§ DAMAGE BY SURFACE WATER TO LAND.
§ (1) A Planning Authority shall not consent to an application for planning permission unless they are first satisfied that the applicant or some other person has made suitable arrangements for the disposal or discharge of the extra flow of water which may reasonably be expected to derive from the creation or extension of an impermeable area covering any part or all of the land in respect of which the application is made (in this subsection referred to as the ' relevant land ') and which might otherwise be expected to cause or increase flooding or waterlogging of other land (in this section referred to as the ' affected land').
§ (2) In this section 'suitable arrangements' means an agreement between the applicant and the owners or occupiers and such other persons as may have any compensatable interest in the affected land by which the applicants as soon as may be after or before the carrying out of the development of the relevant land contracts either to undertake or to contribute an agreed amount towards the cost of undertaking works designed to minimise or eliminate damage or injury attributable to such flooding or waterlogging or both.
§ (3) Any condition made pursuant to this section and attaching to a planning permission shall be enforceable by the Planning Authority notwithstanding that it may relate to land outside the relevant land.
§ (4) Any person who owned, occupied or was possessed of a compensatable interest in the affected land at the date of the granting of the planning permission for the relevant land and who complains to the Planning Authority that he has suffered or can reasonably be expected to suffer material injury as a result of the failure of the Planning Authority to comply or to have complied with the requirement imposed upon them by subsection (1) of this section, shall be entitled to claim compensation therefrom in respect of the damage suffered to that person's interest in the affected land.—[Mr. Clegg.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
142§ Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde)In 0normal circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would have made a long and powerful speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Carry on."]—but I am, unfortunately, one of those hon. Members who are closeted in a Committee Room—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and so I shall ask my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) to move the Second Reading of this Clause and to deploy the arguments which otherwise I would myself have put for the Clause
§ Mr. MurtonI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause deals with something which has the extraordinary name of urban run-off. It is essentially a matter for the farming community, although the same problem arises to a lesser degree amongst urban dwellers. The cause of the problem is usually a housing development or the creation, widening, or re-cambering of metalled highways. The surfaces become basically impermeable, and the water which flows upon them is not absorbed and tends thereafter to flow on to other land which becomes waterlogged. There is at present no machinery whereby this matter can be controlled by the local authority.
The water which runs off the surfaces is, in some cases, in agricultural areas swollen by discharge from septic tanks and it overcharges into a ditch or stream. The capacity of the stream is limited by the diameter or the level of a culvert which was never designed for the additional flow of water which, through urban development or the re-cambering of roads, now occurs. A serious problem may also arise where the backing up of streams occurs, to the detriment of riparian land for a considerable distance up the watercourse.
The problem has in the past been explored by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing, on the last occasion in July 1960. At that time it was suggested that Section 7 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, and Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936, together with remedies available at 143 common law, should give adequate protection to anyone suffering injury through the increase in run-off.
The National Farmers' Union, quite rightly, were not satisfied with the answer which was given to them by the two Ministries. Section 7 of the 1951 Act was never designed to deal with this problem. It deals with storm water overflows, and it was meant to operate only in the case of a substantial flow discharged directly into a main river. Section 37 of the Public Health Act, 1936 imposes a duty on local authorities to reject plans for buildings or extensions of buildings unless satisfactory provision for drainage has been made, but basically it deals with public health and safety.
As a result of the dissatisfaction with those answers, the National Farmers' Union drafted a new Clause to the Land Drainage Bill, which was presented in the appropriate Committee in 1961. The Government gave a number of reasons for rejecting the proposal. Apart from what I have already said, the third suggestion was that the objection to the discharge of water from highways on to farm land would be met by the provisions of Section 103 of the Highways Act, 1959. But, when it was looked into, it was found to be merely a consolidating Measure and that the Act had been on the Statute Book since 1835, so that it was not of much help to anyone.
