LAND DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 20 May 1930 vol 77 cc869-925

House again in Committee (according to Order):

[The EARL OF DONOUGRMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 48:

Powers of county councils and county borough councils.

(4) Section forty of this Act, which authorises the Minister by Order to revoke, vary or amend the provisions of any local Act relating to navigation rights over waters within a drainage district, shall apply to waters which are not within a drainage district with the modification that, in the case of any such waters an application for the purposes of the said section must be made by the councils of the counties or county boroughs within whose areas the waters to which the application relates are contained.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) authorises the Minister by Order to revoke, vary or amend the provisions of any local Act relating to navigation rights over waters within a drainage district. That has already been done under Clause 40 of this Bill. The subsection then goes further and authorises him to apply those powers to waters not within a drainage district, with the modification that in the case of any such waters an application for the purposes of the section must be made by the county councils or county borough councils within whose areas the waters to which the application relates are contained. I object to that because it seems to me that the Minister and the various county councils or county borough councils may put their heads together and alter Acts of Parliament. They may "revoke, vary or amend the provisions of any local Act," and they may do that in regard to waters which are not within a drainage district. That seems to give the Minister very great powers, and I do not think it is at all advisable to allow county councils or Bounty borough councils to have power by consultation with the Minister to alter, revoke, or amend various Acts of Parliament. There is already power to do this in respect of waters which are within a district, and I do not think it is necessary to give power for waters which are outside. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 28, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Banbury of Southall.).

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid the Government do not want to accept this Amendment. We have already discussed this principle quite fully, I think, as the noble Lord has mentioned, on Clause 40, and decided not to alter it. This is, surely, rather consequential on what was decided upon Clause 40. As the original clause can be set in motion on the application of a catchment board it is necessary that some provision should be made so that the clause may be set in motion in areas where there not a catchment board and where the drainage authority is some other body, such as the county council. That is perfectly fair, I think, and there is really no reason why the powers of these councils acting as drainage authorities should be in any way different from the catchment board. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, seeing the Government do not want to accept it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

We have already initiated a bad precedent, and the noble Earl is correct when he says that having done a bad thing once it is rather difficult to say that we must not repeat it. I do not think it is a good thing, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 48, to insert the following new clause:—

Powers of persons authorised by councils of county or county boroughs to enter on land.

".—(1) The council of a county or county borough may, for the purpose of the exercise of their functions under this Act, authorise any person to enter on and inspect any land, and any person so authorised may, after giving notice in writing to the occupier, and on production, if so required, of his authority, enter on and inspect the land accordingly.

(2) If any person obstructs or impedes in the execution of his duties any person authorised under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."

The noble Earl said: This clause is really in the same direction as Clause 48. It is the new clause consequential on Clause 41. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 48 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49:

Schemes for drainage of small areas.

49.—(1) Where the council of a county or county borough are of opinion that any land which is within the county or borough (whether the land is or is not within a catchment area) is capable of improvement by drainage works, but that the case cannot be met by the constitution of a drainage district under this Act, and that the expenses of executing and maintaining the works will not exceed the increase in the value of the land arising therefrom, the council may, in accordance with the provisions of a scheme made under this section enter on the lands and execute such drainage works as appear to them desirable.

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

1. (a) the works proposed to be executed;
2. (b) the area to be improved thereby;
3. (c) the estimated cost of the execution of the works, which shall not exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre in the area to be improved, or five thousand pounds in all, and the maximum amount to be recoverable by the council in respect of the costs thereof;
4. (d) the manner in which the expenses of executing and maintaining the works are to be apportioned amongst the lands comprised in the area;

and shall give to the owners and occupiers of land comprised within the area, and to any navigation authority or other body or person appearing to the council to be affected by the scheme, notice in the prescribed manner of the making of the draft scheme, and of the place where it can be inspected and of the time within which objections to the scheme may be made to the council, and the council shall, before settling the scheme, consider any objections which may have been duly made and, if the owners of one-half or more of the land comprised within the area to which the draft scheme relates have duly made objections thereto and have not withdrawn those objections, cause a public local inquiry to be held with reference to the scheme.

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

(4) For the purpose of executing and maintaining any works under a scheme made under this section a council shall within the area to which the scheme relates or in which the works are to be executed, have all the powers of a drainage board under this Act, but subject to the restrictions imposed by this Act on the exercise of those powers.

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

Provided that, if any owner so requires in writing, the sum payable by him shall be recoverable by the council by means of a rate to be made and levied by the council in like manner, subject to the like provisions and with the like incidence, as are applicable in case of a private improvement rate for private improvement expenses incurred by a local authority under the Public Health Act, 1875, with this qualification, that the council shall, on the application of the owner or occupier of any land subject to the rate, determine the proportion of the rate to be borne by them respectively, having regard to the benefit derived from the works, the contract of tenancy, and all other circumstances of the case.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out Clause 49. The noble Lord said: I attach considerable importance to this Amendment to leave out Clause 49 which seems to me to be a very dangerous clause. It enacts that where the council of a county or county borough are of opinion that any land which is within the county or borough is capable of improvement by drainage works then, without the consent of the owner but merely because they think that the land is capable of improvement, they may enter upon the land—as I have said, without the consent of the owner —and may spend up to £5 an acre, provided that the total expenditure does not come to more than £5,000. Having done that, they can compel the owner to pay them £5 an acre or whatever the sum may be, provided that it is not more than £5,000. It is true that there is a provision which would enable them to put some of the charge upon the tenant; but I would ask your Lordships, in the present position of agriculture what would be the attitude of a tenant who suddenly finds that a county council, having been upon his farm without his consent and without the consent of the landlord, requires him to pay an increased rent? because that is what it comes to.

As Mr. Asquith used to say, we are really getting on ! It is proposed at this moment when, as your Lordships know, agriculture is in an extraordinarily bad state, that we should allow county borough councils—what on earth do county borough councils know about drainage for agricultural land?—if they are of opinion that it is wise or that the land may he improved, to spend large sums of money upon it, and that they should do that without the consent of the owner of the land. That, I think, is a ridiculous proposal to bring forward at the present moment. Unless I am very much mistaken—I have not read the Report of the Royal Commission, and I am open to correction if I am wrong—the Royal Commission said that the present moment was not an occasion when increased burdens should be put upon agricultural land. I earnestly hope, especially in view of my having acceded at once to the wish of the noble Earl a few moments ago, that he will now reciprocate that desire to be pleasant and will accept my Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 49.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I would very much like to be able to reciprocate the nice feeling shown by the noble Lord on the last occasion, but I think that some of his Amendments would be a little easier to meet if he had read the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage. The fact that we have just elicited explains, I think, some of his attitude towards this Bill. This clause has been in operation for over twelve years. It was in the Act of 1918. The only alteration was made in 1926 and not by this Bill. Originally the powers under which the section was operated were in the hands of the Minister. In 1926 those powers were taken from the Minister and handed over to county councils and county borough councils. I might say that the county councils and county borough councils place great value on these powers, because it is obvious that there are in the country a large number of areas which are far too small, and the schemes required to be operated within them are far too small to justify the setting up of a catchment area, or even, perhaps, a separate internal drainage board. It is very convenient, therefore, to be able to give these powers to county councils.

There is only one further point, and a very important one that the noble Lord did not mention. That is that over 50 per cent. of the land owners have to approve of the scheme before it can be put into operation. I think your Lordships will agree that that provides a very strong protection to land owners. I hope you will not accept this Amendment as it would mean that a large number of perhaps small and apparently unimportant schemes, but important enough to their own locality, would be exempted from the operation of this Bill. Again let me say that this power has been in operation in one form or another for twelve years and there has been no complaint.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The noble Earl says this power has been in operation for twelve years, and that it was first of all put into a Statute in 1918. I think my noble friend Lord Danesfort yesterday said that in 1918 the attention of Parliament was centred upon different things, and it is not, therefore, a very good precedent to quote. But if I understood the noble Earl rightly an alteration was made in 1926. Let us make another alteration. If the Act in 1918 could be amended in 1926, there is no reason why it should not be again amended in 1930 in a proper direction. I do not know whether I have any support, but if I have not it is no use going on, though I should hope to have some support because I consider this a very dangerous clause.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 49 agreed to.

Clause 50 agreed to.

Clause 51:

Powers of Surrey and Middlesex County Councils for prevention of overflow of River Thames.

51. The council of the County of Surrey and the council of the County of Middlesex shall respectively in relation to areas within those counties but not within the Thames catchment area have all such powers and perform all such duties as may be exercised or are to be performed by the London County Council under the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Acts, 1879 to 1929, for the protection of premises within the limits of those Acts from floods or inundations caused by the overflow of the River Thames, and all the provisions contained in those Acts for the prevention of the overflow of the River Thames shall, subject to the necessary modifications and adaptations, apply in such parts of the Counties of Surrey and Middlesex as are situate outside the Thames catchment area as they apply in London, but with the omission of references to anything to be clone to or by any public body within the administrative county of London.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to leave out Clause 51. The noble Earl said: This clause was originally inserted purely tentatively in order to include certain county councils—the County Councils of Middlesex and Surrey, which deal with the protection of banks. The River Thames falls under the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy and the county councils in certain areas, but the county councils are not desirous of undertaking these duties.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 51.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52:

Saving of existing powers of councils.

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

EARL DE LA WARR moved, at the beginning, to insert "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act." The noble Earl said: This really is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that Clause 52 does not conflict with Clause 15.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 40, at the beginning insert ("Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act.")—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

LORD GAINFORD had given Notice to move, after Clause 52, to insert the following new clause:

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

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

The noble Lord said: This is a new clause suggested to me by the National Association of Fishery Boards. They desire me, not only on behalf of that organisation but of the great number of fishery boards they represent, to press this Amendment on the attention of your Lordships this afternoon. The largest organisation in the National Association is the Severn and Trent Fishery Board, which represents as many as 112,000 licensed rod fishermen, and they take very considerable interest in the preservation of the fish life of the rivers of this country. There appears to be in this Bill no obligation whatever upon the new authorities which are to be set up—the catchment boards and the drainage boards —to have any regard to the effect which anything they do might have upon the fisheries and the fish life of this country. The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, is regarded by all inland fishermen as well as by many of those who gain their livelihood in the river estuaries round our coasts as their Magna Charta. Certain powers were conferred upon the fishery boards by that Act, and a large number of powers are being given by this Bill to the catchment and drainage boards which appear to conflict with the powers that have already been granted to fishery boards by the Act of 1923, and there is great danger, unless a clause of this kind is inserted in the Bill, that fishery interests will be injured and remain injured permanently.

