13° Julii, 1927.]

House: The useful discussion that took place in the other House

Chairman.] It seems to me we must assume the principle otherwise the Bill would not be here.

Mr. Charteris.] We are here on the question of principle primarily.

Chairman.] We will see when the point arises.

Mr. Charteris.] With great respect, the fact that a Bill comes before your Lordships and is sent here by the House of Commons does not in any degree indicate that the principle is a matter which has already been settled.

Chairman.] I do not want to emphasise too much any difference between the two Houses.

Mr. Macmillan.] There is this peculiarity

Chairman.] The Lords of this Committee are here in the same position as the members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Macmillan.] May I say this, really as an amicus curiae than anything else, it so happens the Standing Orders of the two Houses are different on this matter of Second Reading consideration. I beg your pardon; it is not a Standing Order matter; it is taken as a matter of practice. There is a different view taken, and I know I have prayed it in aid in appropriate crcumstances myself.

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] May I say this: In your Lordship's House no principle is ever concluded by a Second Reading. A Committee is always entitled to consider the principle of the Bill although it has been read a Second Time in your Lordship's House. In this Bill which has been read a Second Time in the House of Commons it was expressly stated during the debate that questions of principle could be considered; for instance, that the uplands could be taken out of the Bill by this Committee.

Colonel Heneage.] What page?

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] That is Column 1229. It was during the speech of Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, and it was pointed out more than once. You will find that at the end of the first paragraph, Column 1229. "Because the Uplanders have their objections is no reason for refusing the Bill a Second Reading; they can be taken out, if necessary, in Committee." So all these questions of princple are open to us.

Chairman.] There is no doubt the Committee can alter the Bill.

[Continued.

Mr. Macmillan.] I have no doubt about that. Take a topic such as my learned friend Mr. Tyldesley Jones referred to. May I draw a distinction?

Chairman.] I do not want a distinction to be drawn in this Committee between members. I am quite sure you agree to that.

Mr. Macmillan.] The distinction I was going to draw was this, because I seem to have been the occasion of this discussion. As my learned friend has pointed out all questions within the Bill, for example as to the areas and the rates to be imposed in the areas, are referred to this Committee undoubtedly, because those are all methods of working out this scheme. On all those my learned friends are, of course, perfectly entitled to put their views before you and the Committee to decide upon them. What I said, which seems to have been the occasion of the trouble, was that the question of whether this whole measure should be postponed not the question of the merits of this measure at all, but whether the whole Bill should be postponed and not be considered because there is at the present moment in existence a Royal Commission is a question of a totally different type, because if that argument was presented to you we might stop here and now; you might hear a debate on that topic, and having heard there was a Royal Commission in existence, if you were in favour of my learned friend's argument you would stop there and would not reach a consideration of merits. That consideration is of a totally different character from the consideration of merits. The question of postponing it is a new consideration altogether. That is of a different character from the point which arises on the merits of the Bill itself. It was upon that point I said the Bill had been very fully discussed and sent to the Committee notwithstanding the existence of a Royal Commission, and it seems to me, at any rate as regards one House, that concluded the question of principle.

Mr. Charteris.] But obviously the opponents of the measure as it is before this Committee are not precluded from raising that point.

Mr. Macmillan.] No, I do not think I could say that, but observe what it comes to, and I really appeal to my learned friends upon this matter. they are to move-and I always like to put the matter in formal shape; there is

If

13 Julii, 1927.]

nothing like getting it in a motion if his contention is right it ought to be sound for my learned friend to move that this Committee should not consider this Bill, because there exists at the present moment a Royal Commission charged with the duty of investigating this topic, and until that Commission has reported it is idle and premature to consider this topic at all.

Mr. Charteris.] I should say that having regard to all the circumstances of this particular case it is desirable to await the decision of the Royal Commission, and we shall in the course of the proceedings here hear the circumstances of that particular case, and that will be one of our submissions at the end of the hearing, that it is desirable, in view of the Royal Commission at the present time sitting, that the ultimate decision with regard to the Ouse Drainage Board should be postponed until the Report of the Commission has been given.