Finally, the Minister decided that the best way to deal with the problem was by means of a Government circular, and he issued Circular 52/62 entitled, "Liaison between planning authorities and river boards". Paragraph 13 of the circular referred to the representations made on the subject and specifically asked planning authorities
… to bear this in mind when considering applications for development near agricultural property to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off.Again, that was not sufficient to meet the problem. The N.F.U. does not consider that the availability of a common law right of action against upstream discharges is a satisfactory solution—and that is the only other possible solution to the problem—mainly because of the uncertainty caused by the costs and delays attendant on a common law action and, 144 basically, because one cannot institute such an action until after the damage has been done. For that reason, the N.F.U. has attempted on a number of occasions to persuade Members of Parliament to produce adequate legislation to put an end to the problem.In a recent debate, on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, it was admitted by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to be a planning problem. It is a planning problem, and this might be considered to be the correct Bill in which to incorporate a clause putting an end to it by making it a positive duty on planning authorities and not merely a discretionary power not to grant planning consent unless it is satisfied that provision has been made for the disposal of surface and imported water in a fashion which will not injure other land, and also to oblige authorities to make it a condition of the granting of planning consent where run-off will be discharged on to land. In other words, first of all a developer must satisfy the authority that no damage will be caused and, secondly, that suitable arrangements will be made to deal with any discharge without detriment to third parties.
That is the agricultural side of it, but there is the secondary problem in connection with individual householders which affects an urban constituency like my own, where a developer banks up a road to a certain standard that he is under contract to build by order of the local authority before he develops a piece of land. I have had cases in my constituency where water has banked up behind such a road and flooded people's gardens. There have been cases where developers have turned more water into an existing culvert than it can stand. I have know other cases where developers have bulldozed ditches out of existence so that water has no means of draining away.
If this Clause, or something like it were to be incorporated into the Bill, we on this side consider that it would go a considerable way towards meeting the case of the N.F.U., which represents the agricultural interests of the country, and also deal with the problems of the citizen living in an urban environment. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause in its present form.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonThe hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton), in his interesting speech said, I thought a little too pessimistically or inaccurately, that there was no adequate machinery by which a local authority could deal with the situation which the new Clause is designed to prevent. On reflection, I think he will realise that this is not so. The major movements of water are the statutory responsibility of the river boards, both in relation to the flow of large-scale water and main drainage. The river boards are charged by Parliament to consider these matters the whole time. They are not so concerned with the minor works which come within the general responsibility of local authorities. It would be wrong for the impression to go out from this House that this matter is dealt with only casually or by chance, because there is extensive legislation.
I agree that there is a problem where there is development and where perhaps large areas of the surface become impervious, by reason of foundations or road works, or whatever it may be, and water saturates where it would not normally have done, being diverted through other causes. This is where the first line of defence comes into operation under the existing law.
The local planning authority is under a duty, when giving planning permission, to consider carefully all the material circumstances specified in Section 17(1) of the principal Act. It is a matter of material concern whether a development is likely to cause the kind of difficulties to which reference has been made— particularly flooding. These are proper planning matters, and the authority, not only when considering planning permission but when considering the consequences of planning permission, has to bear in mind its existing and proposed drainage in the vicinity.
It is important to realise that this is the responsibility of several bodies, acting under various statutes, and that it is generally satisfactorily discharged. Nevertheless, new developments sometimes may get ahead of proposed drainage works, and this has to be continually borne in mind by the authorities.
In 1962, during the life of the previous Administration, the attention of local 146 authorities and river boards was drawn to a joint circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture dealing with this problem, because it is of paramount importance. In the past, though I doubt whether this is so today, it had not been given sufficient attention.
The first point, therefore, is that there is a problem, but, broadly speaking, there is adequate machinery to deal with it. However, because it is a growing problem, we propose to draw the attention of local authorities to it again. I have the first draft of a circular which is being discussed with the Ministry of Agriculture and which will in due course be discussed with the local authority associations. Although the machinery is there, one wants to be sure that local authorities realise that the speed of development today, the record number of houses being built and so on and the consequent road systems, is bound to have a considerable effect on rainfall and the diversion of water from the land which it would normally saturate.
In addition, there are two features of the new Clause which would be a breach of what have hitherto been considered very important planning principles. The first is contained in subsection (3) which, almost for the first time, would allow a condition made by a planning authority to be attached not to the applicant's land but to somebody else's land. This is quite outside the planning Acts. The only existing circumstances in which a condition may be applied to land which is not the applicant's land are those provided for in Section 18(1) of the principal Act, but in those circumstances, where a condition is attached to other land, that other land must be in the ownership or under the supervision of the developer. That is quite right.
Hon. Members have only to think of a situation in which A is a developer and B, who lives next door, is affected by the development; A makes a planning application, and the application is granted on condition that B carries out certain works. The problems of enforcement if B objects would be tremendous. Why should not he object? In those circumstances, the position of the planning authority would become ridiculous. Public opinion would not support the extension of the principle as laid down 147 in subsection (3) of the new Clause. I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of hon. Members opposite. I hope that it will be extended in the Lobbies if the matter is pressed to a Division.