For instance, the catchment authorities have jurisdiction over the Banks and new works of arterial drainage, and, consequently, over the spawning beds in our rivers. They have also power to remove weeds without apparently consulting the fishing interests. Every fisherman knows that weeds contain food necessary to the preservation of fish life. Weeds also very much help the oxidisation of rivers and are a very important element in fish life. The aeration of the water is also of great importance to the fishing interests of the country and we ought not to give the bodies to which I have referred powers to dredge rivers in a way which would perhaps destroy fish life. They have also powers to divert a stream, which may interfere with the salmon spawn, and there is no obligation placed upon them, apparently, respecting the fish beds which are connected with the dams and weirs and other obstructions which the new boards may not regard as being wanted for their own particular purposes. In regard to all these matters the Bill is absolutely silent.

When I come to drainage boards I find that they also have power to prevent fish reaching the spawning beds. They have powers to interfere with the molts getting down to the sea after they have reached an age when they ought to be allowed to get to the sea in order that they may develop into salmon. Clause 39 gives powers to the drainage boards to dredge rivers, apparently to the detriment of fish life. In Clause 42 powers are given to make alterations which will affect fish passes. By Clause 43 these drainage boards have the power of dealing with bridges, mills, dams and weirs, while under Section 16 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act fishery boards were given powers of an exactly similar character. Therefore, you may have these new authorities in absolute conflict with the interests of the fishery hoards. Clause 45, which we discussed last night, contains a power to make by-laws. The power of making by-laws has also been given under the Fisheries Act, and therefore the by-laws made by these different authorities may come directly into conflict with the by-laws required for the protection of fish.

I want the Committee to realise how important it is for us to see that nothing is done to injure the fishing industry, especially round our costs where fishermen are engaged in getting salmon. In addition to that, there are the interests of thousands of working men who take their recreation in fishing for what are generally called coarse fish, and it is vitally important to them that nothing mould be done to disturb the fishing in which they take so much interest. It this clause is not inserted, there is a danger that these authorities may assume that this Bill, when it becomes an Act will take precedence over the Act of 1923. It is in order that the attention of the public as well as of those authorities may be drawn to the importance of our fishing interests that I beg to move the insertion of the clause which stands in my name.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the noble Lord will help us as to the form of his Amendment. I am not sure if it is printed correctly. It seems to me that the word "that" at the beginning of each of the subsections is hardly necessary. It is not a proviso. It is a new clause.

LORD GAINFORD

Then I will move my Amendment beginning with the word "Nothing."

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 12, insert the following new clause:

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

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

Loan DESBOROUGH

I hope that as Chairman of the Salmon and Trout Association and of other angling societies, I may he permitted to support the appeal to what I may call the fishery side of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I should like to appeal to the noble Earl to accept this new clause, preserving the powers given under previous Acts, and especially the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, and the rights thereby conferred, which otherwise may be imperilled by this Bill. I have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point, even though the Government are anxious not to accept the Amendment, because it does give us an opportunity of giving those interested in fishing an assurance that the only reason why such a provision as this is not in the Bill is that it is not really necessary. This Bill does not and cannot affect the provisions of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Perhaps I may be allowed to give your Lordships one instance. Under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, any person who erects a dam or obstruction is bound, if required, to erect a fish path as part of the structure. Under Clause 42 of this Bill no similar obstruction can be erected without the consent of the drainage board. I think your Lordships will agree that that is quite right. If a person erected an obstruction in a river with the consent required under Clause 42 of this Bill, he would still be required under Section 19 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act to erect and maintain a fish path in conjunction with the erection—if, of course, the river was a river frequented by salmon or migratory trout. I suppose it could be argued that the powers conferred by this Bill in the matter of obstructions are more effective and, therefore, of greater value to fisheries than those conferred under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923.

As it stands, the Land Drainage Bill cannot in any way affect, in the direction of decreasing, the powers given under that Act, the provisions for protecting fisheries which are contained in the Act in which the noble Lord is interested. A drainage board—d would like to give your Lordships this definite assurance—is not entitled by this Bill to do anything which would conflict with the general law laid down with regard to fisheries in that Act. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment, under the old law there was no specific provision requiring a drainage board to have regard to fishery interests, but from what I have said I think it will be seen that due regard will be had in future to fishery interests, and no specific reference or provision is necessary in this Bill. We would very much rather not have this Amendment made in the Bill. This is a Drainage Bill primarily, and if we start introducing Amendments with regard to fisheries the process may well go very much further. I can assure your Lordships this Amendment is not necessary. The interests with which the noble Lord is concerned are protected under the Bill as at present drafted, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance.

LORD GAINFORD

May I be allowed to deal for one moment with the point which the noble Earl has made, because the matter is really vital? You are setting up new authorities and, although, if the noble Earl is correct, they should realise their obligations with regard to other rights, I am told quite clearly that most of the people who will be members of these bodies will presume and assume that they have powers to deal in the way I have described with by-laws, with obstructions, with drainage and with dredging exactly as they like, without any knowledge whatsoever of the Fisheries Acts which have been passed and of the other bodies which have been established. It may be perfectly true that they will have no right to do so, and that they ought to know the Statute law, but I suggest to the noble Earl that if the Bill really does not affect the interests of the fisheries there can be no harm in drawing the attention of these bodies to that fact. It is important that they should respect and watch over these interests. If any of these bodies do anything detrimental to fish life, that particular action will probably destroy fish in a river which it would take years and years to replace. It is important that the attention of these authorities should be called to the matter by a reference to other powers which they may come up against if they are ignorant of them.

It is really vital to the interests of fishing for one other reason, and that is that nearly all these fishery boards are struggling with small incomes to deal with the improvement of their rivers and to try to develop them. They have no money to enable them to enter into litigation if the powers given under this Bill are not restrained. On the ground of expediency, it would be quite impossible for them to raise money to take action in the Courts of law to restrain these powerful bodies from doing that which they might like to do. It is also quite impossible for them to be constantly prosecuting, because it is very expensive even to take these bodies into Courts of summary jurisdiction. Accordingly I would press the noble Earl to admit this new clause. It can do no possible harm, and I think it must do a great deal of good.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I wonder whether the noble Earl would think better of it and admit if not these precise words, some words to this effect into the Bill? We are faced with some difficulty, because my noble friend above the gangway has assured us that the Bill is very dangerous from a point of view which he regards as very important and which I think the majority of your Lordships, if I am any judge, regard as very important. On the other hand the noble Earl, who knows his Bill thoroughly, tells us he is quite certain that all the necessary protections to the fisheries are already in the Bill. That is a conflict of testimony which it is very difficult, certainly for me, to resolve. I must say that it appears to me to be quite obvious that, if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill thinks that the fisheries are protected, then, if it should turn out that they are not, he would be bound to see that it was put right.

I would suggest that the easiest way would be to accept these words as they stand on the understanding that, if the noble Earl thinks it right to submit to your Lordships amending words at a further stage, this would be a very reasonable course for him to take. If the noble Earl prefers another course, he might promise that if, after a conference with my noble friend above the gangway and other noble Lords interested in this subject, he is satisfied he was wrong—not intentionally, of course—in assuring the House that the fisheries were protected, he would undertake to put the matter right. That course would be acceptable, but I think the former course is the easier one—namely, to put the words in and to leave it to the noble Earl to make such proposals of amendment as he thinks proper at a later stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

While the noble Earl is considering this matter, I should like to draw his attention to subsection (8) of Clause 55, which says:— No Order of the Minister under this section shall authorise any work whereby the streams, reservoirs or feeders supplying any ornamental waters will be cut through, diverted or interfered with otherwise than by agreement and with the consent of the persons to whom such ornamental waters belong. It seems to me that it is just possible that if you include ornamental waters you might be excluding fish hatcheries.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it is impossible not to be impressed by your Lordships' feelings upon this matter and, if the noble Marquess is agreeable, I think I will accept his second suggestion and discuss the matter with noble Lords who are interested between now and Report. Lord Gainford's observations in his second speech rather made me feel that this would be the best course, because he admitted that my statement with regard to the technical point was correct, but he wishes the drainage authorities to be informed of the law. The noble Lord will realise quite well that, while that is desirable, legislation would become quite impossible if our Bills were made a medium of instruction to public bodies in their duties and in knowledge of the law. Instead of having a Bill of seventy clauses, which I think most of us are finding quite long enough, we should probably have to present a Bill with several hundred clauses. I will certainly meet the noble Lord, if that will be agreeable to the Committee.

LORD GAINFORD

I am very sorry, but I prefer the first course which the Leader of the Opposition suggested. I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister of Agriculture and with others who, I know, have been giving advice to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, and I am not convinced that the best course will be to reject this clause. I believe that it is in the interests of the fisheries of this country, and therefore I trust that the noble Earl will adopt the first suggestion of the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition.

EARL DE LA WARR

I should have preferred the second course, but the noble Lord has put his case with such feeling that I think I may take it on myself to accept his proposal. We can discuss the matter again.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved to insert the following new clause, after Clause 52:

Land Drainage Appeal Tribunal.

".—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be established a tribunal, consisting of a president, who shall be a Judge of the King's Bench Division of the High Court, or other person of high legal qualifications, sitting with two assessors, of whom one shall be a member of the Surveyors Institution or a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.

(2) The tribunal shall be styled the Land Drainage Appeal Tribunal, and is in this Act referred to as the Appeal Tribunal.'

(3) The president of the Appeal Tribunal (in this section referred to as the President') and the assessors shall be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and shall hold office for such term not exceeding four years as the Lord Chief Justice may determine and then retire, but shall on retirement be eligible for re-appointment.

(4) The Appeal Tribunal shall be a court of record and have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed.

(5) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the president of the Appeal Tribunal may from time to time with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice make rules governing the procedure and practice of the Tribunal and, without prejudice, to the generality of the foregoing provision, any such rules may make provision with respect to any of the following matters:—

1. (a) the notices of appeal to be given and the manner in which, and the time within which, they shall be given;
2. (b) the right of audience before the Tribunal;
3. (c) the reference of any question arising on any appeal to one of the assessors or any other person appointed by the Tribunal for inquiry or report;
4. (d) the holding of local enquiries with respect to any question arising on any appeal;
5. (e) the costs of and incidental to all appeals brought to the Tribunal;

and may, subject to the consent of the Treasury prescribe a scale of fees for and in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal.