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] May I say I take the same view as my learned friend, and I support that by an actual precedent of a Bill before your Lordship's House. In 1922 or 1923 a Bill to create Doncaster a county borough was passed by the House of Commons and was sent to your Lordship's House. It was read a second time in the House of Lords and sent to the Committee. Objection was taken by one of the opponents and one of the grounds they urged was: "This is a controversial matter; you see the questions involved. There is now a Royal Commission sitting, throw this Bill out pending the decision of the Royal Commission," and the Bill was thrown out by your Lordship's House on those grounds.

Chairman.] The point will be considered when it arises.

Mr. Macmillan.] Which Bill, I should say, was only a Private Bill and not a Government Bill.

Chairman.] I was not going to labour the point, but it occurred to me.

Mr. Macmillan.] My Lord, that there exists at the moment a Royal Commission in being there is no doubt. I have in my hands the terms of the remit to the Royal Commission, and if your Lordship would like to have the terms of that remit, and my learned friend would like to have them read, because they would assist his point, I will read them here and now. Is it your pleasure, my

63205

[Continued.

Lord, that I should read the terms of the Royal Commission's remit?

Chairman.] It will not take long? Mr. Macmillan.] It is only a paragraph.

Chairman.] If the point is not laboured.

Mr. Macmillan.] I read it under the reservation

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] Under protest.

Mr. Macmillan.] Under protest, but with my usual agreeable complaisance: "The King has been pleased to appoint a Royal Commission on Land Drainage with the following Terms of Reference: To inquire into the present law relating to Land Drainage in England and Wales and its administration throughout the country, to consider and report whether any amendment of the law is needed to secure an efficient system of arterial drainage without undue burden being placed on any particular section of the community, and to make recommendations having regard to all the interests concerned." Then follow the names of the members of the Commission who are persons distinguished in public life, the Chairman being Lord Bledisloe, and other Members of your Lordships' House and of the other House.

If I read that I am equally entitled, I think, to put before this Committee the view of the Minister whom I represent on the matter as stated to the other House, that in the case of the Ouse area Parliament was asked to deal in this measure with a unique area offering unprecedented problems, and therefore you were dealing here with a special case, not only an urgent case but a case the features of which were unique, and the problems of which were unprecedented, and therefore it was one which called for special consideration without in any sense prejudicing the consideration of the Royal Commission or their ultimate

recommendations.

Now I shall leave the paragraph there and pass to paragraph 16 of the Cambridgeshire Petition: "Your Petitioners desire to call attention to the fact that a somewhat similar proposal to that contained in Clause 4 of the Bill was laid before Parliament recently by the Thames Conservancy, but, on the opposition of the authorities affected, the proposal was rejected. The proposal put forward by the Thames Conservancy was not however so objectionable as the pro

C 2

13 Julii, 1927.]

posals of the Bill in that some at least of the money to be contributed under that Bill would have been spent in the areas of the contributing councils where as this is not the case under the proposals of the Bill. (17) The only claim which appears to be advanced in justification of the proposals of Clause 4 of the Bul, in so far as those proposals relate to the uplands is that water fron the upland areas flows from those areas into the lowlands, and that this water assists to render necessary the drainage works upon which the heavy expenditure contemplated by the Bill is proposed to be incurred. It is printed out that by far the greater part of the water which flows from the uplands into the lowlands flows there in the ordinary course of nature, and that your Petitioners are not responsible for this flow, and could not, under any circumstances, prevent it." I do not suggest for a moment that they control the meteorological conditions of their county; the rain falls upon the just and the unjust; I shall not discriminate as to which is which: "Under the general law, which has always hitherto prevailed, a riparian owner is bound to submit to receive water naturally flowing along a stream, even though such water causes him damage by flooding his land." That is quite an accurate statement of the law, but it would also be accurate if the author of this document had gone on to say, if, on the other hand, the upland owner puts up artificial works and so alters the flow below, then he incurs an obligation to his lower neighbour. "The proposals of the Bill are, it is submitted, subversive of the principles which have hitherto governed the rights of riparian owners and others interested in natural watercourses, and your Petitioners submit that no such alteration should be made, unless by public general statute applicable to the whole country." That is the same point again, that this is a matter for general legislation rather than for particular local legislation: "Your Petitioners desire to refer to the history of the lowlands which is the area that will derive benefit from the proposals of the Bill. Originally, your Petitioners believe, the lowlands were (for the most part at all events) comparatively valueless as agricultural lands." Apparently they concede there that the whole of the lowlands will derive benefit from the proposals of the Bill, because they say there,

[Continued.

