COASTAL FLOODING (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

HC Deb 01 April 1953 vol 513 cc1237-97

Order for Second Reading read.

4.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill which I am commending to the House today is, as its name implies, an emergency and largely temporary Measure designed to effect quickly permanent repairs to our sea defences, and is necessitated by the disastrous tidal surge that swept over our sea walls on the East Coast just two months ago.

As the Prime Minister said at the outset, this catastrophe requires to be treated upon a national basis and, broadly, as a national responsibility, and I would ask the House to accept the Bill in that spirit. It is in this way that we are tackling this disaster and treating it as an abnormal occurrence which justifies urgent and exceptional treatment. The Bill is in two parts. Part I deals with restoration of sea defences and Part II with the rehabilitation of agricultural land which has been flooded all along the East Coast.

First, let me deal with Part I in general terms. The House will not expect me to describe again the events on the night of 31st January and the early morning of 1st February, and the steps that have been taken since then to deal with the effects of the flood disaster. These matters have been described and discussed very fully in the course of debates in this House. I would only remind the House of the statement I made on 2nd February, that the events of the previous day confronted us with the need for the reinstatement of sea defences along a great length of our coastline, and that this would present the nation with one of the greatest civil engineering problems that we had ever had to face.

The operation of closing the breaches has been tackled with great energy, as has, I think, been agreed on all sides. The task of strengthening the temporary work has gone ahead in the same way, but along the 1,000 miles of coastline for which the East Coast river boards are responsible the sea defences have been generally weakened although not breached—that is in addition to where they have been breached—and are in no fit state to stand up to the storms and tidal conditions that the winter months almost invariably bring to our coasts. We must do everything in our power to guard against a recurrence of further widespread flooding next winter. Our sea defences must be restored by permanent works at least to their pre-flood strength and, as the House knows, the full cost of such work carried out by river boards for this purpose before the end of September will be met by the Government.

The House will remember that it will be one of the main tasks of the committee over which Lord Waverley is presiding to advise about the long-term measure of protection that will be necessary. Without waiting for their report, more extensive work will have to be done before next winter for the protection of certain populated areas such as Canvey Island and some important industrial establishments, such as the oil plants on the Thames Estuary. Some part of the cost of these additional protective works can properly be met from local resources. Such a local contribution may either be met by a larger precept upon the internal drainage board, towards the funds of which the big plant will be a major contributor as one of the largest ratepayers, or, alternatively, in appropriate cases, the owners of the plant will be asked to pay direct part of the cost.

Local negotiations regarding the financing of these additional works will not be allowed to delay their execution. The responsibility for doing these works to protect low-lying coastal areas against flooding by sea water rests with river boards, which are responsible to my Department.

From the earliest times, civilised man has been concerned with the embanking of land to protect it from flooding and the drainage of land so protected. The two functions go together and dovetail one into the other. Over the centuries special authorities were set up to cover land drainage and the prevention of inundation from the sea. The father of all these authorities was established as far back as 700 years ago in Romney Marsh, and more than four centuries ago the Statute of Sewers of 1531 provided for the establishment of authorities to maintain sea and estuarial embankments and to levy rates to meet the cost of work done.

This early Measure was supplemented by further general and local legislation; but, as recently as 25 years ago, responsibility for these sea defence works rested with a large number of small, local drainage authorities.

Concentration of responsibility into larger units began in 1930 and was completed by the River Boards Act of 1948. As a result, the river boards, roughly, one for each of the coastal counties, came into existence between 1950 and 1952. It may interest the House to know that the Essex River Board, which has suffered severely in the past two months, was set up as recently as October, 1952. The general public did not perhaps realise at the time, and may not fully realise even now, the importance of the sea defence functions exercised by these few authorities along great lengths of coastline. It was, however, a matter of crucial importance that, when the crisis happened, we had on the spot authorities with specialist engineering staff, workmen and equipment and with full knowledge of the embankments concerned, who were able immediately to take local control of the emergency work and who are now in control of the reconstruction work.

As I have said, river boards are the inheritors of a long history of powers and traditions. In this long history they are very new authorities. But all sides of the House will agree that, in the greatest crisis they could have been called upon to face, they have won their spurs during this winter.

As I have told the House, the overriding need at the moment is to restore our sea defences swiftly and to do as much work as possible before next autumn. Within this period, and in any case as soon as possible, we must plan, negotiate and carry out sea defence works that would in normal times occupy anything between perhaps 10 and 15 years. The planning is a matter for the engineers of river boards and of my Department. The execution of the work will be largely a matter for civil engineering contractors, most of whom are already on the sites engaged on emergency works.

Subject to appropriate compensation for loss or for damage done, the needs of the community for protection against further flooding must take precedence over the rights of the individual. Normal processes of negotiation, the service of notices, the holding of inquiries, and so on, can have only a limited part in this urgent task. The Bill provides the powers to enable river boards to take the necessary short cuts, such as entry on land without notice for construction of banks, and to reconcile the river boards' proposals with the interests of individuals and other authorities.

In a sentence, the Bill seeks to give for a limited period—and I would stress the words "limited period"—and only to the six river boards principally concerned, either powers that they do not at present possess or stronger or more speedy powers than those which they now exercise. The Bill is limited to the six authorities specified in Clause 1, because it was in their areas that the major damage occurred and on them rests the major task of reconstruction. Damage was also done in other areas, such as Northumberland and Durham, but we believe that work in these areas can be dealt with under existing powers. Indeed, much of the work done by the six specified river boards will, we expect, be done by agreement. The Bill provides particularly for the cases where agreement cannot be secured readily or where the ordinary processes would be too slow. I think the House will agree that we cannot take the risk that necessary work will be held up because the requisite powers are not available.

I do not propose this afternoon to explain in detail each Clause. Part I of the Bill enables me to authorise any one of the six river boards to construct or repair embankments on any land to protect their areas from flooding by sea water. Engineering considerations will determine where the bank must go. In some cases, if a new bank is being con-tructed it may be necessary to use the site of a building or the area surrounding a building, such as the garden of a private house, and Clause 1 (3, a) enables this to be done for bank construction only, including, of course, the construction of a road immediately behind the bank or of a ditch or borrow pit from which clay may be extracted to build it While much of the material for building banks will be obtained from behind the bank, in some cases it will be necessary to obtain clay or other material from a distance, and to ensure that there is no delay the Bill enables me to authorise river boards to enter on land and obtain such materials. This class of work is referred to in the Bill as "earth getting": and although this is a somewhat unusual phrase to find in an Act of Parliament, it is perhaps sufficiently descriptive of the process we have in mind.

Similarly, river boards will need access to the embankments for works purposes; and I may authorise them to construct access roads across private land. Finally, in connection with the works, a considerable number of contractors and their workmen will be employed and accommodation will need to be found. Much of the work, we anticipate, will be going on near seaside resorts where the problem of finding accommodation for labour will be increasingly difficult as the year goes on. To avoid delays, therefore, I may authorise river boards to construct temporary housing accommodation. I hope the House will agree that these powers to authorise the construction of embankments and ancillary works under the special procedure of the Bill are justified by the urgency of the situation.

Having said that, I want to make it abundantly clear that we are anxious that as soon as is reasonably practicable boards should revert to the ordinary procedures open to them under the existing law. Under the Bill, therefore, authorisations may at present only be given during the year 1953 and the "works period" in which things authorised may be done will end on 30th June, 1954.

Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)

Does that mean that the work has to be completed by next June?

Sir T. Dngdale

I will come to that. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait a few moments and then, if the matter is still not clear, I will give way again.

Under the Bill, authorisations may at present be given only during the year 1953 and the "works period" in which things authorised may be done will end on 30th June, 1954. The rate at which work may progress is completely unpredictable, however, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) knows, and we cannot tell now what setbacks we may suffer from weather or other adverse conditions.

For instance, a severe storm next winter might involve a really serious setback to the work. Those who are technically equipped to understand this problem know that when we deal with water we run up against all sorts of difficulties that cannot be predicted. For these reasons provision is made to enable me, with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, to extend the period in which authorisation may be given or the works period by 12 months; but to do that we have to come back to the House.

The reason we have put in these dates is to convince the House how important the Government feel it to be that this should be only a temporary, an emergency provisions, Bill for which, we hope, we have the support of the House, to get the job done. Moreover, we do not want to go too far into the distant future because, as the Home Secretary announced, we have set up this committee under Lord Waverley to consider the long-term programme of our coast defences.

There will be some cases where it may be necessary to build a second line of defence or, indeed, to alter the existing sea embankment. In doing so we may have to interfere with a public highway. Provision is, therefore, made in Clause 2 for a combined operation with the Minister of Transport in matters of that kind. Similar combined action may be necessary in one or two isolated cases where work has to be done in navigable waters which might involve the building of a dam across a creek. We anticipate those will be very few, but there may be such cases. We have power to deal with them jointly with the Minister of Transport.

The Bill includes a number of provisions regarding notices of intention to do work, the use of private roads, the exclusion of the public from sites of works, and the prevention of damage to anything that may be done under a works authorisation. In addition, we make it clear that land acquired for doing work of any of the kinds specified in Clause 1 is within the existing powers of acquisition already possessed by river boards. At the same time the Bill will give the owner of land certain rights under Clause 6 (2) to require the river board to purchase land on which work has been done under a works authorisation on bank construction.

The House will agree that it is right and proper that appropriate recompense should be made to the owner of land that is used for digging clay or other material, or as a site of temporary hutments for housing contractors' labour. At this stage we cannot clearly foresee all the circumstances that will have to be covered, and provision is, therefore, made in Clause 10 by which I can make an order, subject to the affirmative approval of Parliament, specifying what compensation should be paid for any damage, or diminution in the value of land caused by the exercise of the powers contained in the Bill.

In considering what I have said about Part I, I would remind the House of the urgency and variety of the task that faces river boards in the immediate future. The Government have sought throughout to match their actions with the magnitude of the disaster that occurred just two months ago. In view of the emergency. Her Majesty has consented that the Bill should bind the Crown, except in regard to Clause 7. It is understood that this provision will not be taken as a precedent.

River boards and the Ministry have taken on their shoulders an immense responsibility for action to guard against a recurrence of the flood disaster. Today, I can give no assurance to the House that we shall succeed, but the assurance I can give and I will give is that if we do fail it will not be for want of trying, and it will not be for the want of those concerned on the river boards along our coasts to try to the utmost to see that our defences are in proper condition to withstand the weather of next winter.

I am sorry to detain the House so long, but this is a complicated Measure to deal with briefly. I turn from defences against the sea to Part II, which deals with the repairing of the havoc that was caused to farm land when the sea broke through on the night of 31st January. Various figures have been mentioned as to the area that has been flooded. I think the most accurate I can give the House after all the assessments that have been made is that all told about 158,000 acres were flooded. About one-third or slightly more was land destined for a tillage crop, and the rest was pasture or rough grazings. The House will agree that it is a very serious matter to have an agricultural area of this size out of action at any particular time, and this is bound to mean a considerable loss of food production, whatever measures we may adopt.

Mr. Percy Wells (Faversham)

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of it was orchard land?

Sir T. Dugdale

Not without notice. I will get the figure before the end of the debate. It was not a very great deal.

