Ouse. We have by-laws where the navigation authority is in the catchment area on the Lower Ouse.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I am not only speaking for the Port of London Authority but for all the docks and harbours of the country—for the Docks and Harbours Authorities Association. I cannot see that we get the protection of which the noble Earl speaks under Clause 56.

EARL DE LA WARR

I will look into the matter again. I should have thought that Clause 56, taken with subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 45, would have provided a very thorough protection for dock and harbour authorities. If the noble Lord is still not happy about it, I will look into it again.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl would engage to do that, I shall be glad. I was very much struck with Lord Ritchie's speech. It seems absurd to have two authorities with concurrent powers making by-laws. Just conceive the feelings of people subject to concurrent authorities making by-laws. They would not know whether they were standing on their head or their heels. I think the matter might well be looked into, and if the noble Earl will undertake to do this I think that will probably be sufficient. Perhaps I might even suggest that he might now release us from our labours.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am only anxious to ensure that we shall not have to trouble you to be here to-morrow after dinner.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that will be all right. Will the noble Earl promise to look into this matter?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I am much obliged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 agreed to.

Clause 47 [Reports by and accounts of drainage boards]:

EARL DE LA WARR

I have a number of drafting Amendments to this clause.

Amendments moved— Page 39, line 38, leave out from ("report") to ("to") in line 40. Page 39, line 42, after ("situate") insert ("and, in the case of an internal board, also to the catchment board") Page 40, line 31, leave out from ("copy") to ("to") in line 34. Page 40, line 36, after ("situate") insert ("and, if the district of the board is situate in a catchment area, also to the catchment board").—(Earl De La warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.