(6) The central office of the Tribunal shall be in London, but subject to the rules made under this section, the Appeal Tribunal may hold sittings at any place which may be convenient for the purpose of any proceedings before them.

(7) The Appeal Tribunal may make any order or determination which the Minister or the catchment board, as the case may be, could have made, or set aside or vary any order or determination or confirm or approve with or without modification any order which the Minister could have confirmed or approved or give any notice which the Minister could have given or set aside the confirmation or approval or any order, or set aside any notice and make such further or other order or give such directions as appear to the Tribunal to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(8) The Appeal Tribunal shall as respects the attendance and examination of witnesses, the production and inspection of documents, the enforcement of their orders, the entry on and inspection of property, and other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of their jurisdiction under this Act have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court.

(9) Every order and decision of the Appeal Tribunal shall be final.

(10) If the President or either of the assessors of the Appeal Tribunal is prevented by illness or other unavoidable cause from attending sittings of the Tribunal, the Lord Chief Justice may appoint a deputy: Provided that a person shall not be qualified to be appointed to act as such a deputy as aforesaid unless he is a person qualified to the office of the person in whose place he is to act.

(11) It shall be lawful for the Lord Chief Justice to remove for inability OF misbehaviour any assessor of the Appeal Tribunal, or, if he is not a Judge of the King's Bench Division, the President.

(12) The President may appoint a clerk of the Appeal Tribunal and such other officers and servants of the Tribunal (subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number) as he may consider necessary for assisting the Tribunal in the proper execution of their duties.

(13) There shall be paid to the assessors and to any such clerk, officers, or servants as aforesaid such remuneration (including in the case of such clerk, officers, and servants superannuation allowances or gratuities on retirement) as the Treasury may determine.

(14) Any such remuneration and any other expenses of the Appeal Tribunal incurred in the exercise and performance of their power and duties, so far as the aforesaid expenses are not met out of the amount recovered by way of fees, shall be defrayed by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move that this clause be inserted in this place. I apologise for its not appearing on the Marshalled List of Amendments to-day, if it was my fault. I am new to this House and I did not know that it was my business to get it put on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Bayford.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Subject to what I said on the matter yesterday, I accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 55 agreed to.

Clause 56:

Protection of waterworks.

56.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall authorise any drainage authority, except with the consent (not to be unreasonably withheld) of the proprietors of the undertaking,—

1. (a) to interfere with any waterworks or the supply of water to any place in such manner as to affect injuriously the waterworks or supply; or
2. (b) to interfere with 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 so entitled to receive any tolls or other dues) or the towing path thereof or the supply of water thereto in such manner as to affect injuriously the navigation thereon or the use or maintenance thereof or the traffic on the towing path thereof; or
885
3. (c) to execute any works in, through or under any wharves, quays, docks, harbours or basins belonging to any navigation authority.

(2) If any question arises under this section whether the consent of the proprietors of any undertaking is unreasonably withheld, or whether anything done or proposed to be done constitutes or would constitute such interference as aforesaid, that question shall be referred to the Minister whose decision shall be final, and the Minister in determining the question shall act in consultation, if the question arises under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, with the Minister of Health, and if the question arises under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of the said subsection, with the Minister of Transport.

LORD BAYFORD moved in subsection (1), after "Nothing in this Act," to insert "or any Order made there-under." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this very small Amendment, which I hope the noble Earl will accept.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("or any Order made thereunder.")—(Lord Bayford.)

LORD DANESFORT

I think this is really necessary as a matter of drafting, but I would suggest that, if the words proposed by my noble friend are accepted, it would be better to insert also the word "scheme," so that the new words would read "or any scheme or Order made thereunder." A scheme is rather different from an Order, and the distinction is drawn in the Bill. "Order" would not necessarily include "scheme." I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment in that form.

EARL DE LA WARR

Clause 56 provides that "nothing in this Act shall authorise any drainage authority" to do certain things, and I am advised that it is clear that nothing can be so authorised by any Order under the Act, and that consequently this Amendment is quite unnecessary. The Order would only be interpreting the intentions of the Act.

LORD BAYFORD

After that explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE had given Notice, in subsection (1), after "authority," to move to insert "or the council of any county or county borough.' The noble Lord said: This is only a drafting Amendment, and I am not quite sure that it is necessary. If the noble Earl says it is not, I will not move it.

EARL DE LA WARR

Purely on drafting grounds it is not necessary. I now have to move the Amendment that stands next on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 18, leave out ("(not to be unreasonably withheld)").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BAYFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the proprietors of the undertaking" and to insert "the water undertakers, navigation authority, harbour authority, or conservancy authority (as the case may require)." The noble Lord said: This is only to make the clause clearer. I think probably the various sorts of proprietors that, I enumerate are all meant to be included.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 19, leave out ("the proprietors of the undertaking") and insert ("the water undertakers, navigation authority, harbour authority, or conservancy authority (as the case may require)").—(Lord Bayfard.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment could be accepted, but we should prefer not to accept it because, by putting in these specific words, we probably except other authorities, such as, for instance, electricity authorities. We prefer these general words. If we accepted this Amendment we should have to put in some such words at the end as "or other undertakers" or "or other proprietors."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to insert:— (b) to interfere with the works of any authorised undertaker within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, in such manner as to affect injuriously the works or the supply of electricity; or The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to extend the protection of the clause to electricity undertakings.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 24, after ("to") insert ("execute any work in, through, over or under or otherwise to").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE had on the Paper an Amendment, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "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 so entitled to receive any tolls or other dues" and to insert "belongs to or is under the jurisdiction of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority." The noble Lord said: The words proposed to be left out are taken from the Act of 1861, and the words I propose to insert in place of them appear to me to be more comprehensive.

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept this Amendment, but I have a note that we prefer to add at the end the words "or other undertakers." Perhaps the noble Lord will add those words.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I agree.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 27, leave out from beginning of line 27 to the first ("or") in beginning 31 and insert ("belongs to or is under the jurisdiction of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority or other undertakers").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

My next two Amendments are consequential.

Amendments moved— Page 47, line 31, after ("thereof") insert ("or the wharves or quays thereof") Page 47, line 35, leave out from ("thereof") to the end of line 38.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved to add to subsection (1):— or (d) to interfere with any railway embankment, bridge or other work connected therewith or the structure, use or maintenance thereof or the traffic thereon. The noble Viscount said: This is a new paragraph, asking your Lordships to extend the protection given under this clause to the railways. I understand that the Governent have no objection to it, and I hope your Lordships will pass it.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 38, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Churchill.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept the Amendment, subject to the question of wording, which may have to be considered.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment is consequential on a previous Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("whether") to ("anything") in line 41. —(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "the Minister whose decision shall be final" and the remaining words of the subsection and to insert "a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties or failing such agreement to be appointed by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers on the application of either party to the difference after notice thereof to the other." The noble Lord said: This clause provides that if any question arises whether anything done or proposed to be done constitutes interference, that question shall be referred to the Minister. I am proposing that the question instead of being referred to the Minister shall be referred to a single arbitrator on the lines set out in my Amendment. I move this on behalf of the Dock and Harbour Authorities, who attach considerable importance to it. It seems to them undesirable that a matter which might be of great importance should be left to the discretion of a Minister.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 1, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 6, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

LORD DANESFORT

Speaking on behalf of the Canal Association I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. The questions involved are essentially technical questions concerning engineering and technical knowledge, and the Minister would be quite unable himself to decide them. I therefore venture to suggest that the most effective, cheapest and quickest mode of deciding these questions would be to refer them to an arbitrator.

EARL DE LA WARR

We accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to 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 authouity. The noble Lord said: This Bill is so complicated, and its effect so difficult to gauge, that we think—I am speaking for the docks and harbours—it is desirable that some general protection should be given, and I move this subsection, in order to obtain it.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 6, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

LORD DANESFORT

I sincerely trust that this will be accepted. It is exceedingly important, and although the noble Earl might possibly say it is not necessary, surely if there is any doubt about it the Amendment had better be inserted. We desire that the statutory powers given to these authorities should not be interfered with. That, I presume, is the intention of the Government, and therefore I hope they will accept the Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think it is quite natural that with all these Amendments to the clause we should feel a little confused about it, although I think that when it is seen in its final form your Lordships will find it is clear. It has been in operation now in essence for seventy years and has stood the test of time, and. I am informed that really this Amendment is only a summary of the effect of the clause and the Bill would really be much better without the Amendment. A Bill is always rather better without words which mean nothing—I am casting no reflection upon the noble Lord.

LORD CARSON

I do not know why the noble Earl should think that this Amendment is not necessary. Questions arise very frequently with reference to these Acts of Parliament which on the face of them bring you more or less into conflict with existing authorities and jurisdictions. It is always very difficult to make out whether they are meant to interfere with the existing state of things. If they are not meant to interfere I do not see why we should not say so, but if they are meant to interfere it ought equally clearly to be so stated. I hope the Amendment will be pressed.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I am not at all satisfied that docks and harbours are properly protected. Let me give an illustration which occurred yesterday on an Amendment which I moved with regard to by-laws. These new authorities are to be empowered, unless an alteration is made in the Bill on Report, to come into my province, for instance, and to make by-laws which might seriously affect the interest with which I am concerned. That is one illustration and there may be many others. I cannot pretend to be familiar enough with the provisions of the Bill to say that we are not satisfied, but I should be much better satisfied if I knew that this new subsection was in the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think when your Lordships read the clause through you must see that these words really are nothing, but if the noble Lord is satisfied with the general powers of protection given in this clause, might I suggest that we leave matters as they are now and discuss this before Report? I have inserted a good many things already against our desire on condition that we discuss them on Report. I think we might now reverse it, and leave the unwanted clause out until we are quite sure that it is needed or that it fulfils any useful purpose to the interests that the noble Lord represents.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

We have said already that this Bill is not to apply to a certain number of the navigation authorities. If we go on enumerating all the different acts to which this Bill does not apply, we shall make it unnecessarily long and create a presumption that it does apply to all those acts which are not mentioned in it.