I am sure that the farming community in the flooded areas, given the necessary help by the Government, will face their misfortunes with the energy, initiative and resource that we have come to expect of them. In the first place, substantial relief is available to farmers from the Lord Mayor's Fund, which will bear the expense of repairs to farmhouses and cottages, farm buildings, harvested grain, hay in rick, stocks of feedingstuffs, fertilisers and similar requisites, as well as machinery and other equipment. These will be covered, like the stock in trade of other businesses, up to a maximum of £5,000. If personal hardship is involved, the Lord Mayor's Committee will also consider sympathetically grants for losses in excess of £5,000. In addition, farmers will get grants for the actual loss of livestock.

To bring the land into productivity is a national responsibility, and the Government intend to treat it as such, and this is the purpose of Part II. Our own agricultural scientists have been applying their knowledge and skill to this difficult problem, and, in conjunction with the National Farmers' Union, have produced an advisory leaflet on the treatment of land flooded by sea water. It has been given wide circulation in the areas concerned. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I should take this opportunity to express the grateful thanks not only of the Government but also of all hon. Members for the valuable assistance that has been given to us by experts from the Netherlands and France and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. They have visited this country to give us the benefit of their accumulated knowledge, and their experience in the past has been a tremendous help to us in our difficulties today.

Just how serious has been the damage to the soil, and what treatment it will need, and for how long, depends upon very many factors, but I am afraid that, among others—it sounds like a contradiction in terms—the recent drought since the time of the floods will undoubtedly retard restoration of productivity. Broadly speaking, we expect to find that a limited amount of the arable land may be able to produce a crop of some sort this year, and that within two years much of the flooded area will be fit for ordinary cultivation if it is properly nursed back to health. There will remain some land that cannot be fully restored for a further two, and possibly three, years. That is the problem.

The first thing to do, in our view, is to get the main and subsidiary drains and the farm ditches running freely again so as to achieve the maximum dispersal of the salt-laden water when the rains come. The Government will bear the full cost of clearing out silt and other flood-borne debris. For other field drainage work, grants to drainage authorities and private individuals will be raised from the usual rate of 50 per cent. to 75 per cent.

Once the field drains are running freely again, the application of gypsum to the land will speed up the process of recovery of soil structure. Supplies of gypsum will be provided free of cost where it is needed.I had hoped to be able to tell the House today something of the quantity of gypsum which was likely to be the right use of that commodity on the land, but there are so many opinions about it at the moment that I think I had better not give any figure. What it comes to is that if the land is very badly salt-impregnated, the amount of gypsum required is that which will absorb itself during a year, and then we can repeat the dose in the following year to better effect. We are satisfied that the supplies of gypsum are adequate to the need.

The Government have also decided that the best way to promote the reconditioning of the flooded land—that is, in the long-term—is by a scheme of acreage payments varying according to the nature of the land and the treatment required. Part II of the Bill will provide the statutory sanction for the proposed scheme or schemes. One or more schemes can be made over the period 1953–57 for acreage payments to fanners who conform to an approved programme of husbandry. This may take the form of resting the land, laying it down to pasture or sowing a crop.

It is expected that these payments will progressively diminish as the process of rehabilitation becomes increasingly effective and the land regains its productivity. Different rates of payment may be made according to the way in which the land has to be treated, and according to the crop sown. Provision will be made in the scheme for payments to be reduced, withheld or recovered in circumstances to be prescribed, such as the adoption of unwise methods or negligent cultivation or harvesting.

In the debate on 23rd March some questions were asked about allotments. I should like to clear that point up now. Allotment holders will be able to get free gypsum, for which other provision is made—it does not come within the Bill —and it is also intended that financial assistance under Part II of the Bill will be available for reconditioning allotment land where that is necessary. We cannot deal with hundreds of very small parcels of land, but we propose that acreage payments should be available to allotment societies, local authorities and others covering blocks of allotments on parcels of land of not less than half an acre. If necessary—I tell the House straightaway that it may be necessary—to remove any doubts a suitable Amendment to the Bill will be moved in Committee.

Clause 14 makes it clear that Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies to the rehabilitation of flooded land. I hope and believe that it will not be necessary to exercise these special powers. I would much prefer to rely on the good sense of the farmers, but if restoration of the flooded land is to be accepted as a national responsibility, the House will agree that the Government must be able to deal effectively with the few—I expect it will be very few—who take the wrong road.

So much for this part of the Bill itself. I think it would be the wish of the House that I should mention the kind of acreage payments scheme the Government have in mind for 1953. We propose to divide the land into four categories: (a) Where there were crops in the ground on 31st January, 1953; (b) Where the land was under grass on 31st January; (c) Where approved crops can be sown this year on land that was bare on 31st January; and (d) Bare land on 31st January that cannot be used for a crop or for grazing in 1953. There will be varying rates of payment for different crops or groups of crops. I have arranged for the convenience of the House, for a detailed statement giving the proposed rates of acreage payments to be available in the Vote Office, and it should be available now.

This is entirely for the convenience of hon. Members, because the necessary scheme will not be laid before the House until the Bill has received the Royal Assent. It should give substantial assistance towards the restoration of the agricultural land in the flooded areas and should be sufficient to enable farmers to remain in occupation of their holdings.

There are two other points to round off the story which are not really applicable to the Bill. I should like to say a word about orchards and things of that sort. Orchards and bush fruits will be dealt with outside the Bill and the Government will bear the cost of grubbing up the ruined trees and bushes, of treating the land and of the cost of replanting. We shall also bear, as the Home Secretary has announced, the reasonable cost of fences to replace destroyed hedges and repairs to existing fences, and this category will include farm roads about which. I understand, there has been considerable anxiety.

I hope the House will agree that this is a comprehensive and satisfactory approach to this problem. In one way or another the restoration of the land should be covered and the Prime Minister's pledge carried out in the spirit in which it was given. I can, therefore, confidently commend the Bill to the House as a very necessary emergency measure to deal with our future defence against the seas and with the ravages that have already been made on our productive farmland.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

We are all very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained this very complicated and important Measure to the House. Whatever we think of him as a Minister of Agriculture and as a Tory Minister of Agriculture at that, as a Parliamentarian we always find him very helpful and a great pleasure to listen to and to follow.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a very important and in some ways a very far-reaching Measure. Its far-reaching nature is, of course, justified by the size of the problem which we must tackle. The figures that he gave show that 1,000 miles of coastline are affected to some degree or another, and that brings us up against the fact that we cannot afford to deal with this problem in a way which would leave us improperly protected in facing the bad weather which might come next autumn and winter, although in this country we have an infinite variety of weather and one winter is seldom the same as its predecessor.

Nevertheless, we must deal with our sea defences in the meantime. We on this side of the House appreciate the need for drastic measures and urgent action. We shall do everything to help the passage of this Bill, and, indeed, will do our utmost to co-operate with the Government since this is in no sense a party Measure. It is something which we are all in together.

I should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in paying a very great tribute to the local authorities, to the river boards, and to the engineers of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department, among them many of my own friends, for the job which they did in this emergency. I saw them at work in a similar emergency in 1947, although from a different cause, and I came then to have a tremendously high regard for the various drainage engineers and officers of the river boards and other drainage authorities, and an especially high regard for the engineers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. We ought to put on record that we all recognise that they met this challenge and test in an extremely fine way.

As I have said, we want to help with this Bill, but inevitably a speech made from this side of the House, no matter who makes it, is bound to sound a little like criticism of the Bill. One cannot make a speech saying that this is a difficult situation and that we must take drastic powers, and then, having agreed with each other, sit down. The Bill makes some tremendous changes, at any rate for a short time, in the rights of the ordinary individual and, therefore, it will look as though we are concentrating mostly on what the Bill is to do in that way rather than on the size of the job to be done. I merely make that explanation of what I am about to say about this Bill, because it in no way qualifies what I have said: that our intention is to get something on to the Statute Book as soon as possible.

It is one thing to say that we have an emergency and that we must face it as an emergency. It is quite another to say that the way in which we must act is by wiping off for a time all the legislative safeguards that we have provided to see that ordinary mean and women are not pushed around too much by officialdom, however good their intentions. Therefore, the House is bound to examine this Bill a little closely because it does a very great deal about that.

The Bill does two things. It concentrates responsibility for our sea defences in these specified areas into the hands of one authority, whereas at the moment they might be in the hands of a number of authorities like the river boards and the coast protection authorities. We concentrate power in one authority which may well be a good thing, but that authority has the right to proceed, without having regard to the various safeguards already established in the law for the protection of private persons. That, in fact, is all the Bill does.

It does not add very much, if at all, to the way in which the authority is charged with the job and the way it will do the job. Indeed, the authority will have those powers and will have the staff and, presumably, it will get on with the job. Whether it could have got on with the job in the past quickly enough, whether the danger was recognised or whether there was some element of Government economy which held schemes back—there have been some exchanges about that already in the House—I do not propose to go into this afternoon, but it has already got the power.

Therefore, what we are doing is, not agreeing to a new way of protecting our sea defences in the light of this emergency; we are merely making procedural alterations in the way in which the emergency should be faced and the job carried out. It remains to be seen how far that by itself is necessary in order to get the job done or how far it is, in fact, going to go.

I am a little puzzled about one point, and I will ask whoever is to reply for the Government to take us a little into the Government's confidence and tell us something more about the proposal to concentrate all the work in the hands of one authority, namely, the river board. I have very great regard, and always have had, for the river boards as authorities. In many ways I think they are well suited to the job from their knowledge, their experience and their size. We have got to recognise what the law is on coast protection and what it will be when the emergency period for which these powers have to operate is over. I am a little concerned about what is to happen then.

As the position is now, the low-lying land, such as the estuaries, is the responsibility of the river boards, and they have the power to deal with it under the River Boards Act. Some other land, that, for example, in some of the seaside resorts, is the responsibility, not of the river boards, but of the coast protection authority, so designated under the Act of that name which was passed by this House in 1949. Under Clause 1 of this Bill the whole job will now pass to the river boards, particularly where it deals with land damaged by flooding or where the sea defences have proved to be inadequate.

That means that the river boards will take over the responsibility which the law at the moment places on the coast protection authority. There is no provision in the Bill for consultation between the two; for the one to tell the other what it is doing; and for the one to get the authority of the other for what it is doing. This Bill is quite different from the Coast Protection Act in that respect.

It is made a little more complicated by the fact that when the river board has done its work and the emergency is over there is provision for continuing the maintenance. I am going to ask a particular question on that in a moment, but what the Bill provides is that the river board, without a limit of time—and that may mean for ever and ever—may have access to the works which under emergency powers were erected to protect the countryside.

What happens to the coast protection authority then? This Bill will last until June, 1955, and then there will be nothing more in this Bill to apply. We shall be back to the Coast Protection Act, 1949. The coast protection authority will be the authority responsible, but the river board will have got this continuing right to go into the area of the coast protection authority for the purpose of maintenance to works put up under this Bill.

I cannot help feeling that this is bound to create a good deal of confusion once the Bill has run out, unless the work put up in the area of the coast protection authority passes to that authority, since it will have inherited powers under the 1949 Act. I should have thought it absolutely essential that there should be consultation about the job, and about joint activity at this stage, so that there will be no chance of one authority thinking that the other one has been riding roughshod over them. Anybody who has had to do with drainage engineers knows that one thing is certain, which is that no two engineers ever agree how to deal with a drainage job. The more distinguished they are the more true that is. Each has a different view. It is therefore most important that they shall march hand in hand at this stage.