"that is the area that will derive benefit." I should have thought they would want to discriminate further and show that some portion of the lowlands would not derive benefit by not being under the immediate shelter of the protective works, but they concede there that the whole of the lowlands will benefit; "and that they derived their value from the construction of drainage works, which works were carried out in the early part of the seventeenth century by persons who were allotted parts of the reclaimed lands in consideration of the works constructed by them. It is accordingly submitted that, if expenditure be necessary, in order to maintain the value of these lands, such expenditure should be borne by the owners of the lands to be saved, and your Petitioners contend that it vould be unjust to exact a contribution from them in respect of the uplands which have not and cannot derive benefit from the construction, maintenance or existence of the drainage works in the Jowlands It would also be unjust that the uplands and that part of your Petitoners' county which is outside the Ouse District should be require to contribute (as they would under the provisions of the Bill) to the amount your Petitioners would be required to pay to the Ouse Board in respect of the comparatively small part of your Petitioners' county which is in the lowlands." As regards the uplands, they have the opportun ty if they please of restricting it to the area within the catchment valley of the Ouse.

in

Now the suggestion there is, my Lord, that this burden should be put upon the owners of the lands which can be shown to be directly benefited. In short, the old principle should be applied that benefit and liability should be commensurate and associated. That topic was discussed by the Commission certain of the paragraphs of their Report. and it might be convenient just to refer to that at this moment. I do not think I have yet brought it before the Committee. The principle is discussed in paragraph 54, that the cost if it were to be laid upon a drainage rate confined to the lowland areas would be prohibitive so far as the lands are concerned. For example, may I refer to page 35 of the Report. "In Appendix D are given particulars of the average of the rates levied

13 Julii, 1927.]

by these authorities "-these are the internal authorities" during the past three years, together with the Middle Level rate (4s. 5d.) or South Level (estimated) rate (2s. 8d.), and also the rate which it is anticipated that the Ouse Board will have to levy if the works recommended by us are to be carried out without any State assistance." I am afraid that only shows the effect without State assistance. We show on our Table what would be the effect of confining the revenue to a drainage rate made within the lowlands alone without county contributions but with Government assistance. That is shown in columns 36, 37 and 38. It would mean a rate on agricultural land of 33.97d., that is 2s. 9d. or 2s. 10d. That is with the Government assistance. Without the Government assistance and without contributions from the counties, of course, the rate would be ever so much larger.

Mr. Tyldesley Jones.] It only takes £13,000 out of a total of £27,000.

Mr. Macmillan.] No, without Government assistance; that is after Government assistance. Without Government assistance and county contributions it would be a good deal more, about double. Without county contributions but with Government assistance it would be about 2. 10d. While with these figures which you see in the case of Norfolk in Column 36, 33.97d., you have to remember you have to add on the top of that the internal drainage rates, because these areas are many of them inside little specialised areas which exact heavy rates upon the lands within them, therefore you do not get reflected in the figure the total burden upon the land, because they have also to pay their internal rates over and above the rates they would have to pay to the Ouse Drainage Board. If, for instance, we may take the position thus: Assuming the Government grant, and assuming contribution by the county, the Ouse Board rate per acre would be 2s. 6d. Then you would add either the South Level or the Middle Level, the South Level being 2s. 8d. and the Middle Level 4s. 5d. Of course, you might have neither if you were not in either. Then you would have to add the further internal rate which varies from 1s. to 18s. per acre. They are not in that Table. The import of the Report upon this matter is that to finance this scheme with Government aid and by means of a drainage rate confined to the

63 205

Mr. Macmillan.]