LORD CARSON

Will the noble Earl tell us whether any Order made under this Bill can affect any statutory power, authority or jurisdiction from time to time? If it is not intended to affect that, what is the objection to saying so? It is all very well the noble Earl saying we are making the Bill long. Here is the Bill, and there is the bit you are asked to put in. It will not be half as long as dealing with the construction of the Act when it goes through one Court after another right up to the House of Lords. Here you are dealing with Orders made under the Act. That, above all things, requires great caution, because the Orders that will be made will be made by various Departments, or members of Departments, and will not be limited by the wording in the Act; and the Courts will have to consider, when it is argued that the Order infringes some existing right in the various authorities, as to whether it does or does not. But if you have it on the face of the Act that it cannot do it, of course you will have no difficulty.

EARL DE LA WARR

I will certainly consider it. My only contention is that it is already in the Bill. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said about the Courts, we hope that matters under this clause will not really go to the Courts, because we have already just passed an Amendment providing for an appeal to arbitration by a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. So there is full protection there, even if there is doubt under this Bill.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE

I think I would rather like to see the Amendment in, in spite of what the noble Earl says. I think the noble Earl owes it to me, because at his suggestion yesterday I withdrew one of my Amendments on his undertaking to consider the matter. On this occasion I think I must ask him to allow me to put the Amendment in.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 [Power of canal companies, etc., to divert sewers]:

LORD DANESFORT

I beg to move the Amendments standing in my name on this clause.

Amendments moved— Page 48, line 10, leave out ("or") Page 48, line 10, after ("basin") insert ("or other work") Page 48, line 11, leave out from ("which") to ("those") in line 14 and insert ("belongs to or is under the jurisdiction of any navigation authority, harbour authority or conservancy authority ") Page 48, line 14, leave out ("those persons") and insert ("that authority").—(Lord Danesfort.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58:

Rivers not to be diverted so as to injure harbours.

58. Nothing in this Act shall authorise any drainage authority to divert any river in such manner as to injure or to diminish the supply of water to any harbour without the consent of the conservators or other authority having the management of the harbour.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps I might make a statement here. This clause really went in because the Bill is largely a re-enactment of former legislation, and really on further examination we cannot see what useful purpose this clause serves at all. Probably it would be better out of the Bill. It only confuses the issue. I beg to move to leave out Clause 58. I am afraid the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has missed a chance.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 58.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 59, to insert the following new clause:—

Preservation of existing protection conferred by local Acts.

"Where by any local Act powers are conferred on a drainage board or local authority similar to the powers conferred by this Act, and that local Act contains provisions for the protection of any authorities, companies, or persons, those provisions shall apply to the exercise by any drainage board within the area to which the local Act applies of the powers conferred on drainage boards by this Act in like manner as they apply in relation to the exercise of the powers under the local Act."

The noble Earl said: This is merely to ensure that where a local Act has afforded protection to any authority the exercise by a drainage body of any powers that are conferred on them by this Act shall be subjected to the same protective clauses.

Amendment moved— After Clause 59 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 60 to 65 agreed to.

Clause 66:

Regulations.

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

(2) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation shall be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.

LORD CLINTON moved to leave out subsection (2) and to insert:— (2) Any regulations made under this Act shall be laid before Parliament and shall not conic into operation until they have been approved with or without amendment by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.

The noble Lord said: I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will say to me that this is very ancient legislation, and for that reason perhaps we should be satisfied with the clause as it stands. There are too many precedents in the matter, but the fact that they are precedents, and knowing that they are bad precedents, does not in the least deter me from making another of the many protests we have made against this form of laying Bills before Parliament. Our difficulty in dealing with the matter is that no Government is innocent. Every head of a Department in his time has accepted this easy method of getting regulations approved, when we know quite well that there is no advantage in it except perhaps in the saving of time. One does hope that in the course of time Governments may agree that this method is really bad, and that there should be a positive laying of the regulations upon the Table—a confirmatory Resolution rather than the absence of a negative one. I am rather afraid my protest will be in vain, but I should like to hear what the noble Earl has to say.

Amendment moved— Page 52, leave out lines 12 to 21 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I suggest that the noble Lord moves it in a slightly altered form: instead of saying "each House of Parliament" that he should say "both Houses of Parliament."

LORD CLINTON

I have no objection.

EARL DE LA WARR

I could see the noble Lord's point if we were dealing with very important regulations vitally effecting the interests of any particular body or individual. But the regulations mentioned here are really only regulations for the procedure of drainage boards, as to the dates of elections and so on; all most trivial matters as to which I think it would be very much more appropriate if they were allowed to go through in the old manner. This matter was thoroughly discussed in your Lordships' House during the present Session. The noble Marquess who leads the Opposition will remember that we had it all before us on the Scottish Land Drainage Bill when, on the Motion I think of the noble Viscount, Lord Novar, the procedure put forward by Lord Clinton was actually inserted in the Bill, although it was altered by the agreement of the House, including the noble Marquess, on Report or Third Reading.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I was not prime mover in the matter. The agreement was made with my noble friend Lord Novar.

EARL DE LA WARR

Quite; but I think the noble Marquess was agreeable. Those were matters of very much greater importance and effected far more vitally important interests. Again, I think the question was discussed when my noble friend Lord Russell was conducting the Road Traffic Bill through your Lordships' House. I speak from memory, but I think it was decided that an affirmative Resolution should only be necessary where any modification of existing legislation were made. In view of those discussions—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The whole of the road code was submitted to an affirmative Resolution.

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes; but that was almost a matter of legislation. In view of those facts, and in view of the fact that these regulations are most trivial matters, and that it would be most troublesome to any Government, whatever Party was in power, to have to find time both in your Lordships' House and in another place for an affirmative Resolution on such trivial matters, I would ask the noble Lord not to press Ms Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BANBURY or SOUTHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "as soon as may be after they are made and" and to insert "unless a Resolution approving the regulation be passed by both Houses of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which both Houses have sat after such scheme is laid before Parliament, the regulation shall be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder, or to the making of new regulations."

The noble Lord said: I did not know that my noble friend was going to withdraw his Amendment. I understood that he was going to press it. However, my Amendment is slightly different and I hope that it will be put into the Bill, because the other form is absolutely useless, as those of your Lordships who have sat in another place will know. It is because it is useless, I suppose, that the noble Earl wanted it in. We do not want a useless form in the Bill; we want something which will be of practical value. Let me point out what happens in another place under the other form. First of all, anybody who objects has to find out that there is an Order, which is not a very easy thing to do. Having found that out, as it only comes on after eleven o'clock at night he has to keep a sufficient number of members to form a quorum. The Government, of course, can induce a sufficient number of men to remain in the House to keep a House. The member who is moving to disagree with the Order must have forty people in the House to support him. By a considerable amount of pressure he may get fifty or sixty members after eleven o'clock to support him. The Government Whips have a considerable number of members in the House and those who remain of the fifty or sixty, seeing a large number of members in the House, say: "There are plenty of members in the House and we need not stay," and they gradually move away. Then the Government Whips send in word: "All of you come out," and all the Government supporters come out. Then somebody gets up and says: "Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that forty members are not present," and the whole thing goes. That, as an absolute fact, is what occurs in another place. During the 30 years that I was there I had the privilege of being allowed into the Whips' room, and I know something of what happens in that room. In those circumstances, I shall certainly divide on this Amendment if I can get somebody to act as teller with me. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, leave out from ("and") in line 14 to the end of line 21 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

This question and analogous questions have interested me for very many years. I agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury that the negative form of Resolution is not of very much use. I will not say that it is of no use at all. In certain cases it is useful; but in the generality of cases it is not of much use. On the other hand, there is certanly a truth in what the noble Earl opposite said that in the case of very trivial regulations the procedure of passing an affirmative Resolution is very cumbrous even in your Lordships' House where we do things in a very businesslike way. But it is extremely cumbrous in another place, as it always has to be done in the middle of the night. For very small matters naturally the Government, whatever Party is in power, shrinks from it. Therefore, the decision as to whether you have an affirmative or a negative Resolution largely turns upon the importance of the regulations. When I say that it largely turns, I ought to say that I think it ought largely to turn upon that.

The noble Earl has reminded us of certain precedents which have recently happened in your Lordships' House. He quoted that of the Scottish Land Drainage Bill. I really do not quite know what reasons governed my noble friend Lord Novar in agreeing to strike out of the Bill on the Report stage what he had inserted in Committee, but as regards the Road Traffic Bill I have a clear recollection. There we put in an affirmative Resolution in respect of both the small regulations and of the important code which governs the proper conduct of people on the road, the exact name of which I forget. Upon the matter being put very forcibly before us we agreed, on the Report stage, to abandon the affirmative Resolution in respect of very small, trivial regulations as to how a number plate should be made, what the size of the letters should be and things of that kind. We thought it unnecessary to insist upon an affirmative Resolution in matters of that kind. But upon the code we were adamant, and insisted upon it. I do not know that "adamant" is exactly the expression because I do not think the Government seriously disputed that that was the right course.

That was the position that was arrived at. I must confess with very great shame that I am too little acquainted with what regulations are exactly contemplated under this Bill to be able to pronounce whether they are important regulations or not. If they are important regulations I agree with my noble friend that an affirmative Resolution ought to be inserted. If they are unimportant my opinion would be the other way.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can give the noble Marquess an assurance that they are not important.

LORD DANESFORT

May I suggest to the noble Earl, following out the advice given by the noble Marquess, that he really wants these words in in the affirmative form suggested by Lord Banbury. The reason is this. These regulations can be of a very wide character. The Minister is to prescribe anything which may be prescribed generally—not only what is in the Bill but generally—for the purpose of carrying this Bill into effect. Can you have anything more wide in its generalities or more far-reaching? Possibly some of these regulations might be extremely dangerous. Therefore, I hope this will be inserted in the form suggested by my noble friend.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not know if the noble Lord is confusing these regulations with Orders that might be made by the Minister. These are purely regulations carrying out the machinery of the Bill, and I gave your Lordships an example of two or three, such as the dates of the elections, and the ways in which the elections shall be carried out.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If the noble Earl will allow us to put this Amendment in, and if he will make representations afterwards upon any point in respect of this matter, I am quite sure my noble friends and myself will gladly consider it in a most detached spirit.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Marquess knows it is impossible for me to do that. I would ask him not to request us to put it in with the almost certainty that we shall have to remove it. It only lengthens the future stages of the Bill by bringing the matter up again, and I am quite sure I shall be able to convince the noble Marquess and noble Lords before Report stage that these are the most trivial regulations.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I can assure the noble Earl he would be only following the precedent of what Lord Russell did on the last occasion if he did now what I ask.