Will the Solicitor-General tell us why the coast protection authorities have been left out of the Bill? I should have thought in the light of the 1949 Act that they ought to be in and ought to have emergency powers. If the answer is: "We thought it easier to get the job done quickly by concentrating everything in the hands of a larger authority," then at least have provision for consultation, and a clear view of who is responsible. I would point out to the Minister that the Coast Protection Act, 1949, envisaged this very situation and that in Section 5 (6) there is specific provision that the coast protection authority may, in an emergency, do any work without having regard to any of the safeguards.

I am not clear why we must have a drastic Bill of this kind when we appear to have on the Statute Book already specific legislative provision to enable a coast protection authority to act quickly and without being subject to the lengthy notice and consent procedure. The reason I like that Measure better is that it specifically provides for consultation among the various types of authority. The Bill does not, and I should have thought that the other pattern ought to be followed.

If the Solicitor-General or the Minister can manage it, perhaps he can put something into HANSARD in the form of a progress report about what is being done under the Act of 1949. I am not clear how many joint boards have been established. I saw an answer to a Question, from which it looked as though only three had been established. How many schemes have been authorised and have been given grant which the Government are willing to pay, and what work has been done? That kind of information about what coast protection authorities have been doing will be of very considerable use to us.

I turn to the general powers which the Bill gives to selected river boards. Of course it may be said that the sea does not give any notice. It comes up and washes into a house and does not worry about consent or 14 days' notice. The people who may be pushed about under the Bill are precisely the people who have already been pushed about by the sea. One does not want them to be pushed about a second time administratively just because it looks as though we are matching the vigorous nature of the sea. There may be good reasons for not doing so. Administrators and officials generally, and I suppose politicians too, always like a good atmosphere when they clear the decks for action, and to be able to do this, that and the other without being held up. We may have a vested interest in this business of getting very wide powers.

Two things affect seaside resorts. One is that a river board can go in if the esplanade has been damaged. Only the river board appears to have the power. Will that power be used to prevent sea- side resorts getting on with the job themselves? The second point I have in mind is the provision for excluding the public from a site. The Bill specifically says that one purpose for which they cannot be allowed in, although they are owners or owners' friends, is for pleasure.

There is no provision for consulting the seaside resorts about that. If the river board happens to be doing work on the pleasure front of a resort and chooses to say, without consultation with anybody: "We are excluding the public from the site of our works," the seaside resort may be in considerable difficulty. I would ask the Solicitor-General for an explanation, and whether he could not provide that the river board shall not do this without consultation with the local authority concerned. Otherwise I can see an extremely difficult position arising.

The Minister told us about two classes of work, bank construction of various types and access road works. There is also earth getting and access road works combined with bank construction. For this category of work, the requirement of consent is almost not there at all. The board can do almost anything without consent or notice. That is not quite the same, or so widely defined, in the case of access road works or temporary housing where it is not combined with bank construction. I would like to have on the record what the words "combined with" mean. Do they actually mean in physical contact with and part of the one thing? Do they mean that the road work must be physically part of the bank or must be physically just behind the bank?

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

If the right hon. Gentleman will consult Clause 15 (2) he will see the definition.

Mr. Brown

I was not sure, and I did not know whether the Solicitor-General would be unwilling to define it again.

The Solicitor-General

I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown

Yes, I am sure, but I want the Solicitor-General to help in a way which will help me and not leave me still studying for the Bar. Will he be good enough to re-define those words in his speech? It will then be on the record for others who read HANSARD and may be as limited as I am in regard to the interpretation Clause. I think I understand it, but nobody will suffer. We can give the Solicitor-General an extra 30 seconds to enable him to include it in his final speech.

I want to look at Clause 3 because I am not clear why the provision which covers these works where they are not "combined with" should be taken out of the present legal situation. Where earth getting or access road or temporary housing is to be built inland away from the sea defences, why do we need special emergency provisions? Of course somebody may have thought it a good idea to tidy up the Bill by having emergency powers everywhere, but if I live inland and someone says, "You have a good site from which we can take some earth," all that happens is that I am given notice, an advertisement is put in the newspapers, and, I have 14 days in which to write to the Minister who "shall" or "may" consider the matter. That is the only protection I have against someone deciding arbitrarily to do work on my land, and I am not sure that we need powers of that kind in those circumstances. Therefore I should like the Solicitor-General to explain this more clearly.

On the question of the extension of time, I can see that there ought to be provision to extend the works period. It is now April, and June, 1954, is not far away in view of the size of the works to be carried out. Therefore that provision to extend the works period for another year is a good one. I am not sure, however, whether it is good to have in the Bill a provision to extend the authorisation period for a year from December, 1953.

There are two things about it. There is the objection that we can then go on authorising these wide powers and interfering with the rights of people. If we know what the job is, as we do, those whose job it is to authorise special work being done ought to be able to get those authorisations out by the end of the year. The very fact that there is power to extend the period of authorisation for a year may tend to slow up the job.

On Clause 4, which lays down the conditions under which entry can be obtained, the Government should show why they must have it in this form. A lot of people will have the right of entry under this Clause. I am tempted to make the kind of speech which the Solicitor-General used to make about general good-will and a sense of responsibility, but I will only commend those interested to read his speeches about people having more and more powers to enter the property of other people. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) may not be able to resist that temptation—

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown

Having resisted that temptation, I must say that there are two things about this Clause which occasion us some worry, and the Government must not mind if we go into those in Committee. One is that where the folk concerned want to go into occupied premises, which may be houses or factories, they have only to give 24 hours' notice. Thereafter they have the right to go in on production of the warrant. If they want complete or partial evacuation, which is a tremendously serious thing, they have to give only one month's notice.

If it can be shown that the job cannot be done without those powers, so be it, but it is a great imposition on people, who have already suffered hardship and have been pushed around, if someone comes tomorrow and says. "I must come in the day after." This is an emergency that will run for 18 months possibly—at least 13 months and possibly two years. I hope the Government will not be tied to this Clause and that in Committee they will meet us with an Amendment giving people more protection.

What does Clause 5 involve? It deals with maintenance and says that a river board or authority who do work under a works authorisation shall have the right of access to the things they have left behind, in the case of bank construction, without limit of time. Does that also mean that they have a duty to maintain without limit of time? Many of my friends concerned with this part of the East Anglian coast tell me that one of the problems of those works in the past has been that the maintenance has not been done with the same vigour and to the same standard as the original works. Therefore, imposing a duty to maintain is as important as a duty to construct or to improve.

What happens seems to be that if the river board chooses to go in to maintain, they have a free right of entry, but there is no specific duty laid on the river board or authority to maintain that work. There ought to be placed on somebody both the right to maintain and the duty to maintain, otherwise we may spend a lot of money only to discover at some future stage that the works have been allowed to get into a bad state of protection again. I also want to know how far the words at the top of page 8 qualify the words on the previous page. Subsection (1, a) says "without limit of time" in the case of bank construction, but at the top of page 8 paragraph (b) says: and for the purposes of maintenance … the like rights of entry and passage as attach to a works authorisation shall be exercisable during the works period … If the rights of entry and passage apply only during the works period, what applies without the limit of time for evermore thereafter? We shall be grateful if the Solicitor-General will explain this in his final speech.

I must refer to two other matters on Part I. One is finance. About Clause 11 we know practically nothing. We have to refer to the Memorandum and to what the Home Secretary has been good enough to say from time to time in his many statements to the House on the subject. I do not see why the emergency, and works to be done under it, should be regarded as running to June, 1954, or a year later whereas the undertaking of the Government to pay 100 per cent. runs only to September, 1953. The two periods ought to be coterminous.

If the works so clearly arise out of the emergency that they must be covered by emergency powers for a given period, and if the Government really mean, as I am sure they do, to treat this as a national business, they should do it for the period during which the works have to be done. There is no reason why it should be September, 1953, and I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us, despite the Memorandum, that he will lay down clearly that he will pay 100 per cent. for all works that have to be done under emergency powers for the period during which the emergency runs. No one wants to see an undue burden fall on the local authorities.

Equally, I do not understand why it should be argued that, where the defences are inadequate and have to be built to an improved standard, that work should come under the emergency powers in the Bill, but the cost of improving should not be borne by the Government under the 100 per cent. arrangement. If we are to treat this on a national basis and we find that the defence standard of 31st January, 1953, was inadequate, we ought not to give anybody an apparent reason for merely reconstructing them to the inadequate standard, but we should set out to get them to build up to the required standard. On the basis of treating it as a national emergency we should make sure that they have an incentive to do as much as is required by including the improvement as well in the 100 per cent. payment. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will think again about that.

So far as the compensation is concerned, this will turn on the regulations. We cannot tell in this Bill what kind of compensation will be available and shall have to wait and see what is produced. First, can we be assured that the regulations will be available before the notices under the authorisations go out? Secondly, could the Minister arrange for an explanatory leaflet about them to be attached to the copy of the notice which the Bill requires to be served on owners or occupiers affected by any reorganisation? People should know as exactly as possible, where they stand, and an explanatory leaflet about the compensation provisions attached to the notice would be acceptable and would save a lot of money and hardship.

That is all I have to say about Part I of the Bill. It is not a Bill with which one can deal easily and quickly. It is a difficult and complicated matter, and we are under the obligation to deal with it thoroughly and I apologise for taking so long.

I turn now to Part II. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this turns wholly upon the scheme that he produces. The fact that 158,000 acres have been inundated with salt water is an extremely serious matter, not only to the farmers who have been affected, but also for the country at a time when we are having a terrific struggle to produce anything like the amount of food that we want. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for this part of the Bill and for the steps he is taking to see not only that people are compensated and helped in their personal trouble, but that the land, which is a national heritage, is brought back into cultivation as quickly as we can do it.

The scheme, which the Minister has outlined and which is available in the Vote Office, is a scheme for the right hon. Gentleman to make and is to be subject to a negative resolution. It seems to me that the whole "guts" of Part II is in the scheme and not in the Bill, and that we ought to have an opportunity for Parliamentary discussion on the details of the scheme.

Sir T. Dugdale

The reason that it is done in this form is that it follows the 1947 Act, but we are, of course, perfectly prepared to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman in Committee.

Mr. Brown

The first scheme, at any rate, could be an affirmative one, so that we would know that that one, at least, we would discuss. I can look at what is in the Vote Office and we can put down Questions and privately see the right hon. Gentleman, but even in Committee we should not be able to discuss it because it is not in the Bill. If the first scheme is done on an affirmative basis, we do not mind that the rest are being done under the negative procedure.

Next, I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman has not thought of including in the Bill—this, too, may be in the scheme—provision to enable him to do what was done, and is still done, I believe, on opencast land in cases where the job of restoring it would be tremendous and the financial position of the farmer a bad one; a farmer may, in fact, be left with nothing that is not inundated. Why has the right hon. Gentleman rejected the idea of taking over this task through his agricultural executive committees? The Minister could take over the responsibility of farming the land meanwhile and of putting the farmer on a salaried or other basis in the meantime. The National Farmers' Union have suggested that they would like some provision of this kind. It was done for opencast land and it applied in some cases in my constituency. It is a useful thing and in some cases, although not all, more help could have been given this way than on the basis of the scheme of acreage payments.

