COAST PROTECTION BILL. (Hansard, 9 December 1938)

§ Mr. Holmes
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At the beginning of the present year those of us who represent in this House constituencies on the coast of England, 1559 Scotland and Wales decided to form ourselves into a body to study completely the problems which concern seaside towns. We had hardly been formed when, during the early spring, there was considerable damage done at Aberystwyth on the west coast and Horsey, in Norfolk, on the east. We immediately made it our business to go into the reasons which caused either coast erosion or flooding by the sea. We found, without a doubt, that it was caused in many cases by the removal of sand, shingle or other material from the sea shore. There is no authority which has power to deal with this matter, and the object of the Bill it to enable the Board of Trade to prohibit, restrict or impose conditions as to the excavation or removal of materials which form part of the seashore of the United Kingdom, not including Northern Ireland, if the Board are of opinion that it is desirable to make such an order for the protection of any part of the coast from erosion or the protection of any lands from damage by the action of the sea.
The House will probably remember that leave was given me on path July last, under the Ten Minutes Rule, to introduce such a Bill, and actually I obtained a Second Reading unopposed one night after II o'clock. Of course, it was too late in that Session to make any progress, but actually the introduction and printing of the Bill and the discussion which took place have been of great value, as a number of comments and criticism have been received, and they have resulted in alterations being made in the form of the Bill. The present Bill, I think, will be more commendable to everybody than the one introduced in July last. While there is no authority which has power to deal with this matter, it has been maintained in law that no person has the right to remove shingle, sand, or other materials from the seashore if such removal will cause erosion or flooding.
I would call the attention of the House to a case which was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1880. The matter came before the court on an action which was in the nature of an information by the Attorney-General, on behalf of the Crown. It was an action by the Secretary of War, as plaintiff, against Colonel John Tomline, Lord of the Manor of Felixstowe Priory, in Suffolk. Colonel 1560 Tomline claimed to be owner of the foreshore. A shingle bank on the beach formed a natural barrier which protected the land from the sea and was the only barrier which prevented the sea from encroaching on War Office land. Colonel Tomline had for some years past sold large quantities of the shingle. The War Office alleged that in consequence of this removal, War Office land was in immediate danger of being flooded, and that if the removal were continued the whole natural barrier of shingle would be destroyed, the War Office land would be flooded and the stability of a martello tower would be endangered.
In the first Court Mr. Justice Fry laid it down that it was part of the duty of the Crown of England to protect the Realm of England from the incursions of the sea by appropriate defences, and that it was no less the duty of the Crown to protect the Realm by leaving unimpaired the natural defences which already existed from time immemorial, and probably from periods of remote geological antiquity. He, therefore, held that, it being the duty of the Crown to protect the shingle bank, the bank itself was under the safeguard of the Royal Authority in this sense, that any person removing this bank so as to prevent or interfere with the performance by the Crown of this public duty would be committing a wrongful act. It would be as much a wrongful act, said the judge, wilfully to destroy the natural bank which the Crown was bound to protect and maintain, as it would be a wrongful act for any person to interfere with the artificial barrier which the Crown might, out of its own revenues, have set up by the erection of a sea wall.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Lord Justices Brett, Cotton and James, approved the principles of law laid down by Mr. Justice Fry. Lord Justice Brett added that although Colonel Tomline was not bound to keep the sea out, he must not do any act which would let the sea in. Lord Justice Cotton said that the duty and obligation of the Crown was to protect the land from the incursions of the sea, and that if there was land which was a natural barrier against the sea, in his opinion the public had a right to say that the Crown could not deal with that in such a way as to deprive the Realm of that natural barrier against the sea.
1561 The judgments in the first court and in the Court of Appeal established what the law on this particular matter is, but, as no Government Department has power to act, action to prevent any person from destroying a natural bank of shingle or sand can only at present be taken by an individual or by a local authority, and as the onus of proof would rest with the plaintiff, who might have to face a series of legal actions possibly going up to the House of Lords, it is not difficult to understand that individuals and local authorities hesitate, and have hesitated in the past, to commence proceedings. This Bill takes the practical step of enabling the Board of Trade to prohibit, restrict or impose conditions as to the excavation or removal of any materials forming part of the seashore if the Board are of opinion that the seashore needs protection.
An endeavour has been made to provide adequate safeguards for the owners of these materials. The House will observe in the Schedule to the Bill that the Board of Trade, before making an order, must give notice of their intention, must publish the draft order, must consider objections and may hold a local inquiry. Further, before any order is made, the Board of Trade must obtain by resolution the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If it should so happen, after all this machinery has been carried out, that an order is made and the person fails to comply with its provisions, he will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50, and in the case of a continuing offence to an additional fine not exceeding £5 a day. It is desirable that I should mention that no compensation will be payable to the owner of a foreshore concerning which an order has been made by the Board of Trade. That is obviously a right and proper thing, since no subject of the land has the right to impede the Crown in the exercise of a primary duty.
Immediately after the Labour Government took office in 1929 the President of the Board of Trade, the late Mr. William Graham, introduced a Coast Protection Bill, which received a Second Reading without a Division. The Bill had actually been drafted by the preceding Conservative Government and would have been presented to the House by Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, now Lord Swinton, if that Government had remained in office. 1562 Clause 3 of that Bill was almost identical with the Bill before the House to-day. The Bill of 1929 was a very wide and comprehensive Measure, and a study of the Debates upon it shows that the reason it did not reach the Statute Book was that it imposed on the national Exchequer and upon local authorities an undefined liability for coast defence. It was, therefore, opposed by Members of this House and by local authorities in all parts of the country. The Debates, however, did not describe any opposition to Clause 3, and I believe that if the Bill which the late Mr. Graham introduced in 1929 had simply consisted of Clause 3 it would have been on the Statute Book for the last nine years. The House was good enough to give me leave on 19th July to introduce this Bill and, therefore, to give me the opportunity of getting a Second Reading. I hope that it will now allow the Bill to go to Committee.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore
I beg to second the Motion.
I shall not detain the House, because there are on the Order Paper other Measures which require discussion. I should like to offer my congratulations, as representative of a seaside constituency, to my hon. Friend on his good fortune and the determination which he has shown in getting this Bill brought before the House of Commons for Second Reading, and giving us an opportunity of Debating it. I am probably in a unique position, because the constituency that I have the honour to represent consists entirely of seaside towns, and the consequence is that the local authorities have had to spend a great deal of ratepayers' money in forming barriers and other protections along the sea fronts. Some of my sporting listeners will bear in mind that we have a number of very good golf courses in Ayrshire, on the low-lying ground near the sea. I was subjected to personal inconvenience on one occasion, when I took advantage of the very seldom occurring opportunity of a game of golf on one of our Ayr courses. I found that the fourth hole on my favourite links had disappeared, and when I asked the Secretary why that had been allowed to happen, he referred me to the sea. That incident gives me, I think, an added and more personal claim in supporting my hon. Friend's Measure to-day. I can see that the House will give the Bill a Second 1563 Reading, and I hope hon. Members will follow up in Committee their action today, and ensure that the Bill becomes law.

§ Sir J. Smedley Crooke
I should like to say a word in support of the Bill. I witnessed last year the damage which the terrible storm did at Aberystwyth. There is every reason for passing the Bill. The hon. Member has certainly made out a very good case for his Bill and I hope it will soon be on the Statute Book.