LORD DARLING

As we know from the noble Earl that these regulations are of the most trivial character, and hardly worthy of the attention of anybody, why trouble the House of Commons with these things which are to be passed in the manner described by my noble friend Lord Banbury, if passed at all, in the middle of the night by people who take no interest in them whatever? The noble Earl in the last words he used assured us that they were of the most trivial character. If they are of the most trivial character why lay them before Parliament at all?

Loan PARMOOR

I entirely agree with the noble Marquess opposite, but surely after the assurance that has been given by the noble Earl the negative form is the right one to use now.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to make difficulties, but I have been assured, I must tell the noble and learned Lord, the Leader of the House, that some of these regulations may have considerable importance. I know the noble Earl is only telling us what he believes to be right, but I am sure the fact is as I have stated, and that is the reason why I felt rather unwilling to give way, but if he will confer with me, or rather with my noble friends, between this and Report, I feel confident he will not find me at any rate difficult to deal with.

EARL DE LA WARR

After what-the noble Marquess has said I will agree to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 67 agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I think Lord Clinton's new clause comes after Clause 68.

LORD CLINTON

I think my clause will now disappear, because Lord Bayford's has been inserted.

LORD BAYFORD

That is so.

Clause 68 agreed to.

Clause 69 [Application of Act to Crown]:

EARL DE LA WARR

The Amendments in my name upon this clause are purely drafting. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 54, line 10, after the first ("Crown") insert ("either") Page 54, line 10, after ("lands") insert ("or the Board of Trade, according as the land is under the management of the Commissioners or of the Board") Page 54, line 32, leave out ("to any Government department") and insert ("or deemed to belong to any Government department or to the Commissioners of Crown lands") Page 54, lines 36 and 37, leave out ("of the Commissioners of Crown Lands") and insert ("also, where the management of the land is vested in the Commissioners of Crown Lands, the consent of those Commissioners").—(Earl De La Warr.]

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I want to ask a question of the noble Earl in reference to the clause. This is a clause which protects the property of the Crown and of the two Duchies. I want to ask the noble Earl, because it is a question with which the Government alone can deal, whether any distinction is made between the treatment of the Crown lands in respect of this Bill from the treatment of the land of any other owner. I am quite aware that none of us can move Amendments to alter that. It would be specifically out of order. At the same time I think we may very properly protest if the Crown lands are not treated on exactly the same footing as other lands in respect of this Bill. I do not know whether it would be possible, after consideration, for your Lordships who agree with what I am saying to strike the clause out altogether, but I think that would be what is called cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think, however, that we have a right to know from the Government whether there is any kind of discrimination in the treatment of Crown lands as compared with the treatment of the land of ordinary owners in respect of this Bill. I do not think there ought to be.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can give the noble Marquess the information for which he asks. There is no differentiation at all as regards rating, but there is a difference —and I think it is so in all legislation affecting property. There is this difference, that you cannot enter on the property of the Crown for the purpose of levying, but there is no difference as regards rating. I am informed this follows the normal course of legislation with regard to Crown lands.

LORD PARMOOR

May I remind the noble Marquess of one matter, because I have had much to do particularly with one of the Duchies. The Crown, of course, can negative a Bill which interferes with its property, and, therefore, this form has been adopted for a long time for the convenience of all persons.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Nothing can be done without the consent of the Crown, I know, but the consent can be intimated by a Minister.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, and the same applies to the Duchies.

LORD CLINTON

I should like to ask whether the clause as it stands in the Bill is common form?

EARL DE LA WARR

Yes.

LORD CLINTON

What alterations will the noble Earl's Amendments make to it?

EARL DE LA WARR

The alterations are purely verbal drafting alterations.

Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 70:

Provisions as to drainage board of Thames Catchment Area and Conservators of River Thames.

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

(2) The Conservators of the River Thames shall, as from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, consist of thirty members who shall be appointed in the manner specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act together with such additional members, not exceeding three, as the Minister may determine who shall be appointed by him to represent the internal drainage boards in the Thames catchment area.

(3) The persons who on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, are the Conservators of the River Thames shall go out of office on that date, without prejudice, however, to their eligibility for reappointment under this section.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and thirty-one" and insert "next after the appointed day.' The noble Lord said: This is rather an important clause, because it affects the time at which the Bill shall come into operation, and it refers especially to the Thames Conservancy Board Which has been made a catchment board. This Amendment should be read in connection with the proposed new subsection (9) on page 12 of the Amendments, by which you will see that the suggested date is the year 1933. That would be practically a two years' postponement of the date of the commencement of the Bill. This matter has been alluded to on several occasions in the course of the debates on this Bill, and I do not think I need labour the point.

The chief reason for the Amendment is that the Thames Conservancy Board, who have naturally discussed this Bill and the obligations put upon them under it, think that the two years extra time is absolutely necessary to enable them to carry on the discussions with the Port of London Authority and the London County Council upon the important matters which have to be discussed between them, if there is any reasonable probability of a large amount of land water coming down and interfering with the height of the water as it flows through London. I do not know that it is necessary for me to go at any length into that. I can only say that the Thames Conservancy Board have not asked for this Bill, but they do not wish in any way to shirk any obligation or statutory duty that may be placed upon them. At the same time, considering the importance of the river which is under their charge —as the water supply of London among other things—they do think there ought to be reasonable time for consultation with those bodies chiefly concerned with the lower portions of the river before the Bill comes into operation. Therefore I beg to move the Amendment in my name which would really postpone the date of the operation of this Bill to the year 1933.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 27, leave out ("nineteen hundred and thirty-one") and insert ("next after the appointed day").—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment, as the noble Lord has told your Lordships, is designed to postpone the operation of this Bill with regard to the Thames for a period slightly over two years. The noble Lord has told us that the Thames Conservancy Board have discussed this matter and have come to certain conclusions. I would like to suggest to the noble Lord that when they discussed this Bill the Bill was in a very different form from what it is at the present moment. I think I know quite well what is at the back of the noble Lord's mind and the minds of the Thames Conservancy. They said to themselves: "Here we are having colossal responsibilities put on our shoulders. It is perfectly true that our composition is so designed as to give those of us who have to put up the money, that is the county councils and county boroughs, a majority on our board. Yet there is that Clause 12 there that gives the Minister power to act in default." Well, the situation now is not quite the same as it was. The power of the Minister has been very considerably modified, and it is almost inconceivable now—as I think the noble Lord will admit—for the Minister to intervene in default and carry out any large schemes which the Thames Conservancy ought to carry out within the next two years. Therefore, there really is nothing for the Thames Conservancy at the present moment to be afraid of.

There is another point, I think, at the back of the noble Lord's mind, and it is that a very great deal of work, not only of negotiating with other bodies, but of surveying their catchment area and estimating the cost of schemes that might or might not be considered necessary, has to be carried out before any work can be undertaken. The noble Lord wants to feel quite sure that they are not going to be pressed to carry out this work. He feels that preparations for these schemes will take at least two years and he wants to feel quite sure that the body which he is representing will be allowed plenty of time in which to carry out their survey work and their preparations. I think it is here that the misconception about this clause comes in. The Thames Conservancy Board at the present moment is not a drainage authority. It could not, therefore, as the law stands embark on any purely drainage works. Therefore, unless this Bill is passed and this machinery set up, the Thames Conservancy Board could not set to work on the very task which the noble Lord is asking to be given time to enable that body to set to work. It would not be entitled to undertake a survey of its catchment area, nor would it be entitled to spend money on other forms of preparation in the way of actually preparing schemes and obtaining estimates for the work.

I can assure the noble Lord that even if the Bill permitted it—and I have tried to point out to your Lordships that as at present drafted it does not permit it—and even if there was an unreasonable Minister who was going to attempt to press the body which the noble Lord represents unreasonably to carry out work, it would be quite impossible for him to do so. The schemes are not ready, the surveys are not carried out and all that preparatory work, as we all recognise, has got to be done. This clause as it is drafted will put the Thames Conservancy in a position to carry out this work. We recognise that the survey and so on will take a long time, and every reasonable man must recognise that. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment because not only will it put off the time in which the work has to be done, but it will actually make it impossible for the Thames Conservancy even to make the necessary preparations within the next two years. This Bill is largely one of machinery. It is a Bill which enables these local catchment boards to prepare schemes and, if they are satisfied with their inquiries and preparations, to carry out schemes. I would ask the noble Lord to allow this clause to pass in the way it is drafted. The Thames Conservancy can then get on with preparations for the work which he says, quite rightly, needs to be carried out. There is no obligation whatsoever imposed by the Bill on the Thames Conservancy to carry out schemes if they are against their better judgment.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I quite agree with my noble friend opposite that this Bill has been very considerably altered, and I venture to think very much improved, by the substantial alterations made in Clause 12, which I think gave me a greater shock than any clause I have ever seen in any Bill, and did not make me particularly fond of the Bill. With regard to the question of postponement of two years in the case of the Thames Conservancy, I do not think it is too much to ask the noble Earl, and if it is permissible to do so across the floor of the House I am prepared to make a bargain with him. The Amendment which I propose in regard to the Thames is a very moderate one. It will only put off the operation of the Bill for two years, to the year 1933. The noble Earl opposite is well aware that there are Amendments which will come before your Lordships later postponing the operation of the Bill, still further, until 1935. If he will only agree to my modest proposal, I am quite willing to support him against further demands for postponement. I should also like to draw his attention to the fact that there is more than one Amendment to exclude the area of the Thames Conservancy Board altogether, to exclude not only the whole of the Thames area but the Boding and all streams that flow into the catchment area of the Thames, which are either in or outside the Bill. Whatever my help is worth—and I am quite aware it is not particularly valuable—I may say that I will support him as regards these very drastic proposed changes if he will give us a little time to look round.