We are glad to hear what the Minister said about allotments, which in these matters are so often forgotten. I was grateful for the statement that they will be included, both for free gypsum and for acreage payments, through the societies where the land is more than half an acre in extent. At the moment, however, I do not see that they are covered by the Bill, and it seems that an Amendment will be required. My memory of the allotments legislation reminds me that unless they are included specifically, they will not be covered by the existing words We are glad to know from the Minister, therefore, that there will be an Amendment.

I have done my best to outline the sort of things we want to look at. We arc wholly with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to see this job tackled, and tackled quickly, vigorously and firmly. We do not want to push people around more than is necessary, and we do not want to whittle down the rights of the individual more than we must. Short of that, nobody will seek to take away the credit from the right hon. Gentleman and his Department for the way they have sought to meet the emergency. We shall help the right hon. Gentleman to get the Bill on the Statute Book, although we shall ask for some Amendments to be considered.

5.55 p.m.

Commander R. Scott-Miller (King's Lynn)

I am sure that the country will be very pleased to know from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that his party do not intend to oppose the Bill. It is essentially a non-party issue; a matter of the sea defences must be tackled purely from a national angle.

I welcome very much, and I am sure that the people in my stricken constituency will welcome, the steps which the Government have taken to tackle this matter urgently. It is essential that our defences should be restored by the time that the next equinoctial gales and tides come upon us towards the end of the year.

There is, however, one point about which I am a little worried, because I represent a part of the coastline which was excluded from the Coast Protection Act. There is at present in Snettisham an organisation which is taking away shingle from the bank of the sea wall, and as far as I can gather there is no power to stop the company concerned from carrying out that work. It seems to be rather pointless, if we vote large sums to restore our defences—to use the Minister's own words, "to return them to their pre-flood strength"—that at the same time a company is removing sand and shingle from immediately behind the bank at the rate that it is doing. It may be that in that locality the river board intend to build up the second line of defence, in which case the company operating would be outside the main sea defence and would, presumably, continue to operate entirely at its own risk. I shall be grateful if this point can be gone into.

On that particular part of the coast, 5,000 acres were inundated and of the 70-odd people living along that little bit of the foreshore, no fewer than 25 were drowned when the sea came in at that point. I am not saying that the excavation was a direct contribution to the entry of the sea, but opinion locally is that it is having the effect of weakening the defences and I think that it should be stopped. At the moment bulldozers are repairing the shingle bank, while 50 yards inland a dragline excavator is removing the shingle.

In the Bill the Minister talks about bank construction and earth getting. I should like him to consider including also the dredging of the creeks across the saltings that run along the north side of Norfolk. We can build up very strong sea defences, but outlets to rivers must remain; and in the event of strong high tides there is a surge of water through the mouth of a river with the consequent flooding of the grazing land inshore.

Years ago trading schooners used to come up these creeks to the makings and carry out their functions, but for many years now trading schooners have no longer come and the rivers have been allowed to silt up. If the rivers could be dredged to their original depth, the trenches so constructed would act as barriers to the rush of water which comes in times of storm across the saltings and only finishes up against the houses at the head of the creek. That is exactly what happened on 31st January, and some of them were flooded to a depth of four feet.

Over these 5,000 acres and others which have been inundated in my constituency, at the moment there lie remnants of beach huts and bungalows, some intact and others in pieces, littering the whole of the farmland and causing a very serious financial problem to the fanner who wants to get his land clear. I have noticed advertisements in the local paper, inserted by the owners of the land, calling upon the owners of the property to come and remove it. But that is an impossible situation because one cannot allocate ownership to odd bits of beach bungalows and so on. A very considerable expense faces farmers in getting this enormous amount of broken bungalows, bits of wood and debris of every description off their land. I should like to feel that some consideration for compensation will be given to that question.

I have mentioned a few of the problems which still obtain in my constituency, and I would ask the Minister to take note of these observations.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch (Norfolk. North)

It may not be possible to secure complete approval on the detail of any Bill, but those hon. Members who come from areas seriously affected by the disaster of 31st January will welcome the main provisions contained in the Bill now before the House. It was obvious to us who saw the nature and extent of the damage in the rural areas that special measures were needed for putting right the battered sea defences and bringing the very considerable extent of farmland again into production.

I think it is entirely fitting that river boards should play a big part in protecting farmlands from the ravages of the sea. This Bill gives the river boards necessary additional powers. I have seen one of these river boards in action on the Norfolk coast. The board has done, and is still doing, a very good job. Gaps in the defences in an area of my Parliamentary division have been sealed, but the work must be given more of a degree of permanence and this can only be effected by the board being able to go beyond its present powers. It is obvious that much remains to be done, and even when the initial schemes have been completed doubts are expressed in some quarters whether those schemes will be completely effective by themselves.

A permanent concrete wall, costing about £500,000, is to be built along a section of the Norfolk coast. I understand the work will start as soon as possible, but the Smallburgh Rural District Council, in whose area this is to be, has passed a resolution urging the Ministry of Agriculture, in formulating its scheme for the protection of that section of the coast now under the jurisdiction of the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board, to study the desirability of constructing a second line of defence behind the existing sand hills, as has already been referred to by the Minister. The object of this second line, it is stated, would be to confine the water in the event of a break in the sand hills, which has occurred at the spot three times in living memory.

It is suggested in certain quarters that the Government proposes to give the river boards exceptional powers. Speed is essential in problems of this kind and this problem is vital. It has already been complained that entry on land may be obtained at very short notice to get materials, but I would point out to hon. Members who are concerned about shortage of notice that the sea did not give any notice when it broke through. No notice was given to the unfortunate people who lost their lives, or whose homes were wrecked, or whose land was inundated. I have reached the conclusion that an exceptional situation must be met by exceptional measures, and to this end I think the Bill is drawn on the right lines.

I am glad that the Minister is seeking powers to make schemes over the period 1953 to 1957 for acreage payments to farmers, with a view to securing rehabilitation of agricultural land which has been flooded by salt water and which will not be in a condition to produce food for a very long time. Where the salt concentration was comparatively low, cultivations have been possible, but it is obvious that the heavier land cannot be cropped for a very long time. I approve entirely of the suggested acreage payments. Farmers should not be the losers because the floods have prevented them from farming their land. The thing about which we should be most concerned is getting the land back into production by treating it in an approved manner. I understand that expenditure on crops in the ground at the time of the floods will be taken into account in fixing the rates of acreage payment. I ask the Minister whether the rent of the tenant farmer who has to pay for land which brings him no return can be taken into consideration in deciding the acreage rates.

So much for the farmer. I now want to say a word or two about the farmworker. It was reported at a recent meeting of the King's Lynn and District Employment Committee that some of the employers in the area whose land had been badly affected by the floods would have difficulty in finding employment for their men this year. Some farmers did discharge their men but, of course, they found other work. I understand that about 1,742 men are still employed on defence work in Norfolk and part of Suffolk and this number will doubtless include a number of unemployed farm-workers.

The chief engineer of the East Suffolk and Norfolk River Board said that when the permanent defence works start the number of men employed will be higher still and that 12 different contractors will be undertaking work along the Board's long stretch of coastline during the summer. I am concerned to ensure, as I am sure all hon. Members are, that farm workers unemployed through the floods and to whom there are no acreage payments should be given priority on defence works in their area. It is not necessary for me to remind the House that these men will be wanted on the land again, but if they are driven to other industries they may not return to the farms. That, I am sure the Minister will agree, would be a permanent and serious loss to agriculture. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance on that point. I give my hearty approval to the main provisions of this Bill.

6.10 p.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott (Norfolk, Central)

I appreciate the opportunity of welcoming this Bill, although there are one or two points which I hope the Solicitor-General will be able to elucidate. In particular, I welcome the plan for acreage payments to farmers, smallholders and allotment holders. None of them seeks to make any profit. All they wish is to be able to bring the land back into production as soon as possible. As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) has said, the farmers wish to make sure that they can give continued employment to farm workers. In fixing the scale of payment, I am sure the Minister will bear that fact in mind.

Those of us who, for a considerable period, have been concerned with the general problem of the defence of the coast against the sea have always hoped the time would come when one Ministry would be responsible. When the Coast Protection Act was placed on the Statute Book we thought we were moving in that direction. But this Bill has shown we still have not reached the unity of command which some of us believe to be desirable. We now have the situation that the river boards come under the Ministry of Agriculture, but the maritime coast protection authorities come under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Reading the River Boards Act and the Coast Protection Act one might think that neither authority knew of the existence of the other, and in the affected areas there is concern about whether the fullest consultation takes place between the two. Perhaps the discussion on this Bill will remind those concerned that there should be the fullest possible consultation between them.

Mr. A. Bleukinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the Coast Protection Act he will find there is continuous reference to the river boards and their functions.

Brigadier Medlicott

There is necessarily some reference where it is obligatory, but that has not led to the close consultation which will perhaps ultimately come about, and which is obviously desirable.

That brings me to the question of the financial aid for these authorities. I have in mind particularly the scheme mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North. In the Smallburgh district the estimated cost of the work before the flood disaster was £50,000. As a result of the disaster the estimated cost has increased to £500,000. It may be that work of that kind will be taken over by the river board under the powers contained in this Bill, but I wish to draw attention to the fact that work done by the coast protection authorities attracts a grant of only 80 per cent., whereas the work done under this Bill by the river boards will attract a grant of 100 per cent.

The Solicitor-General

If my hon. and gallant Friend will look again at the statement made by the Home Secretary, he will see that the grant is the same for the same category of work.

Brigadier Medlicott

I am glad of that assurance, as the point was recently put to me by one local authority.

The Solicitor-General

I think that was before the Home Secretary made his statement.

Brigadier Medlicott

I am glad to have that assurance, because otherwise, there would have been a serious discrepancy between the financial assistance available for work done under the two schemes.

One other point I wish to make about the compensatory nature of some of the provisions concerns houses built right on the coast. Far too many houses are constructed on obviously dangerous sites. There are a number of examples in Norfolk. It may well be that such examples will not be repeated in the future, because of the powers contained in planning regulations. But I think it should be made clear to those people who choose to build houses on parts of the coast which are obviously liable to erosion that they must not always expect in the future to be compensated fully for loss which may result.

We are all anxious not to extend emergency powers, especially those of the nature contained in this Bill. But the battle against the sea is in every sense a battle. It is only too true that the sea is cruel and gives no warning. We must take the same precautions as we would take against any other enemy. Nevertheless, the exceptional powers contained in this Bill should not be taken as a precedent.

I know I shall be supported by all hon. Members representing seaside resorts when I say that this Bill contains powers of a drastic and emergency character and unless it is made clear to the contrary the impression may be given that coastal resorts are still not able to cater for visitors. It should be made plain that in spite of the terrible devastation which they have suffered the great seaside resorts on the East Coast and our inland waterways there are fully capable of receiving all who may wish to visit them. Indeed, the arrival of visitors will be a great contribution towards compensating the people on the coast for something of what they have lost by reason of the floods.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans (Lowestoft)

I have spoken on every occasion when we have debated flood damage and I should be failing in my duty to my constituents if I did not give a warm welcome to this Bill. It provides an example of how to tackle this sort of emergency. We have promises from the Prime Minister and from the Government and one must give them their full meed of praise for the expeditious way in which they have introduced this Measure.

The Minister said that it would not be the fault of the Government if the Bill was unsuccessful and that he and his colleagues would do their best to see that the measures they put in hand were effective; that there would be no stinting of material, advice, engineering skill or anything else. We on this side of the House will keep the Minister to his promise and shall expect him to implement almost literally the old cliché—that he will leave no stone unturned.

