§ Clause 3, page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
My Lords, after consideration of certain suggested Amendments in the other place, the Government decided that some of the matters dealt with in this subsection are now more conveniently dealt with in the Amendment to the definition of "building" in Clause 18, page 21, line 12, and in the Amendment in Clause 18, page 22, line 31 as to fences and gates. For that reason it is moved that this subsection should be left out.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, that is a rather important matter which I am sure my noble friend will be able to elucidate, but it is not clear to me at the moment. This subsection (1) of Clause 3 contained a very important Amendment accepted by the Government in your Lordships' House, excluding the possibility of the laying down of agricultural drains being prevented in certain circumstances. Now the subsection has gone, and when we come to subsection (3) of the same clause on page 5, we find the words:No restrictions in force under Section one of this Act shall apply to"—and then we have words to which the noble Earl will be coming directly, which more or less reproduce the words in subsection (1) which have been taken out. To that extent it is quite satisfactory, but subsection (1) brought this drainage question into relation with both Clauses 1 and 2, whereas subsection (3) quite definitely brings it into relation with Clause 1 only. I should be very much obliged if my noble friend would explain the Amendment in regard to Clause 2 and say if there is good reason to satisfy us on the point.
§ THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH
The noble Lord was good enough to warn me that he intended to raise this point. Therefore I have had an opportunity of enquiring into it, and I hope I have an answer which will prove satisfactory to him. As originally worded the drafting of the Bill was not entirely satisfactory. The real point is this, that there is no restriction in Clause 2 at all on excavation of any kind, and therefore it was really quite unnecessary from the beginning to make this exception in the case of Clause 2. As the noble Lord knows, certain Amendments have now been put in as the result of which specific reference is made to this particular matter of drains in connection with Clause 1 of the Bill, but not Clause 2. I think after that explanation it is not necessary to make reference to Clause 2 in that respect.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.