They would say even more. They would say not merely restrict it to the drainage rate in the lowlands, but they say "In the lowlands select the owners whose lands are actually benefited and charge the rate upon them in respect of the land so benefited." is even more narrow than that. I do not think my learned friend's point is that it should be confined to a rate levied in the drainage area, that is to say, in the lowland area, but that it should be attached to land ownership. Then my learned friend goes on to say: "If it is in the interests of the country as a whole that the value of the lowlands should be maintained, and that the works necessary for maintaining that value should be constructed, your Petitioners submit that any contribution necessary to assist the lowlands in maintaining such value should be borne nationally." Accordingly they wish it to be an Imperial tax. "The upland part of your Petitioners' county and the part of the county which is outside the Ouse District have, it is submitted, no direct concern in the matter and it is no more right that they should be called upon to pay for works which beenfit the lowlands than any other area in the kingdom." They put the position perfectly broadly there, and I shall not comment on it. It is quite fairly put as their argument: "Your Petitioners also submit that works required for the protection of land against flooding are works necessary for the protection of individual lands and that the cost of such works should not be a charge on any general community nor upon persons who derive no benefit or protection from the works. Your Petitioners strongly object to any propoesal under which the whole of the county is required to pay what amounts

a contribution by way of insurance against loss of rateable value in the lowlands." I pointed out yesterday even under the benefit system as at present

C 3

13° Julii, 1927.]

obtaining the liability is in no sense commensurate with the benefit receive

Once you have discovered anybody is benefited to however small an extent that entails liability along with the persons whose benefit may be very large. Therefore you have gross inequities be

[Continued.

tween owners in particular cases. No system apportions direct benet to any particular land. The system is to assess any person benefited, and then the person benefited is charged, but the charge is not necessarily commensurate with the benefit.

Mr. Macmillan.] The Cambridgeshire "Your Petition, page 5, Article 18: Petitioners desire to refer to the history of the lowlands which is the area that will derive benefit from the proposals of the Bill"; I read that passage. I think I had got to 20-I had read that.

21.

In the report above referred to upon which the Bill is based, reference is made to certain recent private Acts which have been passed by Parliament. These private Acts, however, do not, your Petitioners contend, constitute anything in the nature of precedents for what is proposed in Clause 4 of the Bill. In the first place, they authorise the councils of individual counties to expend money towards drainage works in their own counties only and for the benefit of those counties. The expenditure, therefore, incurred under these private Acts, is expenditure incurred by the representatives of those who are called upon to contribute to it. The works, moreover, which are authorised to be carried out under these Acts, consist of works carried out within the areas by which the money is contributed, and such works are for the purpose of protecting lands within those areas from flooding and injury by water. It cannot be contended that the works proposed to be carried out under the present Bill, by means of the money to be contributed by your Petitioners, would, in any way, prevent the flooding of the upland area of your Petitioners' county, or that the inhabitants of that area would derive any more benefit from the expenditure of such money than any other area in the kingdom. The Bill proposes in effect to require a large part of your Petitioners' county to make very substantial and perpetual contributions for the purpose of improving and maintaining the rateable value of areas in & comparatively small part of your Petitioners county and in other counties with which your Petitioners have no concern. No improvement in the rateable value of the greater part of your

Petitioners' county could result from the Bill, indeed your Petitioners submit that the opposite effect will be produced. (22): For the foregoing, and other, reasons, into which your Petitioners will be prepared to go, if necessary, before the Committee of your Honourable House to which the Bill may be referred, your Petitioners humbly submit that the Bill, as it stands at present, and particularly Clause 4 thereof, should not be allowed to become law, and that the cost of land drainage works should continue, as in the past, to be allocated according to the principle which depends upon custom and has been in operation from time immemorial. The principle referred to has, it is submitted, always hitherto been recognised by the statute law on the subject of land drainage which has been in operation for centuries. Such principle is, your Petitioners submit, that lands are to be charged on the basis of benefit derived, or assumed to be derived, from the works proposed to be constructed, and the avoidance of danger. (23): Your Petitioners call attention to the proposal of Clause 3 (2) (b) of the Bill, and they submit that this proposal is open to great objection and should not be allowed. In any event, they submit that this proposal cannot be justified in regard to a particular area of the country and that, if it is to be adopted, it should only be adopted by means of a general enactment applicable to the whole country. In this connection, your Petitioners again call attention to the fact that a Royal Commission has been appointed to investigate the whole principles involved in land drainage, your Petitioners submit that, pending the sitting of this Commission and pending any public enactment, which may be decided upon by Parliament as the result of the deliberations of the Commissioners, no new departure should be made in the principles of land drainage, which have been in operation ever since the passing of the Bill of Sewers in 1531." I might have