One or two special features in the Bill are of interest to me. In my own constituency there is a clear demarcation of the functions of the coast protection authorities and the river boards. The river boards are concerned with the estu-arial waters, and their duty is mainly to protect agricultural land. On the other hand, the coast protection authority is concerned with erosion. Within the limits of the finance available, and in spite of a shortage of labour, the work has progressed steadily, but not sufficiently speedily in my opinion.

I think this is perhaps a point which might be debated more fully in Committee, but it seems to me that there will have to be some means of linking up the functions of the river boards and the coast protection authority, where these bodies are contiguous. I can give an example of the case of my own local authority, because the great North Wall, in Lowestoft, was very badly knocked about, and the low-lying land which, in an agricultural area, would normally have been the responsibility of the river board, comes within the borough boundary, and the borough itself, as a coast protection authority, has taken on all the duties in this respect, very largely aided by the grants made available to them under the Coast Protection Act.

One of the main difficulties about the Coast Protection Act for very highly rated local authorities is that there is no grant for maintenance, and my right hon. Friend called attention to the fact that not only the works of the river boards will attract a 100 per cent. grant—and I see the point made by the Solicitor-General a few minutes ago—but that these emergency works are also to attract 100 per cent. grants, whereas the original works, and, presumably, after the emergency powers are dispensed with, works undertaken by coast protection authorities, will not attract grants higher than 80 per cent., though, in some cases, where there are special circumstances, they may be raised.

There is no maintenance grant for coast protection work, and a great deal of the danger that has followed, and, to some extent, the culpability of the local authorities, is due to the fact that the cost of maintenance of coast protection work is so high that the incidence of coast protection rates is an almost insupportable burden.

I want to make a plea for greater co-ordination. It is essential, if we are to have a national scheme of coast defence, that we should not fortify one section of the coast unduly at the expense of another. We have had such instances round our coasts, and there are classic cases which I have quoted to the House in which extensive coast protection works carried out by an authority have resulted in diverting the current flow. The sea will never be cheated, but will always attack at another point along the coast, and that is why I consider that one of the most important things which the Government can do, either in this Bill or other legislation, is to see that all coast defence work is properly co-ordinated. My right hon. Friend asked about how many joint coast protection authorities were to be set up. I believe there are no joint authorities, but that there are joint committees, and the difference between them is that a joint committee is there for consultation, but that the joint authority is there for action.

I should like to make reference to the question of the standard of work done by 30th September. The standard of work subsisting on 31st January will prove to be quite inadequate, and the extent of the floods showed that this standard of work was inadequate. I would, therefore, urge the Government to give every help and encouragement to local authorities, river boards and coast protection authorities as well in order to see that the standard of work is one which could be declared by competent engineers to be adequate, and that, for the extra work, the Government should be as generous in meeting the cost as they have been over the renovations.

I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the clarity with which he presented it to the House.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard (Norfolk, South-West)

Our discussion so far has concentrated very largely on Part I of the Bill, which, perhaps, is the most important in that it deals with coast defences. In that part of the Bill, emergency powers are taken which are in line with the gravity of the flood situation, but I want to say a few words about Part II, and to ask one or two questions on points about which I am not clear.

This is the part of the Bill dealing with the rehabilitation of agricultural land, and, as with most farming processes in getting land back to fertility after a flood, drainage problems are paramount. I know that they are not referred to specifically in this part of the Bill, but I am not yet very clear about the position of the land owner or tenant with regard to the clearing of the ditches. This problem was originally mentioned in the earlier statement, and there it was said that payment would be made for the clearance of ditches up to 30th April.

That is a very early date indeed, and I hope it will be possible for all these schemes of ditch clearance on farms to go on for a much longer period. This is work which can be undertaken by the regular staff of the farm, and it is also work which they can do when other work cannot be done, and I therefore hope that no attempt will be made to crowd all this work into a short period or to bring in outside help, when the ordinary farm staff could do it.

The Minister has said that the rate of grant in this particular instance is to be raised from 50 to 75 per cent., but I thought that this work of clearing ditches was to come under the emergency provisions and that a higher rate of grant would be available. I should like to be clear about the final date for this work to be undertaken, and to be told when the 75 per cent. grant will cease and the 50 per cent. grant come in. I have asked previously about the position of internal drainage boards, whose situation in this matter is most important. I imagine that it will be on a par with that of the river boards, but I think that, if a statement can be made on the scope of the internal drainage boards, it will be most welcome.

I want to say a word about the acreage payment question. I welcome this method of dealing with the matter, and I believe that it is preferable to the method advocated in some cases by the National Farmers' Union whereby the work is taken over temporarily, probably by the agricultural executive committee, which have the staff to do the work. I favour this method rather than taking over the land temporarily, because I believe that the land will come back to a full state of fertility better if it is in the care of the man who has the final interest in it and who will see to every detail in the process much better than an outside authority, however well-intentioned, would be able to do.

It strikes me, however, that there ought to be power under a scheme, when it is introduced, to vary some of these charges according to circumstances. The land flooded in my constituency is very low-lying fenland which commands high rents, and upon which is also levied a very high drainage rate. I notice that the payment in a particular year for bare arable land is to be £8 an acre. There are many farms, both large and small, where the combined rent and drainage rate is more than £8. If these charges have still to be paid it would seem that the smallholder is not going to be in a very good position.

One of my constituents who has 14 acres of land, which he cultivates very well, has written to me asking about his position. I have calculated that if he has six acres of wheat, six acres bare for cropping this year and two acres of strawberries, he will receive £228 in the present season. That may seem a fairly substantial payment on 14 acres of land, but if he has his rent to pay, and particularly if he has his drainage rate to pay as well, he will not be in a particularly good position to carry on through the year.

I hope, therefore, that where a high drainage rate has to be paid, an allowance will either be paid to the people who have to pay it or to the drainage board concerned, as, otherwise, one or other of them will be in a very disadvantageous position during the year. In the case of my constituent who has two acres of strawberries, he would receive two payments of £60, making a total of £120. But had he been an intensive producer who was going to crop his land with onions and other vegetables, then he would only have received the bare land payment which, according to my calculation, would have amounted to only £112, instead of £228. I appreciate that there are bound to be these anomalous cases, but I hope that some latitude will be allowed under the scheme for dealing with these special conditions.

Finally, I want to ask a question about orchards. I notice that in previous statements the question of hedges and fences and their restoration has always been coupled with the orchard payment aspect. I am wondering whether it is only with regard to orchards that this special payment for the restoration of hedges and fences applies, or whether it applies to all agricultural land. I am not quite clear from the statements that have been made so far how it works out.

I am glad to see that there is to be a half payment for land which was bare on 31st January, but which is subsequently sown, because I believe that, subject to proper safeguards, it is wise that as much as possible of this land should be cropped. I hope we shall not take the line that people must, of necessity, leave land un-cropped without regard to the amount of salt in it or to the nature of the land itself. I should be grateful if the point about the payments to be made for ditching work could be clarified when the Solicitor-General winds up the debate.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

I should like, from these benches, to echo the thanks of the Minister to those foreign experts who came to help us in this matter. I am sure that the whole farming community are grateful to them for their help. I should also like to thank the technical conference set up under Sir James Scott-Watson for the excellent work they did and for the rapidity with which they got out some first-class advice for the farmers. I think that the House ought to thank them for that work.

This Bill has been produced very quickly, and in such circumstances there must obviously be some difficulties. We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his Department on the framing of this Bill and on the way in which he is proposing to deal with this great national disaster. Having worked in that Department for a little time, I feel that it should be thanked for the way in which it has tackled the matter at a time when it had a number of other matters pressing heavily upon it.

Flooding brings with it many great problems, the solutions to which are not easy to find. It is quite clear that we have got to do everything in our power to bring back the land into its full fruit-fulness as soon as possible. That is a task made necessary by the national food situation; indeed, world food conditions make it absolutely essential. As one hon. Member said this afternoon, we should make it possible for a farmer to live on his land during the time that he is endeavouring to bring it back into full cultivation.

I strongly disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that we might put the farmer on a salary basis during this period. I would rather see him on his farm, making the best possible use of his land as it is brought back bit by bit into fruitfulness.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

But, surely, if the farmer were on a salary basis he would be on his farm. He would be receiving the salary because he was rehabilitating his farm.

Mr. Champion

I think that the acreage payment is the best method, always provided that it is sufficient to enable the farmer to live on his farm.

I have in mind a farm which I know exceptionally well. It has 200 acres, of which 180 were affected by the flood. The fanner lost a number of heifers in calf for which he will, of course, be compensated out of the Lord Mayor's Fund. But he has 102 head of stock left, and he is faced with the difficult problem of either disposing of that stock, in which case he will, to some extent, have to live out of the proceeds of the sale—and, at the same time, he will have lost some of his capital—or, alternatively, of purchasing foodstuffs in order to keep together a herd which, to him, is a very valuable one.

I have not had time to examine very carefully the paper from the Vote Office which tells us something about the acreage payment. I am sure it is the intention of the Minister that the payment should be of such a character as would enable this farmer to maintain his herd in the interests of the community.

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the first scheme, at any rate, ought to come to this House in such a way as will enable us to discuss it under the affirmative procedure. The Minister indicated that that was his intention and perhaps in Committee he will accept or himself move an Amendment which will enable us to discuss this matter under the affirmative Resolution procedure.

I should like to add to the point which was made by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) on grants being raised to 75 per cent. I understood the Minister to say, and I have understood that it was the intention and the policy of the Government, that the Government would accept full responsibility for the rehabilitation of land and doing certain works. But a 75 per cent. grant does not represent the acceptance of full responsibility. It is absolutely essential, particularly in the clearance of silt from tile drains, that the full rate should apply.

Sir T. Dugdale

A grant of 100 per cent. is given in the case of ditches blocked by silt and 75 per cent. for the clearance of ditches outside the flooded area.

Mr. Champion

That clears that point and I thank the right hon. Gentleman.

I should like to know whether, in the scheme which he will produce, the Minister will make it possible for farmers to have nitro-chalk and super-phosphates supplied free where, under the scheme, they are expected to use those dressings. I had intended to ask a question about gypsum treatment, but I am glad that the Minister has made the point relating to that quite clear to us. We shall examine the Bill very carefully between now and the Committee stage and there, perhaps, submit necessary Amendments. I welcome the Bill on behalf of the farming community who are affected by its provisions and I assure the Minister that we on this side will do our best to see that the Bill is placed on the Statute Book.

6.42 p.m.

Commander J. W. Maitland (Horncastle)

I am sure that the whole House welcomes the Bill and appreciates the difficulty which the Government have had in producing such a complicated Measure so quickly. Nevertheless, there are many things which, with the best will in the world, we will try to bring forward as Amendments during the Committee stage.

I should like to speak for a few minutes on one aspect of the Bill which is almost fundamental. My right hon. Friend, in opening the debate, said that this was an enabling Bill to enable his instruments, the rivers boards, to repair the sea defences. I am not quoting his words, but he said, in effect, that although we must do this work very quickly we must not go too far, because Lord Waverley and his committee would tell us what to do as a long-term policy.