Subsection (4) contains an equally undesirable principle. The Clause makes it a statutory obligation upon a local authority not to permit development unless it is satisfied about the provisions made for run-off, and it is suggested in subsection (4) that any consequent damage, owing to the fact that the provisions made are not adequate, should be borne by the ratepayers. This, again, is a new principle, which I am sure would not find support in the minds and hearts of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
If a person's development damages the land of another person that other person can go to court and claim damage. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will remember the immortal case of Rylands v. Fletcher. Amongst its other propositions, the Bill is proposing to overturn this principle and to substitute a novel proposal under which the ratepayers would make good any damage that might arise on the land of another person. That is quite wrong. The position must be that he who reaps the benefit should pay for any damage caused. It is the developer who is benefiting and not the ratepayers.
For these reasons it is clear that subsections (3) and (4) breach principles which would not be lightly overturned by either side of the House, and certainly will not be overturned by us in this Bill.
§ Mr. MurtonWhere does the hon. Gentleman find the word "ratepayer", or the implication that the ratepayers will have to pay? It is the developer who will have to pay.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonNo, the clear implication of subsection (4) is that the local planning authority would be obliged to compensate anyone whose land was adversely affected. This is a novel and wholly objectionable principle. I do not want to suggest that there is no problem with the present large-scale urban development. There is, simply because it often takes time for drainage works, particularly for a large volume of water, to be constructed. The planning autho- 148 rity must bear this in mind when giving its permission.
Second, it will, if not satisfied, say that, because of certain consequences of the development, it must see the drainage proposals before considering the application further; or perhaps other arrangements can be made with the water board. We propose to draw the attention of the authorities again to this matter because of the difficulty, but it does not call for machinery and certainly not of the kind proposed. Therefore, I could not advise the House to accept the new Clause.
§ Mr. RipponThis is an important matter, and the Parliamentary Secretary has treated it as such. Therefore, we very much regret that our hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), in whose name the Amendment stands, could do no more than refer to it formally before returning to his duties elsewhere. This illustrates the difficulties for hon. Members—apparently on both sides —who now find their commitments in Standing Committees so pressing that they cannot give the time which they would wish to these matters.
I say this because of the merriment of an hon. Member opposite, who, apparently, is not interested in this subject and sits here only because the Government are paying him to do so. I speak for my hon. Friends, who are present in large numbers and who would be augmented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde if he were not on the Finance Bill Standing Committee. Government supporters are apparently so jaded that they do not wish to appear anywhere. They are certainly not here this afternoon.
My hon. Friend's Amendment has drawn attention to a real problem, which was fully explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton). I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone into this in some detail and raised points worth considering, but the Government are not, apparently, aware of what is happening and his reply was not wholly satisfactory. He was very unfair to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole was misleading to say that there was no adequate machinery, since he was stating the truth. There is none. It may be hard to establish it, 149 but we must face the fact that machinery does not exist.
It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that there are several bodies acting under statutory powers. There are several statutory bodies with responsibility and powers, but they do not cover the situation. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged this by referring to another circular, to that of 1962, which was issued in good faith by the then Government, but which has not proved sufficient. Now, the Government propose to issue another, which we are told is in draft. But we do not know what is in it. We know that there have been no discussions with the National Farmers' Union, which has tried unsuccessfully to learn what is in the Government's mind. It has got no information from the Ministry. In these circumstances, it seems that mere exhortation and circulars is not enough and that we should have some new legislation.
9.0 p.m.
The Government have indicated that they recognise the serious damage which is caused to agricultural land by various forms of development. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has indicated this on several occasions. That Department says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because it is a question of planning. On the other hand, the Ministry of Housing says that it is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture to deal with by different machinery. This is not good enough
In criticising subsection (4) of the new Clause the Minister referred to the private developer. He should appreciate that it is often the public authority which is responsible for a major building or highway scheme which causes the mischief to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole referred; namely, the creation of large impermeable areas from which there is a great discharge of flood water to the damage of downstream land. I can see that there is real difficulty in imposing upon local planning authorities the duty of applying conditions relating to land other than land which is the subject of planning consent. But this problem is so serious that it cannot be dealt with adequately by a circular, even assuming that the Government took the 150 trouble to consult the appropriate authorities about its terms.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonThe circular is in its very early stages. Like the other circular to which I referred, it is a joint document and I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no question of shuffling off responsibility from one Ministry to another. When the draft of the circular is far enough ahead there will be the usual consultations. I believe that I said this but, if I omitted to do so, I wish to make the position clear.
