DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL. (Hansard, 28 March 1933)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR)
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to place the whole lengths of the rivers Don and Trent under the same principle as that which governs all other main rivers throughout the country since the passage of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Perhaps it may help your Lordships to understand the reason for this Bill if I relate to you as shortly as possible the history of the Doncaster Drainage Board. In 1923 a Royal Commission was set up to deal with the question of mining subsidence. As a result of a Report—I think it was an interim Report—of that Royal Commission, a new Commission was set up to deal specifically with the question of mining subsidence in relation to land drainage in this area. That Commission reported in 1928, and as a result of its report the Doncaster Drainage Act, 1929, was passed. The powers that were given to the Doncaster Drainage Board then were the normal powers that were given to any drainage board, but in addition to those normal powers special provisions were made making the coal-mining industry responsible for damage done as a result of mining subsidence. That is a 98 very important point, because if it had not been for those special provisions and the fear of losing those special provisions, then the main rivers within the area of the Doncaster Drainage Board would have been dealt with in exactly the same manner as were all other main rivers under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Owing to the fear of losing those special provisions if this area were included within the scope of the General Act, the Doncaster area was excepted from the Act of 1930.
Since then, in September, 1931, and May, 1932, there have been two terrible floods, within the space of only a few months, affecting thousands of families and homes and doing damage both to life and property. It has rapidly become apparent that a small Board such as the Doncaster Drainage Board cannot hope to deal with the problem of draining that area effectively. What has happened is a justification of the general legislation under the Act of 1930, when it was stated that the inter-action of all waters within a catchment area made it essential that all the main waters should be dealt with by one authority. Thus to-day, with regard to the one exception made under the Land Drainage Act, 1930, we are driven back to the principle which was then accepted. Actually under the Act of 1930 it would have been possible to deal with the problem of placing responsibility for the whole of the main rivers, the Don and the Trent, on their respective catchment boards. Under Section 5 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, the Minister is given power to vary the area of the catchment board and add to the main river any additional length of that main river. But if he operated under that Act, and did not have the powers conferred by this special measure, then there would not be the special provisions with regard to responsibility for mining subsidence. Therefore he naturally prefers to operate under this Bill which is now before your Lordships.
Certain local authorities fear this Bill because they say that it will place on them responsibilities for land drainage which are new and which they are not in a position to meet. But these county boroughs and county councils will only be put in exactly the same position as every other county borough and every other county council throughout the country.
99 Moreover, the Bill does not really affect their position to the extent that they fear it will. As the law is to-day, without the passage of this Bill the internal drainage board is in the position of being able to make a request to the catchment board, to which the county boroughs and the county councils have to contribute, for assistance in dealing with the main rivers for which they are responsible. It is a voluntary contribution, but if the internal drainage board are of opinion that the contribution from the catchment board is insufficient they can appeal to the Minister under Section 21 of the Land Drainage Act, and the Minister, after holding local public inquiry, may make such an order in the matter as he thinks just. Therefore, even as the law stands at the moment, important Cities like Bradford and others, who fear the passage of this Bill, will ultimately be in the position of having to meet their share of the expense of draining the area of the main rivers.
Under this Bill the process will be reversed—that is, the catchment board will assess the internal drainage board, and under the same section the county borough or county council, if of the opinion that the internal drainage board has been assessed at too little, which would mean that they were in danger of being assessed at too much, can appeal to the Minister and the Minister, after public inquiry, may make such orders as he thinks just. You may ask why, if so small a change is made in the situation of the county boroughs and county councils, there is need for the Bill at all, but it is at the express request of the two catchment boards which are to take over these responsibilities and on which the county boroughs and county councils are represented, that we are introducing this Bill. Their reason for requesting us to bring forward this measure is that they recognise that if this work is to be carried on as it must be after the terrible floods that have taken place, they will have to make a contribution. That being so, they would rather have control of their own expenses and, instead of having to make a contribution to an internal drainage board, become responsible themselves and then assess the internal drainage board for a fair share of the expense. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with the details 100 of the clauses of the Bill. I have simply tried to lay before the House the main principles that he behind the Bill and the reasons for introducing it. If there are any points on which your Lordships would like any explanations I will endeavour to give them. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL
My Lords, in rising to support the noble Earl I should like to ask him one or two questions. In the first place I should like to know what are the objections of Bradford to this Bill. I presume Bradford is in the same position as other urban districts under the Act of 1930, and therefore I cannot understand why it has any objection to the Bill. Secondly, does the eight-foot flood level still remain? Thirdly, has the Government any idea of the difficulties regarding the collection of rates for the drainage areas in the towns and cities? If they are not going to help the drainage board very much in the collection of rates, it would be cheaper if one could make a general collection; otherwise, the new drainage board will have great difficulties in collecting all these small amounts, some of them under 10s., and it will not be worth while to sue to get the amounts.

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, the first of the points raised by the noble Earl is as to why Bradford should object to the passage of this Bill. I have ventured to try to deal generally with the fear of the boroughs that they would have to find additional money for drainage. It is a little difficult to explain exactly without a map, but Bradford argued that as their waters did not themselves pass through the Doncaster Drainage Board's area they should not be made responsible for the drainage of the Don. That actually raises an issue which your Lordships debated very thoroughly on the passage of the Land Drainage Act of 1930, when you said that all the main rivers in a given catchment area should be apportioned over the whole of that area. It is true that the waters coming from Bradford by the River Aire do not come through the Doncaster area, but equally it is true that the Aire does, just on the boundaries of the Doncaster area, join the Don and the result is that a great deal of water is held back in the Don area. 101 As to the noble Earl's second point, the question of the eight-foot flood level is in no way affected by this Bill. Lastly, the subject of collection is a general question affecting the Land Drainage Act rather than this Bill, but if the noble Earl looks in Section 23, subsection (2), of the Act he will see that the county or borough councils have power to carry out the collection either in the form of a general rate over the whole area or by a special rate limited to the area affected.