I want to say just this to the Minister— that the country is to spend a vast sum of money on this work during the next year or 18 months and that it is now, when discussions are taking place between his Ministry and the boards, that work is being carried out which will determine what the sea defences of the country will look like for many years to come. The Minister and the Solicitor-General are walking hand in hand up the garden path if they think that the country will provide large sums of money for further extensions and improvements after these defences are put in order. Things may look rosy enough now, but I think that in two years' time the Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it very difficult to obtain great sums of money for this work.

I would press on the Minister, therefore, that he should take the opportunity now, while the boards are coming to him, to discuss the details and to obtain approval for their authorisation. Now is the time when he should take into consultation local authorities, planning authorities and the like. The object of and the motto for this operation should be that improvements should be sought and should not be considered to be something to be frowned on. We must try to wring some advantage out of this disaster. We are spending vast sums and the country wants better sea defences by the time all this money has been spent.

I should like to raise one or two specific points. The first is that I cannot find anything in the Bill about any compensation for those quite serious and, I suppose, sometimes slightly unlawful acts which river boards have been forced to take in their recent active battle against the sea. There could not be consultations about pushing down a house when one wanted to save acres of land. Things had to be done, risks had to be taken and the emergency had to be met. I should like to have the assurance of the Solicitor-General that that type of compensation is fully covered in the schemes which are to be produced.

Secondly, I ask whether the Solicitor-General can tell me that compensation will be available for those portions of land and those houses which are now, or may be eventually, outside the main sea wall. As has been indicated, there have been plans in some places to straighten the sea wall or to build a second and stronger sea wall behind the lighter, frontal wall. What is to happen to the houses and land in front of the new main sea wall? Are the owners to be compensated? All of us would like to have an answer on that point.

I have also a specific question on Part II of the Bill. I was a little worried when, in his intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), the Minister referred to drains outside the flooded area. That was the very thing about which I wanted to ask the Minister. Part II of the Bill is designed to assist in the case of land which has been flooded. In some of these very flat parts of the country the drains are very deep and they go back many miles inland. One of the things which we have learned to dread in those parts which get flooded from time to time is the salt water that runs up the drains.

When there is plenty of water in the drains the salt content appears to be practically non-existent even on analysis, but as soon as the summer comes and the water runs away there is a very strong salt content in the remaining water in the drains and if beasts drink it that may be the end of them. Two-thirds of the land is grazing land and it is vitally valuable to agriculture, because this is where farmers turn out their beasts in the summer. Although this land was not actually flooded they will not be able to do that because the drains are full of salt.

This is a problem which needs careful consideration. I do not think that the land can be considered to be flooded land, but the deep drains and ditches all round it are full of salt and in many cases, where there is no water laid on, the existence of that salt will make it impossible for farmers to turn out their beasts this summer. I ask the Minister to give the problem careful consideration. It is another example of trying to reap advantage out of disaster when I ask him to speed up where possible the provision of a piped water supply. That must be done some time; why not now?

The last points which I want to make relate to men who have been working on the farms. It is a great problem. Much has been said in the House about men leaving the land. Those of us who live among the agricultural workers realise what a great problem and tragedy this is. The effects of this disaster will add to the drift away from the land. I am aware that immediately after the disaster efficient steps were taken to continue the deferment of men from doing their National Service, and I should like to know whether that deferment can be continued for an even longer period. For how long will the deferment continue of these men who are employed working on the banks? The men want to know, and they ought to be told. They ought to know whether they will have an opportunity to return to agriculture if they so wish.

I welcome this Bill. I believe it will be of great help, and I sincerely hope that the Government will treat these very human problems with great sympathy and understanding.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

As a representative of an industrial inland area, I feel inclined to apologise for intervening in this debate in the presence of these hon. Members who represent coastal areas.

I want to put a point that has not been made in this debate, and it relates to retrospection. I represent a constituency in Lancashire which, in 1947, was very badly affected by floods. The people of Salford went through a very bad time indeed. It was not in any way due to the action of the sea but to the action of a river, the River Irwell. It does not contain any salt. In fact, it is so close to the Manchester Ship Canal that I sometimes wonder what it does contain.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Everything but salt.

Mr. Royle

It is a miserable river, and industrialists between its source and the City of Salford pour all kinds of pollution into it. Whether it was due to the pollution or not I do not know, but in the autumn of 1947 that river overflowed its banks to such an extent that thousands of the homes of the inhabitants—

Mr. Speaker

Order. On studying the title of the Bill, I find that it is: A Bill to make provision for work for defence against sea water in localities affected by the flood of January, 1953 … On this matter, therefore, the hon. Member must draw his remarks to a very speedy close.

Mr. Royle

I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, I have no other remarks to make. I was taking advantage of the accepted custom of the House that in a Second Reading debate one may discuss what is not in a Bill as well as what is in a Bill. Therefore, I thought I might have your generosity and that I might be allowed to draw attention to the fact that floods had occurred in this country apart from those caused by the sea, and that constituencies thus affected might have the consideration of the Minister retrospectively. However, Mr. Speaker, I must of course bow to your Ruling.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Billericay)

I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will not think me discourteous if I do not follow him along the course of his river. I am sure that if I did, Mr. Speaker, you would very quickly pull me up. I hope it will be taken as a tribute to the Bill, and to the admirable speeches of my right hon. Friend the Minister and of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) if I confess that there is not very much left for me to say. There are, however, one or two points on which I should like a little clarification.

First, this Bill gives, it is true for only a limited period, very sweeping powers indeed—powers far more sweeping than the House would be willing to accord except for the very special purpose for which the Bill is designed. Thus, Clause 4 authorises the river boards to do any work … subject to any conditions which it appears to the Minister … to be expedient to attach thereto…. I thought it a little odd that we should hear a Conservative Minister arguing, quite properly in this instance, that there was a case for compulsory purchase powers to be used very drastically in the terms of this Bill, and a right hon. Gentleman opposite arguing, also very properly, that the greatest possible care should be taken to safeguard individual rights. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper really made my speech for me, because ever since I have been in this House I have been concerned to raise a voice—a feeble one, it is true—on behalf of those who, from time to time, are subject to compulsory purchase powers. On this issue I endorse every single word uttered by the right hon. Gentleman.

I am not going over the ground that the right hon. Gentleman covered so adequately, but, looking at Clause 4 (3), (b) and (c), it occurs to me—I have a particular instance in mind—that people who have already suffered great discomfort as a result of the floods and who have already been pushed out of their homes and subjected to considerable distress and loss, possibly even the loss of their loved ones, may find themselves subject to these powers and be required to evacuate their homes within a month without any guarantee that they will be properly rehoused. Surely that is asking this House to approve very sweeping powers indeed.

Although my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has been most solicitous on behalf of my constituents in trying to arrange housing for those whose homes have been totally destroyed in the floods, there are still families formerly living on Canvey Island and now living in billets or lodgings, perhaps separated from one another, who have not yet been found alternative accommodation. Only today I learned that the Basildon Corporation, which is a housing authority in my constituency, has found it possible to allocate a small number of houses to meet the need. For that I am very grateful indeed

A considerable time has elapsed, however, since the floods occurred and there are still people who need to be rehoused. Yet under the powers envisaged in this Bill it will be possible for others to be turned out of their homes within a month and there appears to be no guarantee that they will get alternative housing. I appreciate that this point is perhaps rather a fast one and I do not expect a snap answer tonight. But I do expect the Government to give consideration to this matter. A solution will have to be found between now and the Committee stage.

There are two other small points I should like to raise. The first may have some relevance to other constituencies as well as my own. In my constituency there is a place called Benfleet, which adjoins Canvey Island. There was quite considerable flooding in Benfleet— although nobody heard about it—in a creak which runs along the back of the High Street. The same thing occurred two or three years ago. I wrote to the Essex River Board about this flooding and I learned that the properties concerned are not within the internal drainage district, that no rate is levied on them in respect of drainage works carried out by the Board which does not maintain the wall along the creek as land drainage works. This part of Benfleet has suffered from flooding on several occasions in recent years and I should like to know whether the Bill empowers the Board to undertake protective work of this kind.

I understood my right hon. Friend to say that gypsum would be made available to approved allotment societies or other recognised bodies. Canvey Island possesses the greenest grass and the finest roses in England—at least that is what I am told, and I am quite willing to believe it. The local horticultural society have made representations to me, pointing out that gardens and plots smaller than those which appear to be envisaged under the scheme by which gypsum is to be made available are seriously affected. Will it be possible for gypsum to be made available to them? Perhaps the scheme could be made a little more elastic, particularly as there is a large population on Canvey Island, whose gardens and allotments are small.

I should like to endorse what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). I hope that this debate will not give rise to the impression that the places where these works are to be carried out will be unsuitable for visitors this summer. My information in regard to Canvey Island—which is a notable and growing holiday resort—is that the islanders are preparing to receive more visitors this summer than ever before. When the Solicitor-General speaks I hope he will make it plain that although these essential works will be carried out people need not be deterred from flocking to the holiday resorts in the afflicted areas.

This is an excellent Bill, and a timely one. In his opening remarks my right hon. Friend said that the Government sought to match their actions to the magnitude of the disaster. They have done precisely that. I welcome the Bill.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood (Bridlington)

I am sure the House will be glad to hear that, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), my speech, which looked quite respectable an hour ago, now hardly exists.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend said that there was no guarantee that we should be able to seal the gaps by September, 1953, I am sure that we should all agree that the Government should take any powers they think necessary to seal those gaps by the time of the equinoctial gales.

My right hon. Friend made a hopeful forecast with regard to the 158,000 acres which have been flooded. I want to ask him one agricultural question. Will the Government bear the responsibility for payment in respect of the removal of deposits of sand and silt from land as well as from drains? I have in mind cases where the sea passed over land before going on elsewhere, leaving sand, stones and all kinds of rubbish behind it. Will that land be cleared at Government expense?

The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) mentioned the difficulties of co-ordination between river boards and coast protection authorities, and I hope that we shall get a reassurance on that point from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. The right hon. Member for Belper also mentioned joint advisory committees in relation to coast protection. I believe that the committee in Yorkshire, which represents the six local authorities in my constituency, is the only joint advisory committee on the whole of the East Coast.

I want to reinforce a point which was made by several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott). My only-regret about the Bill is that it provides exceptional powers and Government grants to prevent one form, and one form only, of ravage by the sea. Its first object is to prevent low-lying land from flooding, but coast protection is necessary for other reasons than those which we have heard several times during this debate. It would be quite impossible for us to protect the whole coastline, because the cost would be out of proportion to the value of the land we should save. As I see it, protection from erosion will be possible only for the more vulnerable and valuable areas. Could my hon. and learned Friend tell us clearly what provisions exist for the protection of property which is equally valuable and which has been seriously threatened and in many cases destroyed by the recent floods?

7.9 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

Like other hon. Members, I will be very brief. I also welcome this Bill though, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) there are certain points which we shall have to examine very closely during the Committee stage. None of us likes emergency powers, and we must do everything we can to see that the rights of individuals are safeguarded—but those are purely Committee points.

I want to emphasise what has been said by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood). Every effort should be made to see that the permanent work will be finished as speedily as it can be—if possible, before the September tides. This matter is causing very great anxiety in most of the affected areas.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper pointed out, there seems to be no co-ordination between the river boards and the coast protection authorities, but there is also another lack of liaison. There appears to be no co-ordination, no sharing of information, between the river boards and the urban district authorities. I am full of admiration for the river boards and especially for the one which covers my area. The Essex River Board had been in existence for only 18 months and it did a very good job indeed; but more liaison might be established between the boards and the local authorities.

My own local authority of Thurrock is responsible for a stretch of no fewer than 17 or 18 miles of river front. I suppose that they could not get a representative without changing the statute of the river board, but perhaps some arrangement might be reached whereby when the board reports to the Minister a copy or a precis of the report might be sent to the local authority so that they will not always be kept in the dark.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport (Colchester)

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) was right to emphasise the importance of liaison between the river boards and the local authorities. I also admire the work done by the Essex River Board, but one felt that there were occasions, even during the emergency, when the liaison between the municipalities and the boards could have been closer.

I sincerely welcome the Bill. In my constituency, although happily we suffered no loss of life, there was considerable damage in the industrial quarter of Colchester. The damage was estimated at about £250,000, including loss of profits. That is a substantial amount for a relatively small industrial area. One of the considerations which we felt was most important, apart from the immediate help from compensation, was that we should ensure that action was taken speedily to prevent a recurrence of the disaster.

For that reason, we heartily welcome the action the Government have taken to try to deal with the matter before the next high tides and gales are due in the autumn. I wish to mention one matter to which I do not think the Minister referred. The whole of the burden of taking the precautionary action is placed on the river boards. I should have thought that a certain responsibility rests on people whose property, especially factories, are threatened by future flooding. I know that those people would be most anxious to help to ensure their protection for the future if it were made possible for them to do so and if they were encouraged to take action.

Under Clause 2 (4) the Minister is to be entitled to authorise either the river boards or the highway authority or any other authority—presumably that could include individuals—to take certain action. Would it be possible for him to consider authorising individuals as well as river boards to take action to protect their property? Clearly that would be in the interests of their neighbours also. Would it be possible, if necessary, to help to finance them to do so?

In our case it was the lack of certain protective works in connection with one industrial installation that led to the flooding of all the factories further up the river. I suggest that it would be helpful to include individual property owners and factory owners in the scheme. That would not only make the precautions more secure, but it would enable the work to be done more quickly. Although people will take such steps as they can in the circumstances to prevent a recurrence of the flooding, co-operation among as many people as possible would make the result more effective.

Perhaps this is not merely a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It is a matter which ought perhaps to be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are good arguments in favour of the proposition that any expenses involved in the provision of flood protection for factories should be considered for taxation purposes. That would be of considerable encouragement to people to assist in what is a great campaign.

My main purpose in speaking, apart from mentioning that matter, was to welcome the Bill. It is clear evidence of the Government's energy and determination to ensure that the sort of problems which affected so many parts of the country last spring will not occur again if it is humanly possible to prevent them.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

The Minister must feel that he is almost submerged by expressions of good will for his Bill. Although I have some criticisms to make, I do not suppose that I shall disturb the general atmosphere of sweetness. I want to deal with that part of the Bill which covers sea defences. I have had some contact in the past with this question when the House was considering what is now the Coast Protection Act. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will be able to give further information about some of the matters which have already been discussed.

We could summarise part of the debate by saying that there are four main issues about which there are some doubts. First, there is the question of what is to be the relationship between the river boards, and the powers with which they are provided under the Bill, and the existing authorities—the coast protection authorities and the local authorities, who are doing the work. Secondly, there is the question of the period within which the 100 per cent. grants are to be made available and the question of whether the actual period is to be reconsidered.

Thirdly, there is the question about interference with individual rights. I cannot help feeling that if we on this side had been introducing a Measure of this kind a great number of hon. and learned Gentlemen in the party opposite would have been expressing their horror at some of the provisions, and none less than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, who is shaking his head. Finally, there is the question mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) about taking advantage of the emergency and ensuring that the work done is of proper standard and not necessarily merely up to the standard of the work done before the disaster.

I also want to deal with the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) about consultation with coast protection authorities. This is a matter of real importance. Whether it be low lying land, agricultural or built-up land, the great danger is that action taken in one area without proper consultation with others to the north and south, on the coastline and so on, may have a most serious and detrimental effect.

In previous debates hon. Members on both sides have quoted occasions on which certain authorities have, under the 1949 Act, done a great deal to ensure the maintenance of their sea defences, only to find that some other authority in a contiguous area had, for one reason or another, done relatively little so that at the time of the flood, although their own defences withstood the strain, those in the area below or above had broken down and their people suffered almost as much as if they had carried out no defence work at all. That is one example, and I am sure there are many others in the minds of anyone examining this problem. Certainly it was very much in our minds when considering the Coast Protection Act. It is vital in any work, even temporary work, carried out today to ensure that there is proper consultation.

We are dealing with a very large area of the coastline, including many districts which in the past have made use of the Coast Protection Act. Nearly two years ago, on 24th July, 1951, my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans), who has always been active in this matter, asked the Minister: what is the total amount allocated to local authorities in respect of coast protection; and what authorities have benefited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 43.] In reply a long list of some 33 authorities was given, many of which come within this particular area of coastline. As a matter of fact, the list included the Borough Council of Aldeburgh, referred to by hon. Members opposite in an earlier debate.

Our anxiety is that in this emergency Bill we can find no reference to coast protection authorities and their rights and duties under the Bill. There seems to me a grave danger of a conflict of duty between one and the other. On reading the Bill I cannot make up my mind whether it is intended that the river boards shall be concerned merely with the sort of areas with which in the past they have always been concerned—that is, mainly the low-lying agricultural land; particularly land round the mouths of the rivers—and whether it is still intended to leave outside the scope of the Bill the built-up areas, particularly coastal resorts, which have more particularly been the concern of the Coast Protection Act.

It is possible, as I read the Bill, to say it is intended that river boards should be the sole authority for the purpose of this emergency work. Whichever it is, we must have reference in the Bill to the work of coast protection authorities; we must ensure that there is proper consultation. I remember very keenly the debates we had on just that sort of issue when the Coast Protection Act was going through the House. We took perhaps over-scrupulous precautions to ensure that there was full consultation and discussion with all authorities who might possibly be concerned when the coast protection authorities were being set up. Indeed, it is that very care which we took that has perhaps made some parts of the procedure under the Act as cumbrous as it is, which may have made for some difficulty in its operation.

While I am not saying necessarily that river boards should not carry out this work—tributes have been paid, and rightly, from both sides of the House to the work done both during the emergency and before—I insist that if we are to make a good job of this work, the cost of which it is admitted on all sides will be very heavy, then we must ensure that the work is done in full consultation with all those who have been busy on it for the last two or three years.

I cannot believe that this matter has not been thought of. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in his place. If his presence means what I hope it does, it means that there has been full consultation between at any rate two Departments, and that they have some reason for the absence in this Bill of any reference to coast protection authorities. This matter will need very much fuller consideration in Committee. We are very anxious that this should not be delayed, and if there were any points on the question of consultation about which the Government felt they might put down some Amendments themselves, I am sure it would speed the progress of the Bill if they could be put down at an early stage so that full consideration could be given to them.

It is worth remembering that even in 1951 over £2 million was authorised for coast protection work under the Coast Protection Act. We therefore feel it is a matter of very real concern that in these proposals some notice has not been taken of those bodies. The maintenance work and the cost of it has already been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle, who quite rightly pointed out that there are difficulties in ensuring that full and proper maintenance of defence works is carried out, and it could be a fair criticism of the Coast Protection Act that in at any rate that instance it was by no means certain —if I may put it that way—that coast protection authorities would be able to get grants to help them with the ordinary maintenance work of coast protection.

That may need reconsideration, and I am sure we shall be willing to consider it sympathetically. But I quite agree that it is no use constructing some of these defences, involving a great deal of cost not only in money but also sometimes in scarce materials, such as steel and concrete, if they are to be allowed to deteriorate for lack of sufficient funds in the coffers of local authorities. That also needs careful consideration.

I can assure the Minister that the provisions dealing with the position of the individual and his rights must be given further and rather careful consideration. Even though this is a temporary Measure intended to last for only a short while, we should be lacking in our duties if we allowed such wide powers as are provided in this Bill to go by without much fuller consideration than has so far been given to them.

I think I ought to put right the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), who seemed to think it was impossible for a grant of 100 per cent. to be given to a coast protection authority for coast protection work. It is not impossible. The question is quite open. The financial provisions in the Act enable a grant of any size to be made by the Government, and it is as well that that should be remembered.

I will not refer to the agricultural provisions. We agree about the vital necessity for some provisions in that respect, although the sums of the acreage contributions which are suggested are staggering and no doubt will need to be examined before they can be fully approved by the House. We are as anxious as anybody to ensure the rapid passage of the Bill. We will welcome any effort by the Minister to put down his Amendments as early as possible so that we may have a full chance to consider them, thus helping with the progress of the Bill.

With those words I add to the general chorus of welcome and express the hope that the Bill may be passed in a short time.

7.31 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have been gratified by the response which the Bill has received. It is an extremely complicated Measure, but no one has suggested that it is not necessary. A large number of points have been raised. I make no complaint of that, because it is right that a Bill of this character should be carefully and properly examined, but it places a difficult task on my shoulders in seeking to reply to them adequately without speaking at least until 10 o'clock. Indeed, the debate has covered a wide field and one or two remarks which have been made have surprised me. I must admit that I thought one of the chief troubles about which they complained in Salford was not the state of the river but the fog which interfered with their sporting activities.

Perhaps I may return to the Bill. I want to say at the outset that we appreciate the attitude which the Opposition are taking towards it. I agree that it is right that a Bill of this character should be closely examined and we shall welcome their co-operation in making it as good a Bill as possible. In that connection, I want to stress at the outset a point made by my right hon. Friend. If our sea defences are to be in a state to resist next winter's storms we have to get an immense amount of work done before the winter—work which, as my right hon. Friend said, would normally take 10 to 15 years.

That means that if we are to have a chance of carrying out that work, we must reduce the normal procedure of consultations under statutory provisions, of service of notices, of public inquiries and things of that sort, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) recognises the necessity in such a Bill as this of altering that customary procedure. Again, I think it is recognised everywhere that a grave responsibility rests upon the river boards of repairing an extensive part of our coastline in a very short time. No one doubts that all those engaged in the task —river boards, local authorities under the Coast Protection Act and workmen and contractors, with the memory of the events of 31st January in their minds, will do their utmost to prevent a repetition during the storms of next winter.

It is surely our task, as far as we can, to facilitate the execution of the work which must be done. In the Bill we seek to remove some of the obstacles which the river boards would encounter in the present state of the law. Some of those obstacles do not impede the action of local authorities under the Coast Protection Act of 1949. The right hon. Member for Belper referred to Section 5 (6) of that Act. The river boards have no such power; that power is confined to the local authorities and we are satisfied that local authorities under the Coast Protection Act have sufficient statutory powers to be able to do what is required. The river boards have not. That is the reason for Part I of the Bill.

The function of the river board and the function of the local authority under the Coast Protection Act are quite separate and distinct, as the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans) said in what I thought was an excellent speech. The river boards are responsible for sea defences and drainage, so as to prevent the land from being inundated. The Coast Protection Act provides for steps being taken, as the Title of the Act recites, to prevent coast erosion. The objects are separate. Under the Coast Protection Act there is provision for consultation, it is true, but in approaching this problem we must bear in mind that the authorities have separate tasks and objectives and separate statutory powers. It is true that there is no provision in the Bill placing a statutory obligation on the river boards to consult local authorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Coast Protection Act deals only with erosion, but that is not so. The Short Title refers to erosion and encroachment by the sea and Section 4 provides that a coast protection authority may deal with any land. Whatever view the hon. and learned Gentleman takes, surely he agrees at least that there must be provision for consultation.