I can assure the noble Earl that, as regards the catchment area of the Thames, we have not been idle with regard to flood prevention schemes. As long ago as 1914 we produced a very comprehensive scheme, and we have maps showing large improvements that have to be carried out to carry off a certain volume of water, and also regarding purification. We have a considerable amount of information already as to what is likely to happen if a very large drainage scheme is instituted, and so we are fully prepared to go into conference with both the Port of London Authority and the London County Council, who are pressing very strongly for delay. I can assure the noble Earl that, if he could only give us a little time, that time would not be lost and when the moment comes to put the Bill into operation we shall be fully prepared to do so. We have already covered a great deal of the ground and have come to some arrangement with the great bodies concerned, the London County Council and the Port of London Authority. In these circumstances I hope the noble Earl will not object if I continue to press my Amendment to the effect that, so far as the Thames is concerned, the Bill shall not come into actual operation for two years after the appointed day.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. Although he wishes to press his Amendment, I think it is quite clear that we could probably get together on this matter. What he is afraid of, I think, is that his authority would be called upon to carry on works in the next two years. We are quite aware that it is most unlikely that the Thames Conservancy will be in a position to carry out considerable drainage works within that period, and we are not really anxious on that point. We are merely anxious that the Thames Conservancy Board should be in a position to start its work of preparation as a catchment board. As the noble Lord said, they have already a great deal of information, but I think he would agree that, if they are to carry on the powers of a complete catchment board, they will probably have to do a great deal more work still, such as estimating the cost of schemes. Nobody is expected to start any scheme until it is known what the scheme will cost and whether it is likely to be profitable to the ratepayers—

LORD DESBOROUGH

I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but it is not a question of costs as regards the London County Council and the Port of London Authority; it is a question of the volume of water that they may expect to be thrown upon them by any scheme. We can give them that information.

EARL DE LA WARR

Those are things that I suppose will have to be gone into. I have here a rough draft of an Amendment that I was going to propose. I cannot commit my right hon. friend the Minister to the wording of it, or even to its principles, but I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider the insertion, as a new subsection, of something like this:— (4) The powers conferred on drainage boards by Section thirty-three of this Act with respect to the improvement of existing works and the construction of new works shall not in the case of the drainage board of the Thames catchment area become exerciseable until the expiration of two years from the passing of this Act, but nothing in this subsection shall be taken to prevent the said board from exercising before the expiration of the period aforesaid any other powers vested in them under this Act, notwithstanding that such other powers are only exercised in anticipation of the exercise after the expiration of the said period of the first mentioned powers. I do not expect the noble Lord to commit himself to this for the moment, but perhaps he could examine it and we could put it down for Report and discuss the matter again when he has it before him.

LORD DESBOROUGH

If I may answer my noble friend at once, to save time, with my limited capacity I can hardly take in the actual implications of the Amendment which he has just read to me but, so far as I am able to gather its import, it seems to me to be so satisfactory that I shall be quite willing to enter into negotiations with the noble Earl. Perhaps he will put the Amendment down for Report, if that is convenient, and I shall be only too pleased to consider it.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

On behalf of the London County Council, I may say that I think this postponement will go a long way Co meet our case, though I cannot commit myself in any way after merely hearing the Amendment read. There is just one other question with regard to the Thames Conservancy that I should like to ask the noble Earl to inquire into. The Conservancy is at the moment very largely concerned with the purity of the Thames, and the London County Council have three representatives. Though the new board that is to be set up would be concerned with other matters besides the purity of the water, the London County Council will have only one representative. I should like to ask the noble Earl to consider this point before the Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

I will certainly consider it. I do not know that the adjustment will be made in the form of giving more representation, but I think discussions are going on at present with regard to trying to find some way in which we can give the London County Council some locus for protecting their interests in this matter.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I think that assurance, together with the postponement, will go a long way towards meeting our view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR

I can accept the next two Amendments that stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Desborough.

Amendments moved— Page 55, line 32, leave out ("to represent") and insert ("after consultation with") Page 55, line 33, after ("area") insert ("to represent such internal drainage boards").—(Lord Desborough.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert as a new subsection:— (4) The accounts of the Conservators shall show separately the receipts and expenditure of the Conservators upon and in connection with the exercise of the powers and duties conferred and imposed upon them as the catchment board for the said catchment area, distinguishing capital from revenue.

The noble Lord said: I hope my noble friend will be equally complaisant with regard to this Amendment. I know that the Ministry of Agriculture and others do not quite see eye to eye with me in this matter, and I will put my point as briefly as I can. I have taken legal opinion and consulted counsel about it, and they inform me that it is of importance. The first new subsection that I propose regards the accounts of the Conservators. We are anxious to keep those accounts, as they are at present, entirely distinct from any account that may accrue under the new duties that are going to be put upon us when we became a catchment board. We cannot apply the new system of this Bill to our old system. It is a new system of appointing auditors, and the accounts would have to be kept as they are kept by county councils. There are several precedents with regard to this, and I be- lieve that the Local Government Act., 1929, particularly specifies that separate accounts shall be kept with regard to the new duties put on county councils, and that they shall be kept entirely apart.

I may say, for the information of the Committee, that the Thames Conservancy every year presents a Report and Statement of Accounts and lays it before Parliament. I do not know whether anybody ever reads it, but it is a very fine Report and the accounts are all in order. They are audited by an auditor appointed by the Treasury, not by ourselves, but we pay him and he comes in at any time he likes. It is very important. Does the noble Earl agree to this?

EARL DE LA WARR

I was just consulting on the legal point—

LORD DESBOROUGH

I hope the noble Earl does agree. If so, I will not say any more.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am afraid I do not agree with this Amendment. I was agreeing with one of the things that the noble Lord was saying.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am sorry, for the sake of the House, for I shall have to continue to press my Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 38, at end, insert the said new subsection (4).—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think this question really revolves around one point, and that is what the legal advisers whom I have consulted consider to be a complete misreading of the meaning of the first three lines of Clause 70. I think from what the noble Lord has said, and from what we gather from his Amendments, that he imagines that the Thames Conservancy Board is being turned into the Thames Catchment Board, and that they are to be the same body. That is not the intention of the clause, and I think if you read it carefully your Lordships will see that it is not so. "The drainage board of the Thames catchment area shall consist of the persons who are for the time being the Conservators of the River Thames. That is very different from saying that the two bodies are amalgamated, and therefore there is no question at all of their accounts being the same. They are two different bodies. Some of your Lordships may have in the past served on local bodies in a rural district area, and your Lordships will remember that the two bodies virtually consisted of the same people, but were two distinct bodies with different officers and in all cases with different accounts. It is our intention that that should be so here. I think if you read those words carefully your Lordships will see that that is so, and that, therefore, these Amendments are really quite unnecessary. There is only one point, if we are discussing all the Amendments of the noble Lord together. I think we probably could meet the noble Lord on the questions of joint expenses and superannuation charges. That is only a detail, and we could put that in on Report, if the noble Lord thought it worth while. The main point is that these will be two bodies and bound therefore to have separate accounts.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY)

If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at the clause as it stands he will see that it does not say there shall be one body, but it says that "the drainage board of the Thames catchment area shall consist," etc. That means to say that there are two bodies, and two separate entities, although as a matter of fact the members of one body will be members of the other. Therefore they will keep their accounts quite separately, and on that interpretation, which I conceive to be the right one, the fears of the noble Lord need not be aroused. They are two separate bodies, although the members will be the same.

LORD DESBOROUGH

If that is the case I cannot understand why there is the faintest objection to making it clear in the Bill. If you do that you will only be following the precedents set on other occasions. The Local Government Act of 1929 specifies that when extra duties are

put upon any body they shall have separate accounts. I only want to preserve the continuity of our accounts. When we start work there is no doubt that some of the members of our staff will be employed on the two duties, and it will be necessary to apportion the establishment charges. It is a principle which is absolutely recognised, and I must really ask the Government to indulge me in regard to this concession, especially as I have submitted the matter not only to the officials of our board but also to counsel, who advise that in order to preserve continuity and keep matters straight it is necessary that these subsections should be introduced into the Bill. If it is the intention of the Government that there should be these separate accounts I cannot see why they should not follow the example of other Acts of Parliament and make the matter clear by accepting my Amendments.

EARL DE LA WARR

It is our advice that the matter is perfectly clear now, except the matter of joint expenses which require to be apportioned, and as to which it may possibly be necessary to make some alteration. I will gladly discuss that matter with the noble Lord before Report. On the other matters I do not think the clause could be clearer than it is at the present moment, that they are two distinct bodies and their accounts and arrangements must be separate.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I am very sorry, but on the advice which I have received I think I must press these Amendments. I do not think I should be doing my duty to the Thames Conservancy if did not press the Amendments.

On Question, Whether the said subsection (4) shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 12.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D.	Halsbury, E.	Bertie of Thame, V.
Wellington, D.	Iveagh, E.	Bridgeman, V.
	Lauderdale, E.	Churchill, V.
Salisbury, M.	Lucan, E.	Elibank, V.
	Macclesfield, E.	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.
Bathurst, E.	Malmesbury, E.
Cawdor, E.	Onslow, E.	Addington, L.
Clarendon, E.	Plymouth, E.	Armstrong, L.
Denbigh, E.	Stanhope, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.
Fitzwilliam, E.	Yarborough, E.	Bayford, L.
Berwick, L.	Dynevor, L.	Mildmay of Flete, L.
Carson, L.	Elphinstone, L.	Phillimore, L.
Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
	Faringdon, L.	Saltoun, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Sinclair, L.
Clinton, L.	Harris, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Hastings, L.	Swansea, L.
Cranworth, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Templemore, L. [Teller.]
Cushendun, L.	Illingworth, L.	Wavertree, L.
Danesfort, L.	Jessel, L.	Wharton, L.
Daryngton, L.	Lamington, L.	Wraxall, L.
Desborough, L. [Teller.]	Lawrence, L.	Wynford, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Ernle, L.
		Marks, L. [Teller.]
Beauchamp, E.		Marley L. [Teller.]
Cranbrook, E.	Arnold, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
De La Warr, E.	Askwith, L.	Sandhurst, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert as a new subsection:— (5) The provisions of Section 35 (Application of revenue) of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1924, shall not apply to monies received by the Conservators under and for the purposes of this Act. Provided that the Conservators 6ha1l be entitled to charge such monies with the payment of a proportionate part of the necessary and proper establishment expenses of the Conservators and of a proportionate part of the cost (including any interest and payments to sinking funds or other sums required to be provided in respect to the repayment of borrowed monies) of any works carried out by the Conservators and the execution and performance of any powers and duties of the Conservators which are applicable to or enure for the benefit of not only the purposes of the Thames Conservancy Acts, 1894 to 1924, but also the purposes of this Act. The noble Lord said: I understand the noble Earl is willing to accept this Amendment. This is the apportionment of joint expenses by this single entity which has two souls.