§ Mr. RipponI appreciate that. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has been perusing the matter for some time and the Government knew that the subject would be raised throughout the passage of the Bill. They should have prepared the draft circular and satisfied the House and the interested bodies that they intend to propose some effective action. It is not satisfactory for them simply to ask us to rely on an assurance given now that a circular, which is at present in preliminary draft form, will be of help and that there will be adequate consultation later. We cannot afford to lose this opportunity to press for legislation on this subject.
I agree that some changes will be required in the drafting of the new Clause. This could be dealt with by the Government accepting our proposal and making the necessary changes in another place.
§ Mr. Hugh Rossi (Hornsey)I did not intend to speak until I heard the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister. He said that under Section 7 of the Rivers Prevention of Pollution Act, 1951, river authorities were charged with the duty of dealing with matters of this kind. He said that they would contact local authorities to ensure that proper schemes were made to deal with flooding. He did not say that the river boards were concerned only when there happened to be substantial flow of discharging water directly into a main river.
§ Mr. SkeffingtonI made that precise point. I tried to define the responsibilities of the statutory bodies.
§ Mr. RossiThe hon. Gentleman overlooked the fact that the main complaint of the N.F.U. was in connection with 151 minor ditches and streams overflowing and flooding land.
It has nothing to do with the outlet of main courses into main rivers. The Minister has missed the point entirely if he feels that this Act is the basis of the whole matter. I ask him to direct his mind particularly to the very many representations that have been made to his Department and to the Ministry of Agriculture, because it is quite clear that by concentrating on this Section of this Act he has misled himself completely as to what the problem is.
The Minister stated that the matter could be dealt with administratively most conveniently by a circular from his Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture exhorting local authorities to deal with this problem; and that this would be the cure. He told us that a circular is already in draft. In 1962 a joint circular was issued by his Ministry and by the Ministry of Agriculture—Circular 52—entitled "Liaison between Planning Authorities and River Boards." Paragraph 13 of that circular asked local planning authorities to bear in mind the problem of run-off and flooding.
… when considering applications for development near agricultural property and to ensure that satisfactory arrangements are made for dealing with surface water run-off.The matter was dealt with by circular in 1962. What will this new circular add to the situation? Local authorities have been apprised of the problem, and exhorted to do something about it. They have been asked to bear it in mind when dealing with planning applications where this sort of thing might happen. Yet the problem continues, because we are told by the Minister of Agriculture that case after case is still coming before him. If the local authorities had heeded the circular issued those years ago, one could have expected a diminution of this kind of complaint, but that is not the case.In the debate on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) referred, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture said:
My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has made it clear to planning authorities that the effect of development on land drainage is a 152 material factor to be taken into account when granting consent.He said that the Minister of Housing… is already in touch with local authority associations, seeking their views on the problem of drainage….It was not only the Minister of Housing, because the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that… the Minister of Transport has drawn the attention of local authorities to the need for caution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th January, 1968; c. 498–9.]So we have had one Minister after another telling local authorities, exhorting them, and drawing their attention to this problem, yet still the complaints come in. I venture to suggest that another circular will not improve the position one jot or tittle, but will just be another piece of paper on the files of local authorities, joining the existing circulars and the existing exhortations.It is for this reason that my hon. Friend has put forward this new Clause which would put on local authorities and developers a positive obligation to take action that would stop this nuisance. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the farmers have common law remedies. They may have an action in law, but they may not wish to go to court to sue for damages. All this has happened after the flooding. Their concern is to prevent flooding, and injury to and waterlogging of their property. That is not prevented by legal action. This happens after the event. We know that the problem continues, because the cases are continuing to come into the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government stating, "Despite your circulars, we still have this problem. When will you face up to it?"
§ Mr. SkeffingtonThe hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), on his rather late arrival in this debate, completely misunderstood the speech I made. I drew attention to the fact that there was a problem which is growing because of the pace of urban development and the fact that land drainage cannot keep pace with that development. It is important to draw the attention of authorities to that, but I did not rely on it as the solution to the problem. Rainfall, as Noah 153 discovered, is an act of God and whatever measures we take they do not get over that fact.
I brought in the question of compensation because that was part of the new Clause to which I was replying. I quite agree that compensation is unsatisfactory, but we want in the first place to prevent excessive flooding. I believe the combination of actions by river authorities and local authorities is the best guarantee we have for keeping the balance right between the development which is allowed and dealing with the problems which arise.
| Division No. 148.] | AYES | [9.13 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Goodhew, Victor | Pounder, Rafton |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Grant, Anthony | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Astor, John | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Pym, Francis |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Quennell, Miss J. M. |
| Baker, Kenneth (Acton) | Harrison, Brian (Maldon) | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Bessell, Peter | Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Biffen, John | Hill, J. E. B. | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Holland, Philip | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Boardman, Tom | Hordern, Peter | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Bossom, Sir Clive | Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Brewis, John | Iremonger, T. L. | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Scott, Nicholas |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Sharpies, Richard |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Kirk, Peter | Silvester, Frederick |
| Burden, F. A. | Kitson, Timothy | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Lancaster, Col. C. G. | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Speed, Keith |
| Clark, Henry | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Stainton, Keith |
| Clegg, Walter | Lubbock, Eric | Tapseli, Peter |
| Cooke, Robert | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Costain, A. P. | Maude, Angus | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow.cathcart) |
| Crouch, David | Mawby, Ray | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Crowder, F. P. | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Temple, John M. |
| Currie, G. B. H. | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret |
| Dance, James | More, Jasper | Tilney, John |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Murton, Oscar | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward | Nabarro, sir, Gerald | Ward Dame Irene |
| Eden, Sir John | Onslow, Cranley | Whotelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.) | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Emery, Peter | Pardoe, John | Wills, sir Gerald (Bridgwater) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) | Wright, Esmond |
| Farr, John | Perclval, Ian | |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Peyton, John | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Foster, Sir John | Pink, R. Bonner | Mr. Hector Monro and |
| Mr. Reginald Eyre. |
| NOES | ||
| Allen, Scholefield | Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) | Diamond, Rt. Hn. John |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Buchan, Norman | Dickens, James |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) | Doig, Peter |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Dunnett, Jack |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Carmichael, Neil | Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) |
| Bamett, Joel | Chapman, Donald | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) |
| Beaney, Alan | Coe, Denis | Eadie, Alex |
| Bid well, Sydney | Concannon, J. D. | Edwards, William (Merioneth) |
| Blackburn, F. | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Ellis, John |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | English, Michael |
| Boardman, H. (Leigh) | Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) |
| Boyden, James | Davies, Harold (Leek) | Fernyhough, E. |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Dell, Edmund | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Dempsey, James | Fowler, Gerry |
| Brown, Hugh D). (G'gow, Provan) | Dewar, Donald | Fraser, John (Norwood) |
§ I make quite clear that there is no question of one Department trying to shuffle off this matter on to another Department. It is a problem which we want to tackle jointly, as we have done in the past. The very fact that a public authority may by development cause a problem is one of the reasons why there should be a legal remedy as well as taking steps to prevent flooding if that is possible.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 157.
| Freeson, Reginald | McNamara, J. Kevin | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | MacPherson, Malcolm | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Gardner, Tony | Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Garrett, W. E. | Mapp, Charles | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Courlay, Harry | Marks, Kenneth | Slater, Joseph |
| Gregory, Arnold | Marquand, David | Small, William |
| Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Snow, Julian |
| Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) | Mayhew, Christopher | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Mendelson, J. J. | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W) |
| Hamling, William | Millan, Bruce | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Hannan, William | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Haseldine, Norman | Moyle, Roland | Symonds, J. B. |
| Henig, Stanley | Newens, Stan | Taverne, Dick |
| Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Hooley, Frank | Ogden, Eric | Tinn, James |
| Horner, John | O'Malley, Brian | Urwln, T. W. |
| Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Orbach, Maurice | Varley, Eric C. |
| Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Orme, Stanley | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Hoy, James | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| Huckfield, Leslie | Owen Will (Morpeth) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Hunter, Adam | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Wallace, George |
| Hynd, John | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles | Walking, David (Consett) |
| Irvine, Sir Arthur | Park, Trevor | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Parker, John (Dagenham) | Whitlock, William |
| Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Pavitt, Laurence | Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch) |
| Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Kelley, Richard | Pentland, Norman | Willis, Rt. Hn. George |
| Kenyon, Clifford | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Lawson, George | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Winnick, David |
| Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Price, William (Rugby) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Lever, Harold (Cheetham) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Loughlin, Charles | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow,E.) | Yates, Victor |
| Lyon, Alexander W, (York) | Roebuck, Roy | |
| MacDermot, Niall | Rose, Paul | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Macdonald, A. H. | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) | Mr. Charles Carey. |
| Mackintosh, John P. | Sheldon, Robert |