The Solicitor-General

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman compares the River Boards Act and the Coast Protection Act he will agree that I am right and that the primary object—and I said object— of the Coast Protection Act is to prevent erosion and—although I omitted this word as I was trying to be as short as possible—encroachment by the sea. One of the main objects of the river boards is to prevent land from being flooded by the sea and to deal with drainage. A long history is involved. There is that difference of task confronting them.

I come to the main point which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) made, that of consultation. I listened to his final remarks, and it seemed to me, if I may say so with respect, that he was contemplating a long period of time in which to work out a code or a revision of the River Boards Act—which was passed not very long ago —and was thinking that unless we made some statutory provisions placing upon river boards an obligation to consult coast protection authorities, there would be no consultation. I am not prepared to accept that for a moment. I understand that the coast protection authorities and the river boards are working together in the closest possible co-operation at the moment—and that is what is required.

I do not think we should put into the Act a number of obligations upon river boards to consult local authorities, possibly town planning authorities and possibly a wide number of other bodies. We should not put that obligation into a statute, because I believe it might have very serious effects in preventing the commencement of work which must be commenced soon if it is to be completed. That is the reason. I think it is a very valid argument myself for a Bill of this character, for dealing with this particular task, that there should be no statutory obligation for consultation.

Mr. Edward Evans

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that it has validity only in respect of a temporary Measure, but not in the long run?

The Solicitor-General

We discuss in this House so many Bills in which we provide for consultation, and so on, that I think one is, perhaps, a little apt now to forget, in considering this complicated Measure, that the work has to be done by next September, and that we have to cut away some of the normal procedure. A great deal of the work has to be done by the willing co-operation and agreement of all concerned, the owners and occupiers of land, and others. Moreover, the people living in this area, and outside this area, are interested in this tremendous problem. However, we must have power to deal with the few people who may, perhaps, be obstinate or recalcitrant, because we cannot have sea defences delayed on that account.

My right hon. Friend said that the people who are pushed about by this Bill will or may be the people who were pushed about by the sea. None of us wants to see anyone pushed about by this Bill if that can possibly be avoided. What we want to do is to stop people being pushed around by the sea next winter. That is the point. I would ask the House to bear in mind that if these works are to be done by September, they must be started very soon. That means that entry has to be made upon land either for getting material to make these banks, or for making access roads by which to bring up materials with which to widen or strengthen the existing banks.

Under the River Boards Act, 1948, power was given for compulsory acquisition. Under the 1946 Act advertisements have to be published two successive weeks, time has to be given for the lodging of objections, and opportunity given for the objector to be heard by someone representing the Minister or at a public inquiry; the report of the person representing the Minister has to be made, and consideration to that report given by the Minister. It is no exaggeration to say that in even a simple case where there is an objection it may take not less than about 13 weeks to get approval for the acquisition. We cannot afford to spend 13 weeks on business of that kind this summer. There is so much to be done we cannot afford the risks of delay that would follow taking the procedure laid down by the 1948 Act. That is really the reason for this first part of this Bill.

I would emphasise that Part I is really divided into two parts. We have the first point of bank construction, earth getting, and access roads when combined with construction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper asked me what was the real meaning of "combined with construction." I referred him to the definition, which says that when combined with construction it means adjacent or contiguous to. I thought he would follow that, but if he does not know the distinction between "adjacent" and "contiguous to," may I tell him that "contiguous" means touching and "adjacent" means nearby?

Mr. G. Brown

The hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to consider the matter in the spirit he does, but it was not the spirit in which I approached it. Let us have a look at the interpretation Clause. It says: In this Act references to earth getting combined with bank construction, or to access road works so combined, are to such getting or works on land on, or contiguous or adjacent to, a site of bank construction, and being, in the case of access road works, works for meeting transport requirements of doing the bank construction…. How far away do those works for meeting transport requirements have to be to be still "adjacent to"? It seems to me they may be quite a distance away.

The Solicitor-General

I was not dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's intervention facetiously. I was trying to introduce a little light element into it. In reading that definition he has left out the governing words: … subject of such construction. That is the test. If we are making a bank, widening a bank, then we may have the road running alongside the bank for bringing up the material. That will clearly come within the scope. If we are bringing materials from immediately behind the bank, that again will come within the scope. What will not come within the scope is material from some distance away. I hope I have now been able to throw sufficient light on that point as to be able to pass on to the next.

We can really say that that part applies to the process of bank construction, the road alongside, and the getting of the materials. When the work is of that category the Minister gives his authority and the work can be started straight away. The river board must notify the owners and the occupiers of the work that that is to be done. Entry can then be made on the land, once the authority is given. Admission to buildings will be with 24 hours' notice, and after a month's notice for the evacuation of a residence.

Considerable criticism was uttered in respect of that by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine). I do not think it was observed that this power of entering buildings or vacating buildings is limited strictly to cases where those buildings are really required for bank construction. We may have a bank to be laid down involving the demolition of a building or part of a house. Indeed, there have been cases in which people have actually built on top of the sea defences. If we are to improve those defences we have first to remove the buildings.

We have provided 24 hours' notice in respect of any buildings, and a month's notice in the case of a residence. It is a point we can consider in Committee, but it would be difficult, I believe, at first sight, to prolong for longer periods the notice without running the risk of holding up the construction of the sea defences which have got to be made in such a very limited time.

Mr. Braine

I think we are all seized of the importance of speed in this case. I was envisaging the possibility of somebody's being required to yield up possession without any guarantee of rehousing. The Minister of Housing and Local Government stated in answer to a supplementary question on 24th March: My officers and I … cannot—and I think ought not to be able to—give orders to local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1953; Vol. 513, c. 639.] There should be some guarantee, I suggest, if people are pushed out of their homes, quite rightly, and speedily, that they will be rehoused.

The Solicitor-General

I do not think that the pushing of people out of their homes is likely to occur very often, because I doubt very much whether people are still occupying places which were actually built on top of the sea walls. That is a point which we can look at. I would rather for the moment confine my remarks to the contents of the Bill. I want to stress that we want to get these powers of entry immediately for the making of the sea defences, and if we do, many of what are called safeguards are removed.

For the earth getting work combined with bank construction and for bank construction the removal of those safeguards will enable the work to be started much earlier and the owner of the land can require the Board to purchase com-pulsorily or alternatively to pay compensation. The sole criterion must be where is the best place to put those sea defences, and in determining that regard must be given not only to protecting particular localities, but to the effect further down the coast. Full regard will be given to that in determining the line of the sea defences which have to be erected.

With regard to the getting of earth from some distance away, hon. Members will see that there are some of the usual safeguards about that but not all. There has got to be an advertisement and an opportunity to make objections. The Minister will consider the objections, but it is true that there is not to be a public inquiry. Time will not permit. I have taken up so much time dealing with this particular point, and I hope to be able to satisfy the House that we have had regard for individual interests and rights as far as we can, but we have also had regard to the urgent necessity of getting this work started soon. Under this Bill entry can be effected speedily and the work will get ahead.

I want to make this general observation. While it is proper and right for us to examine the provisions of this Bill in Committee, let us bear in mind that it gives the authority to enter upon the land to get these new defences started. We should not delay in fulfilling our part of this task so that we can perform our part in the reconstitution of our sea defences.

I have been asked a considerable number of points and I will try to deal quite shortly with them, although I fear it may be rather disconnected. The right hon. Member for Belper talked about the Clause excluding people from the site. We do not want to do it more than is necessary, but we anticipate that there will be the usual flow of visitors to the East Coast this summer and that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay will be able to spend his usual summer holiday on Canvey Island.

Mr. Braine

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will visit us.

The Solicitor-General

I had not been asked, but I thank my hon. Friend.

It is because of that that we have to take the power to exclude members of the public from where the work is actually proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman asked why we did not take the usual powers under Clause 3. I have dealt with that I hope to his satisfaction. Then he asked why there was provision to enable the authorisation period to be extended. I can give the answer to that in one sentence. We do not know what damage will be done next winter. We hope no damage will be done, but it would be unwise if, when we are taking statutory power, we did not take the power to extend the period in which authorisation can be given.

On the subject of finance, the right hon. Gentleman put a question about the date. We believe in incentives, and it is before September that we must get the bulk of this work done if we can. That is the main reason for fixing that date and I hope it will be possible to have the work done by then. Then he made the suggestion that we should send out an explanatory leaflet. We will certainly consider that, because we think it is very important that the people in those areas which are affected by this work should know not only why this is being done but also their rights, the possibilities of their getting compensation, and to what extent their ordinary, daily lives are likely to be affected.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) raised a point about Snettisham. I thought it was a very interesting speech which he made about shingle banks, which I gather are behind the sea defences as they now exist. In cases like that it may be that something can be done under the Town and Country Planning Act if it were proper for the authorities to do something. It is always possible for action to be brought for public nuisance where someone starts endangering our sea defences by taking them away.

My hon. and gallant Friend also raised the point of tidying up after the floods. I do not think that falls within the provisions of this Bill, although my right hon. Friend has authorised me to say that in granting authorisation under the Bill he can impose conditions so as to secure that there will be a tidying up by contractors and others engaged on the completion of this work.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) referred to the position of the Smallburgh Rural District Council. I have a letter here from the clerk of that council, whom I happen to know very well, and I think I am right in saying that their anxieties existed before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made his statement on the matter and the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman referred was passed before then.

Mr. Gooch

Their anxiety has been further allayed by a letter from the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard) approves of the method we propose in Part II for securing the restoration of the land rather than having it requisitioned. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) express the same view. The view we have come to is that it is much more likely to get this land back into proper use with the farmer remaining in possession on his own land. He knows his land best, and if the Government makes advice available to him, as he wants it, and assistance on the lines proposed, then I feel it is much better to leave him there rather than dispossess him temporarily and convert him into a salaried servant for the time being.

Mr. G. Brown

So that there is no misunderstanding on this matter—it is a matter of opinion and I hold the other view—we should know what we are doing. No one suggested taking the farmer off the land. The Minister of Agriculture knows something about opencast land, and he will agree that in that instance, which is somewhat similar to this, dispossession turned out to be the better way of dealing with it. It is purely a mechanical business, but we should know where we are.

The Solicitor-General

He becomes a salaried servant for the time being, but our view at present is that he should remain on the land. This is pure mechanics to arrive at the objective we both want, namely, to get the land back into production as quickly as possible. Our view at the moment is that it is likely to work best if the farmer remains in possession. I hope I have covered most of the points that have been raised.

Mr. Gooch

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the point I made about unemployed farm labourers and the priority for them on sea defence work?

The Solicitor-General

I understand that a special circular has been sent out to river boards asking them to employ farm workers from the areas that have been flooded. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman. I have been provided with any amount of material on points which do not fall within the Law Officers' province, and if I dealt with them all in detail this would be a very long and wearisome speech.

I have now dealt with the main points raised and I will conclude by expressing our thanks for the way in which everyone has approached this complicated Measure. While recognising the need for speed, we will give close consideration to any suggestions that are put forward between now and the Committee stage, and in Committee we will carefully consider any others. We believe that the Bill is essential, if we are to tackle the problem this summer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.