EARL DE LA WARR

We could accept it as it is, and discuss the drafting later.

LORD DESBOROUGH

Then I move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 38, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough.)

LORD DESBOROUGH moved to insert as a new subsection:— (6) For the purposes of the section of this Act of which the marginal note is Compensation to existing officers' the Conservators shall be deemed to have been a drainage authority immediately before the commencement of this Act. The noble Lord said: This refers to compensation to existing officers. It follows the plan that was adopted in our previous Acts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 38, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think your Lordships have expressed your opinion on this particular subject, and it runs right through all these Amendments, so I do not propose to challenge any of them.

LORD DESBOROUGH

I beg to move the remaining Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Page 55, line 38, insert the following new subsections:— (7) Notwithstanding anything in this Act all deeds, conveyances, grants, assurances, assignments, leases, purchases, sales, mortgages, bonds, convenants, agreements, securities and contracts entered into or made and subsisting at the appointed day and then in force and all obligations and liabilities incurred before the appointed day shall be as binding and of as full force and effect in every respect against or in favour of the Conservators as they would or might have been against or in favour of the Conservators if this Act had not come into operation and everything before the appointed day done, suffered and confirmed respectively shall be as valid as if this Act had not come into operation. (8) Every officer or servant of the Conservators not entitled to compensation under this Act and not otherwise legally entitled to any pension or superannuation allowance who becomes incapable of discharging the duties of his office with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body or who has attained the age of sixty years or who having been in the service of the Conservators for a period of not less than five years prior to the appointed day is dismissed on any ground other than misconduct shall upon his resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold office be entitled to a superannuation allowance upon the terms and conditions and according to the scale specified in the Superannuation Act, 1909, as amended by the Superannuation Act, 1914. Provided that this provision shall not apply to any officer or servant who having regard to the practice of the Conservators with regard to pensioning their officers and servants had no reasonable expectation of receiving a pension or superannuation allowance on retirement and any question as to whether an officer or servant had such reasonable expectation shall be determined by the Minister. (9) Save as otherwise in this section expressly provided this Act shall in its application to the Thames catchment area come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, which date is in this section and in the Sixth Schedule to this Act referred to as the appointed day '."—(Lord Desborough.)

Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 71 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP, on behalf of Lord Stanley of Alderley, moved, after Clause 71, to insert as a new clause:—

Provisions as to drainage board of Weaver Catchment Area and Weaver Navigation Trustees.

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

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

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

The noble Earl said: I understand the Government are prepared to consider this not unfavourably.

Amendment moved— After Clause 71, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Beauchamp.)

EARL DE LA WARR

We are certainly prepared to accept it in principle.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Held over till Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72 [Interpretation]

LORD RITCHIE of DUNDEE moved to insert "'Conservancy authority' has the same meaning as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894." The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 34, at end insert ("'Harbour' and 'harbour authority' have the same respective meanings as in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 ").—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

EARL DE LA WARR

There is a drafting Amendment here.

Amendment moved— Page, 57, line 6, after ("navigation") insert ("(including a navigation in tidal water)").—(Earl De La Warr.)

Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 73 agreed to.

Clause 74:

Extent and short title.

74.—(1) This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Land Drainage Act, 1930.

LORD CLINTON moved to insert: (3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five. The noble Lord said: I do not move the postponement of this Bill from any hostility to the Bill itself. I can quite believe that the Bill is necessary and that there are matters in it of very great value to the land and the country. My sole reason is that I fear that at the present moment the cost of this measure falling upon agriculture is more than the industry in its present depressed condition can stand. We had a considerable debate upon this matter early yesterday, and I do not want to go over the ground again, because I am quite sure your Lordships feel that there is real danger of too heavy an expenditure, although we are not yet acquainted with the very vital facts as to what is likely to be the cost of the Bill or—still more important —what is likely to be the Government contribution towards it.

One would have thought it would have been better that the important fact of an Exchequer contribution should be known to this House before the measure was brought in. Yet it still remains on the face of the Bill that the whole cost will fall upon the rates. In the course of this debate very considerable alterations have been made in the measure which we may regard, I think, as very great improvements; but, with one single exception, no Amendment has been moved which will in any way lessen the cost of the Bill to the ratepayers. That one Amendment, a very important Amendment, was moved by my noble friend, Lord Phillimore, and was to the effect that the catchment area board should not precept upon a county council for a greater sum than a half-penny in the £ without the consent of that council. If that was inserted in the Bill it would carry out to a very large extent the object of my Amendment. But in this House we need not disguise from ourselves the fact that any clause or Amendment inserted in the Bill has a very thorny path in front of it before it is actually passed into law. Consequently, there is to my mind a danger that we may find this measure returned to us with that very important provision taken out.

It is true that in your Lordships' House the Government did not divide against that Amendment, but it was obvious that the view of the noble Earl and his colleagues on the Benches opposite was not in favour of it. Therefore, we are justified in expecting, perhaps, that alterations may be made in this respect. That being the case, I feel bound to press my Amendment for fear that we may altogether lose that protection to the ratepayer which I so earnestly desire. I have put it before your Lordships for the reasons I have stated, and although I do not necessarily wish to postpone the operation of the Bill, I must move that it be postponed until the year 1935.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 21, at end insert ("(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five").—(Lord Clinton.)

LORD HASTINGS

I desire to support my noble friend's Amendment. Like him I am in no sense hostile to the Bill. On the contrary, I regard it, especially in its present amended form, as a very good Bill and I only wish we could afford the luxury of it. My noble friend has referred at some length to the most important clause inserted at the instance of Lord Phillimore, and he has drawn attention to the risks which that clause must run in another place. But even if that clause stands fast I am not altogether sure that all risks are removed. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill referred yesterday to the security given to the ratepayer by reason of the large preponderance of county council members which sit upon these boards, and so often did he make this reference by way of assuaging the alarms of noble Lords on this side of the House, that I came to the conclusion that he firmly believed that the presence on those catchment boards of so large a preponderance of county council members assured complete protection to the ratepayers.

The noble Earl himself lives in the South of England, where even to-day county business is conducted on genuinely conservative lines, and where it is the first anxiety of county councils to preserve not only the rights but the interests of their ratepayers. But all England is not quite the same and, while I should not like to suggest for a moment that there exists any county council disposed to ignore the interests of its ratepayers, there are counties where the rates are already tremendously high and where it is not unreasonable to assume that other interests than those of the ratepayers sometimes prevail with the county council. In the county in which I live we have reason to feel that the claims of land drainage, urgently needed in my part of the world, might possibly receive preference to those of the exigencies of the ratepayers. Although I hope that this halfpenny in the £ limitation on the precept will remain in the Bill, it does not of itself give to us that assurance of security which, in the present circumstances of agriculture, we would wish to have. The truth is that in the county from which I come we are absolutely disabled by circumstances over which we have no control from paying for the luxury of a measure of this sort. Nobody denies the desirability of the measure. Everybody with agricultural improvement at heart would desire to see it passed and operated, but how are we to pay for it in the circumstances which prevaail? We cannot pay for it.

We are given no assurance of aid from the State. Even if aid from the State were given the possibilities are that it would be given on that bribery basis of pound for pound which is merely an incentive to county councils to spend more money than they possess. I mistrust that kind of grant. The truth is that at the present time we cannot afford this Bill. That being my view, and the view which I am confident is held by everybody representing any agricultural interest, we are bound against our own wishes to support such an Amendment as that moved by my noble friend Lord Clinton, and to support it with our votes if need be, not from hostility to the Bill but from the knowledge of our sheer inability to meet the cost of the Bill.

EARL DE LA WARR

I confess that on a matter of this kind I find it very hard to speak against the last two noble Lords who have spoken. Any one of your Lordships who has anything to do with agriculture, indeed whoever attends your Lordships' House, will know that there are no two noble Lords who would support more keenly any measure that they thought would be of use to the agricultural industry. But I cannot help feeling that their opposition to the Bill—after all, it does amount to opposition because putting off the Bill for five years is as good as killing it; it might just as well have been rejected on Second Reading if this Amendment is carried—and their desire to kill the Bill really arise from a misunderstanding, if I may say so, of the purpose of the Bill. This Bill, as I have tried to stress again and again, is mainly a matter of setting up machinery—the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has accused me of bringing this matter before your Lordships rather frequently—for local representatives to operate or not to operate drainage schemes. I realise that I have stressed this point very frequently, sometimes in almost every other Amendment; at the same time, it is none the less true. As the Bill has gone on the power of the Minister to intervene has gradually become weaker and weaker, and with that decreasing power of the Minister the power of the local representatives has increased strongly.

I really think that the justification for the fear that great new burdens are going to be imposed on agriculture becomes less and less strong. We are told that one of the reasons why noble Lords fear this expenditure is that it is unknown. Of course it is unknown, and for that very reason I am trying to persuade your Lordships that there is nothing to fear in this Bill. It is unknown to the Government, because it is not in the power of the Government in this Bill to say what drainage schemes are to be carried out. We do not know what schemes in the next five or ten years the Thames Conservancy Board are going to put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, knows a great deal more about that than we do. We do not know what schemes are going to be carried out all over the country. All we can say is that we are giving to the localities certain machinery under which they can decide this matter for themselves.

Apart from the lack of certainty about the cost, the point has been raised about the lack of certainty as to the help that is to be given by the Exchequer. We have already discussed that matter. The clause, for purely abstract constitutional reasons and for no other reason, has not actually been inserted in the Bill. Your Lordships know just as well as I do the terms of the clause. Whether the clause is in the OFFICIAL REPORT or whether it is in this Bill in italics, and therefore not in a position to be discussed, is, from the point of view of your Lordships' knowledge of what is going to happen, just the same thing. It may not be the same from the point of view of the prestige of this House, but it is from the point of view of knowledge and certainty. I read the whole clause out to the House and it is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If your Lordships would like I will gladly read it to you again, but it is in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the exact form in which my right hon. friend intends to introduce it into the other House.

