North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board Schemes (Compensation Clause)

HC Deb 22 December 1965 vol 722 cc2082-3

21. Mr. Mackenzie

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the standard clause about compensation for subsequent flooding inserted in North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board constructional schemes has been interpreted in such a way that it places upon the pursuer the task of proving that the flooding would not have occurred but for the Board's works; and, in view of the decision of the Court of Session on the particular case of the flooding which took place in the River Conon valley in 1962, if he will introduce legislation to amend the standard compensation clause in constructional schemes.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

The clause in question, which is included in the powers conferred on many statutory undertakers, seeks to preserve for persons who may be affected by the Board's schemes rights which they have under common law but which, in the absence of such a clause, might be held to be overruled by the statutory powers to construct and operate the schemes. In these circumstances I see no need for the clause to be altered.

Mr. Mackenzie

Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply will cause grave concern to the farmers and crofters in the River Conon Valley who suffered such crippling financial losses in 1962 due to Hydro-Electric Board operations and who are under a constant threat of a repetition of those losses? Will he cause an inquiry to be made into the very special circumstances of this case?

Mr. Ross

No, I do not think so. I think that it would be quite wrong to change the law in this respect. Indeed, if this clause did not exist, there would he cause for concern because we should be taking away existing common law rights.

Mr. G. Campbell

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this interpretation is fair to individuals who may suffer considerable loss and damage as a result of such work? Is he aware that it is an extremely arduous and major operation to prove?

Mr. Ross

I think that it would be quite wrong for me to say whether the courts were right or wrong in their interpretation. Certainly we have not had many complaints about this in the past.