It may be said that that clause was uncertain, that it did not specify any particular amount. Of course it did not specify any particular amount, because, again, we did not know what was going to be spent in the localities. We know that some loca1lities are poor, and will need a great deal more assistance than others. If we had put in any figure—say, if we had put in a power to grant up to 50 per cent. of the expenditure of localities—that would have been a most unfortunate insertion, because in some cases the locality may be very rich and at the same time its scheme may be one that will be most profitable to the locality, and, therefore, a large State grant might not in that case be entirely justifiable. In another case a locality might be very poor. It might have to levy a heavy rate to obtain even a comparatively small sum, and at the same time its scheme might be very necessary from a national point of view although from a purely agricultural point of view, or from the ratepayers' point of view, it might not be a profitable one. In that case it might be desirable to give even more than 50 per cent. That is the main reason which influenced us in purposely keeping that clause indefinite.

As your Lordships know, at the present moment, without this Bill and without any financial clause such as I have put before your Lordships, there is a scheme under the Unemployment Grants' organisation for giving grants for drainage schemes, and during the last eleven months just over £500,000 has been paid out in State assistance to drainage schemes. That figure will give your Lordships an idea of the sum of money that is at the present moment available. We shall hope, if the catchment boards prove anxious to bring forward schemes, to increase that sum considerably. I do not think there is anything more for me to say on this point without repeating what has been said again and again both on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, except that I would implore your Lordships to think most seriously before you 'pass an Amendment that virtually destroys the Bill.

Perhaps I might close by reading to your Lordships an extract from the Report of the Royal Commission. It is true the Royal Commission said that they hoped that any Government which proceeded with drainage legislation would have regard to the prevailing agricultural depression. I have already contended that by leaving the matter in the hands of the local authority, and giving State help as we intend to do, we have really met that point. On page 22 of the Report the Royal Commission give us a statement of the position as it is and as it will continue to be if this Amendment is carried. They say:— The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has stated, moreover, that at least 1,755,000 acres of land are in immediate need of drainage, and of this area only 285,000 acres are within existing drainage districts. Although much of this land may, as regards field drains and ditches, receive proper attention from the individual farmer, his work may be nullified by the absence of adequate arterial drainage. Of the above area of 1,755,000 acres, 1,279,000 acres are said to suffer from flooding, occasioned by defective or obstructed arterial channels, while 476,000 acres consist of land capable of improvement by means of small drainage schemes for the clearance of main ditches and other small watercourses. These figures do not include land which is in need of ordinary field drainage; on this subject information is not available, but it is probable that the area is considerable. I venture to say that if this Amendment is carried the state of drainage in this country will be left in the position that it is in to-day as stated in the Report of the Royal Commission.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We have no desire to be obstructive in this matter. I suppose there is no assembly in the world which contains so many landowners or men interested in land as your Lordships' House. There is not a, single landowner here who does not know the capital importance of adequate drainage for land. That is the A.B.C., if I may say so, of our profession. But we also know to our profound dismay that the condition of the finances of the country is deplorable. Does the Government really not realise to what a condition of strain those who bear the public burdens have been reduced by—I will not say merely the policy of the present Government, although the present Government has enormously increased it, but by a long succession of legislative measures and other misfortunes? because I think a legislative measure is very often a misfortune. We are up against a wall really. We cannot afford—speaking, I mean, collectively—any greater strain upon our resources. It is for that reason that we have made every effort during the passage of this Bill through Committee to reduce as far as we can the heavy burden.

My noble friend Lord Clinton asked several questions of the noble Earl. He wanted to know if he could say what sort of cost was involved. The noble Earl—I do not blame him for a moment—was unable to give him any answer. But it is a very formidable thing that he could not give an answer. I do not say he was wrong, but just think of the vista of heavy expenditure which that opens before us, that the noble Earl with all the resources of the Government, with every assistance of the Ministry of Agriculture at his disposal, can give us no kind of information on this subject. He gave us, I admit, a little more information upon the possibility of Exchequer contributions. The Exchequer contribution does not comfort me very much because I know that I pay rates out of the right-hand pocket and taxes out of the left-hand pocket, or the other way about. It all comes from the same source, the wealth of the country, whichever way it is done. Still, it would have done something from a limited class of ratepayers' point of view if the noble Earl could have given a little more information about what the taxpayer would contribute.

He was good enough to inform us of what I was ignorant, of the clause he had already read to the House, but even that, as he would be the first to admit, was of the vaguest description. My noble friend also asked him a question which he could answer, or at any rate the Government which he represents could answer. My noble friend asked what would be the fate of Lord Phillimore's Amendment as to the limit of rates which your Lordships put in last night in Clause 21. The Government could answer that. It is absolutely in their power. There is no doubt so far as their power is concerned. The members of the Cabinet could say at once how they will treat Lord Phillimore's Amendment when it comes up in another place. If they announced through a responsible Minister like the noble Earl, here at the Table, that they would support Lord Phillimore's Amendment, there is no question that it would pass into law. We know exactly what would happen. The Conservative Party, of course, would support it, and if the Government supported it it would be supported practically unanimously in another place. That question was put to the noble Earl. He did not answer it. I am afraid he was not sufficiently informed to be able to answer it. He did not say: "No, the Government will not support it." That is something. But he did not say: "Yes, they will support it." Our attitude in respect of this postponement would, I think, be affected by an assurance that the Government would support the limit of rates which was put in last night.

I am not in a position to give an absolute pledge to the noble Earl—I could not do that—but I am going to suggest a course directly with regard to this Amendment. But whatever course is suggested and carried by your Lordships in regard to this Amendment, we have not come to the end of the stages of the Bill. If the noble Earl could come here upon a future stage of the Bill and say that the Amendment to Clause 21 would be persisted in, would be allowed to be persisted in in another place, it would make a great difference. Can any member of the Government answer that question now? There is one member of the Cabinet present.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, I cannot answer it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I suppose the Cabinet have a great deal to do now.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

At 10.30 to-morrow we have a great deal to do.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I would invite the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, to tell his colleagues how very urgent we are not to oppose the Land Drainage Bill if we can possibly pass it on reasonable terms, so that we can say to those ratepayers who absolutely rely on us to protect them: "We have got a limit beyond which you cannot be taxed under this Bill." If we could do that, we should go a long way. I cannot speak, of course, in the name of all my noble friends, but if my noble friend Lord Clinton insists on his Amendment in its present form to-night I shall vote with him. But I think I can go to this length, that he would be willing probably to consider a very great reduction in the period of postponement if there was an assurance from the Government as to the limit of rates in Clause 21. There will be a lot of time in future stages of the Bill to make that arrangement. I hope it is quite understood that the particular number of years of postponement which is now before your Lordships will only be inserted, if your Lordships think fit, tentatively. It will be put in only tentatively. If the noble Earl can give us on the Report stage—there will be lots of time, I hope, to consider the matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage—an assurance that the rating limitation will be given to us, why, then, my Lords, I do not despair of coming to an amicable arrangement.

EARL DE LA WARR

I must confess to some disappointment at the speech of the noble Marquess, particularly because when I gave in on the Amendment to Clause 70 the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, assured me of his support. I have noticed that he has been sitting very close to the noble Marquess all through the proceedings, and I rather hoped that that meant the support of the noble Marquess at the same time. However, that hope has not been fulfilled. Of course, on an important matter of principle such as that introduced by the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, it would be quite impossible for me to answer any questions. It must obviously be a matter for decision and discussion, possibly prolonged discussion, by the Cabinet itself. For myself, although I am very anxious to see this Bill go through, and although I would like to give the noble Lord any assurance I can, I cannot quite imagine that an Amendment such as that, which would so upset the working of the Bill and be so inequitable as between different county councils, could possibly be accepted. But that is not for me to say, and I have no doubt the matter will receive consideration if it is pressed.

Again, I am disappointed because I think—and no one has admitted it more generously than noble Lords opposite—that we have made enormous, I might say colossal, concessions on this Bill. We have, so far as I can see, accepted protection for almost any imaginable interest that is affected. One noble Lord, when we were rather despondently, in our small numbers, going through that Lobby just now, remarked to me that he would probably shortly move an Amendment to except mental hospitals from the Bill! We really have made great concessions. We have accepted great limitations of the power of the Minister, we have put off the operation of any large works under the Thames Conservancy for two years, we have promised a very generous clause—all the more generous, as I have tried to explain, on account of its very indefiniteness—of financial assistance in another place. I think, with that record of having attempted to adjust ourselves to the views of noble Lords opposite, that—I will not say that we have a right, but that we are justified in asking your Lordships not to press us too far.

Perhaps I might say one word more. The noble Marquess particularly complained that I would not give him any account of the cost. I do not want to repeat myself, but I tried to make it clear at the beginning that if we were in a position to give your Lordships a statement of the cost I hesitate to think what the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, would be feeling about the powers that would be required by the Minister before we could do so. The Minister would have to be in the position of a drainage dictator in this country. That is the only way in which it would be possible for us to give your Lordships an account of the cost that is going to be incurred.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not complain of the noble Earl. I have never had any reason to complain of the noble Earl all through his conduct of this Bill. It is not that in the least. I only placed it upon record that our ignorance of the cost made it all the more necessary to take precautions in other directions.

EARL DE LA WARR

Perhaps "complained" was the wrong word. The noble Marquess regretted that we could not say more. I would point out that, purely as a result of your Lordships' own Amendments, we are to a much lesser extent in a position to inform your Lordships of the cost than before, because the Minister has now far less powers of saying what shall or shall not be done. What little power he had to insist on schemes has been very largely removed. How, therefore, can he inform your Lordships of the possible cost that is going to be incurred? It is quite impossible, because the amount of work that is going to be undertaken is left entirely outside his control.

I would make one last appeal to your Lordships not to press us any further since we have gone so far, and to allow the Bill to proceed as it is, amended very vitally and strongly by your Lordships. I do not say that in some respects it is not very much improved. Certainly no one could be more grateful than I am to your Lordships for the way in which you have treated this Bill up to the present moment. I hope that your Lord ships will not now, after all the efforts which you have put into it, completely kill it.

LORD CLINTON

I am very sorry, but I cannot respond to the noble Earl's appeal. We do recognise very fully indeed on this side of the House—I think he will understand this—his conciliatory

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule: