Lords Sitting of 20 January 1949

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TOWER PIER
  4.4 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, the Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, whether His Majesty's Government have any statement to make regarding the proposed extension of the Tower Pier.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, as the noble Lord is no doubt aware, there has been during the past year an increased demand for accommodation at Tower Pier, partly due to the institution of what is called the Water Bus Service. The Port of London Authority have accordingly had to consider the best method of meeting this demand. One proposal was to extend the pier downstream, but I understand that the Port of London Authority are now making a detailed examination of the possibility of extending the pier upstream, thus avoiding any possible interference with the amenity of the Tower of London and with the children's beach. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that further detailed discussion here now would be premature.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his fairly satisfactory answer, but may I ask whether, in the event of the original proposal being brought up again—that is to say, to extend the pier downstream—this House will be afforded an opportunity of debating the Motion which now stands in my name on the Order Paper?
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of his earlier answer? Is the noble Lord aware—I speak as a member of the Port of London Authority—that the Port of London Authority never contemplated altering the Tower Pier in such a way as to obscure the frontage of the Tower?
  108
  The pier is merely a floating platform, a few feet above the surface of the water; it has no superstructure, and it rises and falls with the tide. The Port of London Authority have no selfish interest in the matter. After all, any extension carried out will be entirely for the benefit of the public and will involve the Authority in great expense.
  LORD MORRISON: The question as to whether or not the carrying out of the original proposal would interfere with the amenities of the Tower is really a matter of opinion. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, and the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, who put his Motion on the Paper, is entitled to claim that, in his opinion, the extension would interfere with the amenities of the Tower. Fortunately, it does not fall upon me at the moment to decide which view is right. In reply to the noble Lord's question, I can assure him that no decision affecting the foreshore adjoining the Tower will be taken without first affording an opportunity for debate, should he so desire.
  LORD BLACKFORD: I am obliged to the noble Lord.

COAST PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
4.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Coast protection authorities
1.—(1) The council of each maritime county borough or county district shall, subject to the provisions of any order under the next following section, be the coast protection authority for the county borough or county district, as the case may be.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to subsection (1):
"but excluding any area in which a drainage authority or river board is maintaining works for the protection of low-lying lands."
The noble Viscount said: A number of Amendments appear on the Marshalled List under my name, but although there is a great deal of wording, the purpose

109
of the Amendments is simple: it is to protect the interests and the work of the catchment boards. I speak with some feeling on this matter, because I live by a river, and to us a catchment board is an extremely important authority. Other public authorities are remote, and appear to mankind only in the shape of demand notes. A catchment board is there alongside you, and when there is a very high tide or strong wind you feel how urgent is its work. Catchment boards are in a much higher national category than boards to protect articles of historic interest, because they are directly concerned with the agricultural products of the country.
If I give illustrations, they will be drawn from an area which I know very well—East Essex. No doubt they can be supported by noble Lords from other areas, but it is better to speak of that which one knows. In moving this Amendment, I can say at once that, so far as Essex is concerned, we should be quite as well off, and perhaps better off, if this Bill had never been introduced. We have an excellent rivers catchment board, and what is called the coast of the part of Essex I know, the Dengie Peninsula, is quite indistinguishable from the rest of the country. This complete flatness has a beauty exceeding anything which Switzerland can produce—at least, that is my opinion. If you step along the wall going round the Dengie Peninsula—reminding one by its very name of the incursions of the Danes—you come to 55‣ East, but you cannot see anything on the wall at all. It is the same wall which goes right round and becomes the coast (which is under the protection of the new authority) and returns along the Crouch River as an ordinary river wall. We have a most ancient consecrated church on that wall, the Church of St. Peter on the Wall, and Saint Cedd—who was a good British Saint, and who founded that church—would have been badly caught out by Clause 17 of this Bill, because he would have required a licence before he could erect his structure. It is still used as a consecrated building.
So far as engineering work on the coast is concerned, it is possible that one half of one of the synthetic slabs that are made may lie in the river area, and the other half on the forbidden side of
110
55′ East. It becomes coast protection, and comes under the authority of somebody else. I say that, so far as we are concerned, we should not mind if the whole afternoon was saved by the Minister withdrawing the Bill—but that, I presume, is not likely. It is obvious that there is a great deal to be said for having an allover scheme to deal with coast protection, but my complaint is merely that coast protection must not be put too high. It must be remembered that land drainage is very important. For example in this peninsula there are 13,000 acres of arable and pasture land which are protected by this board. We draw attention, therefore, to the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister when he promised this Bill, which was that the work of these catchment boards should not be hampered or interfered with. This Amendment excludes altogether from the authority of the new boards areas in which the catchment boards are working. If we fail in this Amendment—it is a radical Amendment I admit, and I should not be prepared to press it too far, because the general interest of the Bill must be considered—we shall move other Amendments to try to safeguard the work of the catchment boards.
All these different Amendments, broadly speaking, involve three points. One is that we (and by that I mean the catchment boards) want to be left in peace to continue our work. If that cannot be so unreservedly, then we wish to be quite sure that we shall he adequately represented on the joint boards on which we sit with the local authorities. The second point is that if work is being done, we require direct and certain notification. That is such a small point that I am almost ashamed to mention it, but it will arise in one of the Amendments. The third point is that we object to other authorities having the power to remove the shingle in front of our works, because we think it may do damage; and we require to be consulted on the point. A fourth point is that if the coast is developed and if it is necessary to seek permission for coast development by the erection, for example, of a bathing camp, or whatever it might be, these boards would like to be consulted, just as much as the coast protection authority, in case any such works should interfere with the efficacy of their work. I repeat that the whole purpose of their work is

111
to produce food, and everyone agrees that there is no task that is more important in this country to-day. What I have said covers the whole field of these Amendments, and I am content now to move the first. If I speak again, as I understand one may on Committee stage, it will only be in answer to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may raise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I will not at the outset attempt to reply to some of the detailed points made by my noble friend, because they have no reference to this particular clause or to this particular Amendment. Later on in the debate, when the Amendments are moved, we shall be called upon to reply to them. The first clause in this Bill provides that henceforth authorities for coast protection shall be urban district councils, rural district councils and county boroughs which are situated on the coast. It is quite true that at the present time in certain areas near to the river mouth drainage authorities have been responsible for the protection of the coasts, in order that water may flow more easily to the sea or to drain low-lying land. It is not the purpose of the Bill, as I shall show before I sit down, that the work of the river boards or the drainage authorities shall be interrupted at all. If the Amendment which has just been moved were to be carried, this Bill would be torpedoed, because much of the coast line would cease to be dealt with within the corners of the Bill.
From time to time it may be necessary to operate under Clause 2, which provides that where it is better to bring two or three authorities together, a joint board shall he established. That joint board would include a river board or a drainage authority; and it would then become responsible not merely for the coast which is not now touched, but for the coast which is at present receiving attention from the river board or the drainage authority. But the Amendment proposes not merely that the responsibility for the areas of river boards shall be cut away from the local authorities acting separately, but that they shall not even come within the authority of a joint
112
board itself. Notwithstanding that fact, the drainage authorities want adequate representation on the joint boards.
The Government believe that there may be danger of trouble between the different authorities if they act separately—if there is a frontier between the authorities. We think that if there are difficulties they can be settled by discussion, by joint decision and by co-operation. Therefore, in those cases we favour the board. I should just like to quote from Clause 42, paragraph (c), which gives protection to the river boards and the drainage authorities in the work that they are now doing. It reads as follows:
"Nothing in this Act or in any order made thereunder shall—
(c) authorise or require any person—

(i) to carry out any work of alteration, improvement, repair, maintenance, demolition or removal on any works constructed or maintainable by a river board or drainage authority, or

(ii) to carry out any work on land on which the sowing or planting of vegetation is carried out or vegetation is maintained by a river board or drainage authority,

unless the board or authority consents or the work is to be done by, or under a scheme prepared by, a coast protection board on which the river board or drainage authority is represented;"
The Government would ask your Lordships to support them in the clause as it now stands, sure of their intention that the interests of the river boards will be protected.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I shall not press the Amendment, but the noble Lord has attempted to answer the Amendment by referring to another clause—Clause 2. If I am defeated, as of course I shall be, in this Amendment, then we must see what can be done with Clause 2. When we come to that clause, on which also I have an Amendment, I shall then presume to comment on the precautions which the noble Lord has said he has taken. But this Amendment is excluded by the existence of Clause 2. If the Amendment had been carried, then all the subsequent Amendments I have tabled would have fallen. At any rate, the principle is not excluded by the Government for the moment, and the matter must rest there. But when we come to what the noble Lord has offered as reasons, I shall

113
make what observations I can as to the imperfections of his argument.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Are not the main areas in which these river boards work excluded under the terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Bill? Here we get a number of geographical boundaries which leave the coast protection board to deal with the seaward side and those parts which are up-river are excluded from the operation of the coast protection board. I have great sympathy with the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment. We all listened with interest to the way in which he described this peninsula—which I understood from his description was called "Dingy."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No, it was "Dengie," after the Danes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was speaking more from the description the noble Viscount gave than from its historical name. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, in the main, these river boards are working above the boundaries set out in the Fourth Schedule.
LORD SHEPHERD: The answer, of course, is in the affirmative, but there have been occasions when the drainage authorities have undertaken work in some areas where the sea has endangered the coast.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Constitution of coast protection boards
(2) A coast protection board shall consist of representatives of the council of every maritime county borough or county district any part of which is within the area for which the board is constituted, and, if the order so provides, of representatives of such one or more as may be specified in the order of the following bodies and persons, that is to say—

(a) the council of any county any part of which is within the area;

(b) any sea defence commissioners, river board, drainage authority, harbour authority, fishery board, local fisheries committee, conservancy authority or navigation authority having any powers or duties in relation to any part of the area;

(5) An order made under this section may
(e) contain any incidental or consequential provisions which appear to the Minister, or the Ministers concerned, to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order, including, without prejudice to the
114
generality of this paragraph, provisions applying to the board any enactment which applies to a coast protection authority, not being a coast protection board, by reason that it is a local authority as defined for the purposes of that enactment.
(10) This section shall not apply to Scotland.
4.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The council of any maritime county may apply to the Minister for an order for the constitution of a coast protection board for any area situated wholly or partly in that county, and the Minister thereupon shall, after consulting the council of every county, county borough and county district any part of which is within that area, make such order, if any, as he deems expedient."
The noble Viscount said: This is the first of a series of Amendments I am moving on behalf of the County Councils Association. In passing, I suggest, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that the county council are no more remote or disembodied than the catchment board.
Your Lordships may not think that this particular Amendment amounts to very much. All it does is to give the county council power to make representations. It is true that they can do that under the Bill as it stands, but nevertheless, I submit that there is a case for giving to the county councils rather special authority in this matter of coast protection. The question really is: What happens when this Bill is passed? Presumably, the Government expect the initiative to be taken by some local authority. I say that is presumably so because, although the Bill starts off by saying that all maritime county boroughs and county districts become coast protection authorities, it goes on, as so many Bills do now, to produce so many qualifications and provisos to save so much power to the Minister that this responsibility is not perhaps very clear. I still presume that the Government do not intend to do anything unless they are asked to do something by a local authority. If this initiative has to be taken by the new coast protection authority as defined in the Bill, we must face up to the fact that these new authorities are to be of all sorts, shapes and sizes. They vary enormously in regard to financial resources. On the one hand, we hind that in a great county

115
borough like Liverpool the penny rate produces £26,000. On the other hand, there are quite a number of rural and urban districts whose penny rate produces under £100; and I see that one produces only £15 a year.
I understand that the total number of maritime county boroughs and county district councils amounts 'to something like 300. I am afraid I do not know how many of them have coast erosion problems but, however many there may be, I think it most unlikely that these problems would exactly coincide with the boundaries of the district councils. For these reasons, it seems to the County Councils Association, rightly or wrongly, that in a number of cases, particularly in an instance where the coast is divided up between a number of small authorities, the proper solution will be a coast protection board. The approach to the problem ought to be on somewhat wider lines than can be undertaken by a small district council. We suggest that the most suitable authority to take the initiative in this matter is a county council. I say that for several reasons. First, they are the planning authorities, and I know from my own experience how difficult it is to separate planning problems from coast erosion problems in certain coastal areas. Secondly, the county councils are already represented on catchment boards and river boards, and are probably substantial contributors to those boards. Thirdly, and not least, it is quite likely that if coast protection boards are set up the county councils will be substantial contributors to those new boards. For those reasons, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It simply gives a lead and invites the county council to take some initiative in approaching the Ministry in appropriate cases.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I trust that he will allow me, in doing so, to say how surprised I was at the welcome, tepid though it was, that was given to the Second Reading of this Bill, because I come from a maritime county which is vastly concerned with coast protection. I have even had the
116
doubtful honour to be chairman of a catchment board which differed somewhat from that to which the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, referred in that, excellent board though it was, it had one handicap—namely, it had a large number of miles of coastal walls and not one penny to maintain them. Therefore, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we do not regard this Bill with any enthusiasm. Nevertheless, your Lordships have given it a Second Reading and it is the duty of this House to make it as workable and as good a Bill as possible. When I had read this Bill some three or four times in my endeavour to grasp its intricacies, I came to one conclusion: that it seems extremely probable that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will be altogether a dead measure. As I like to think that great minds think alike, I was glad to see that the same conclusion had forced itself upon the attention of the noble Lord who moved the Bill. Lord Shepherd, because he said, "I would point out that the boards, if they are formed at all. …" If the boards are not going to be formed at all, surely your Lordships, in company with a great many other people, must have been wasting a considerable amount of time.
I want to avoid that. I want to get the best out of the Bill that it is possible to get. As the Bill now stands, as my noble friend has pointed out, the onus of starting one of these boards rests upon the Ministry—I take it that it is in fact the Ministry—and even a Minister occasionally needs prodding into life. Who is to do the prodding in this case? I am not quite sure. Presumably the Ministry will go to the rural district council or the urban district council, but will they be so very keen on taking the initiative, thereby causing themselves some considerable expense? The Ministry may look to the river boards—indeed, I think they are more likely to be the people to initiate this than anyone else. They may look to the parish councils or to individuals; but individuals are extremely unlikely to urge that one of these boards be set up, in order that they may pay extremely heavy charges.
Surely, if there is one authority which would combine all these people suitably, that would be the proper body to ask the Ministry to act in the formation of a river board. A county council is repre-

117
sented on nearly all these bodies; it certainly has representatives on urban district councils and rural district councils; and it almost certainly has representatives on the catchment board or river board. It is, therefore, in close touch with neighbouring authorities, and I submit that it would facilitate the passage of this Bill, and make it more smooth in working and ready for the general benefit of the intentions which lie behind it, if this Amendment were accepted and the county council were to become the main body from which all applications came.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): I do not think there is any difference in principle between the noble Lord opposite and the Government on the subject of this Amendment. The noble Viscount's Amendment does not, in fact, give county councils any power they do not at present possess or which they will not be able to exercise under the terms of the Bill as it stands. We appreciate as keenly as do he and the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, the importance of county councils in making this scheme work, and we see the need for county councils to take the initiative on occasions when they feel that a scheme should be put into operation to protect the coast in their area. Under subsection (1) of Clause 2, there is nothing whatever to prevent county councils from taking the initiative—which I think is what the noble Viscount wants—in asking the Ministry of Health to set up a joint board.
There may be many occasions when a smaller local authority has not taken the initiative, and when the matter might be neglected for a long period of time unless a larger authority were to make the first approach to the Ministry of Health. I can give the noble Viscount this assurance, that if the Minister is approached in this way by a county council, he will give earnest consideration to its representations; and he will do so, whether the council are asking for the board for the area included in the county, or for a larger area taking in a strip of the coast extending into one or more neighbouring counties. I hope, in view of the fact that the Bill as it stands will give the county councils exactly the same functions as he desires, he will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: As I said, the legal effect of my Amendment is very small, and I am grateful for the observations of the noble Earl. Sometimes smaller authorities rather resent action by county councils when there is nothing in an Act specifically to invite that action, but think these fears will be allayed and the assurance given by my noble friend will afford some authority to the county councils to take the initiative. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATEhad given Notice of three Amendments in subsection (2), the first of which was to omit "for which the board is constituted" and to insert "of the board." The noble Viscount said: As I mentioned when I moved the Amendment to Clause 1 which was withdrawn, the catchment boards feel that if they cannot have their areas excluded from the operation of the new coast protection authorities, at any rate their position should be assured. I would repeat what I said about the importance of their work, and I think members on all sides will agree that it is extremely important work. These catchment boards are growing food, and the Minister concerned is the Minister of Agriculture. What is their fate under Clause 2? First of all, an order is made. If the coast protection authority does not include these boards, then they have no effect in the matter at all. But supposing a joint board (that is the argument which was advanced by my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, as the answer) is formed. By whom is it formed? Is it formed by the Minister of Agriculture? Is it formed by the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with the catchment board, who are concerned to see that this joint board can do the work and get the land clear for the job? Not at all. The person who is to decide whether these large agricultural organisations are to participate in machinery to help them to carry out that work is the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health has a great many interests, and a very important task, but it is a surprise to me, first, that it is on his initiative alone that these joint boards are to be set up, and secondly, that the catchment boards will

119
have no claim at all to be on a joint board unless an order is made by the Minister of Health. Suppose he makes an order for the establishment of a joint board. Even so, under what category of persons who are to be the constituents of such a board do we find the catchment boards? They come under subsection (2), paragraph (b), which specifies
"sea defence commissioners, river board, drainage authority, harbour authority, fishery board"—
all sorts of authorities are included, but there is not a word in the Bill which says that catchment boards shall be represented on such a joint board if it is set up by the Ministry of Health. If the case I have stated is the true one, I am quite sure there is not a member of this Committee who will consider that that is a position which can reasonably be maintained. Therefore I submit with some confidence my Amendments to page 2, lines 13, 14, and 19, which hang together, and the purpose of which is to ensure that if a joint board is created, the catchment boards shall have a right to participate for certain, and not depend upon the whim of a Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("area") to ("and") in line 14, and insert ("of the board").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As my next two Amendments are designed to have much the same effect as those just moved by the noble Viscount, I, too, would like to say a word. Under the Bill as drafted, these river boards (and very important bodies they are) can come in only if the Minister sees fit to include them by order. They have at present no right to be on the board. They have no right to be consulted as to what the coast protection board does. These river boards or catchment boards must, in some way, be given a better position than the Bill gives them at the moment. I do not know when or how this can be done. I understand that the idea is to levy a charge on everybody who is brought in under this clause, so it is probably not the appropriate place for their inclusion. But in any case where areas are likely to be contiguous, and conflict is likely to take place, I think it is better to have representation of these
120
people on the coast protection board itself, whether or not they have to pay part of the charges of that board. That is much better than having two bodies who are at arms length and who have to consult with one another; or, even worse, as in the Bill as at present drafted, where there is no necessity for the new coast protection boards to consult the river boards at all. Therefore, I hope that some means will be found of bringing these two bodies closer together, because in a large number of areas they are doing very similar work alongside each other, and the work ought to be done jointly rather than under different plans. For that reason I support the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think there is some misunderstanding as to the position of the coast protection authorities and the coast protection boards. In a great many cases it may not be necessary to establish a board at all. The work to be done will be of a minor character and will be within the compass of performance either of the rural district council, the urban district council or the county borough. There are certain parts of the country, however, where greater difficulties exist, and where there is work of an urgent character to be done. In those cases it must be evident that, from the beginning, a coast protection board will need to be formed. The Bill provides in such a case for the Ministers concerned, not "the Minister" I would ask my noble friend to note—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I interrupt for a moment? Perhaps there is a misprint in my copy of the Bill, but subsection (1) says:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may … make an order."
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, but where authorities like this are concerned—you will find this set out at a later stage in the Bill—the appointment of the Board is in the hands of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and probably, on occasion, the Minister of Transport.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Will my noble friend forgive me? My point was that it is in the hands of the Minister of Health alone to decide whether such a board is to be created. If he decides that it is to be created, he consults his colleagues as to how best to do it. But it is

121
in his power to prevent its creation. That is my understanding of the position. I hope that I am not misrepresenting it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I refer the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the First Schedule? He will find it states there that:
"Before making an order the Minister shall prepare a draft order. …"
What we are dealing with here is the position if the order is prevented. When we refer to the First Schedule, we do not find one, two or three Ministers but just "the Minister."
LORD SHEPHERD: I am acting on instructions in this matter. As your Lordships understand, I am a Lord in Waiting with no particular responsibility to a Department. Therefore, I am bound to put before your Lordships the case as it is presented by the Ministry concerned. This is what the Ministry say. If a drainage authority concerned ask for representation on a board, the decision whether or not they shall be on the board will, of course, be determined jointly by the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the Government would be prepared to include an Amendment to the First Schedule to make this clear.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We were not aware of that, of course. We have only the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think perhaps I ought not to have given way. As I was saying, the Government would be prepared to include an Amendment to the First Schedule to make this clear. So any fears that the Minister of Health may act in the manner of a Tsar may be dissipated. In those cases where the urgency is near, and where on the face of it the call for a board is obvious, an early decision would be taken to establish a board. But there may well be cases where boards will not be called into operation until it is clear that some particular work requires to be done. If a board is constituted to carry through a particular function, the bodies to be represented on the board will be determined in accordance with the position. It would not, for instance, be good policy to include on the board any body which was not particularly interested in the work to be done. It would be important to have represented bodies which were
122
keenly interested in the work. Such bodies should, of course, be given adequate representation. I hope that after the explanation which I have given, my noble friend Lord Stansgate will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment and allow the clause to go through as it now stands—that is to say, leaving the appointments to the board in an elastic position and not binding the Government down to a rigid application of a principle of representation all through.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am very grateful to my noble friend, but I would point out that we are not legislating on something which he has in his hand as a Lord in Waiting; we have to go on the Papers which are printed and issued. I would like to ask him this: Am I right in supposing that it does not lie with the Minister of Health alone to decide whether such a board shall be constituted? If it appears that such a board is necessary, other Ministers—such as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who is specially concerned with the catchment boards, will presumably have a say. I would also like to direct his attention to the definition contained in page 40 at line 3, where it says that
"'Minister' means the Minister of Health;"
With all respect to the Minister of Health, I feel, speaking from the point of view of the catchment boards, that there is a great deal too much of the Minister of Health in this Bill and too little of the Minister of Agriculture, who is of course very much concerned with the work of the boards. Having said that, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment in order to give my noble friend time, between now and the Report stage, to bring something forward to meet this point.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would point out that until the Minister has consulted his colleagues, the board will not be set up.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Is that in the Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not understand. I am in some state of embarrassment about this. I believe that I was a member of the Cabinet that agreed to this Bill. Therefore I may very well have been responsible for this iniquity.

123
That only goes to show how little real consultation there is in a Cabinet! Anyone who has been in a Cabinet knows that the wretched fellow who brought in a point of this kind would have his head bitten off in two minutes by more important members of the Cabinet. I should be glad if the noble Lord would assure me that he will put down something to make sure that if the Minister of Agriculture feels that a catchment board, for example, should be represented, steps will be taken to see that that is done. If I am given such an assurance I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend is a very much older Parliamentarian than myself. He has also had the good fortune of being the head of a Ministry, and because of that he must know something about the practice of administering the affairs of the country. But the answer to him is this: that it would not be usual to put a matter of this kind within the Bill—that is, to provide for consultation between Ministers. But it is the practice that such consultation should take place, and my noble friend can rest assured, after what I have said in this debate, that that practice will be followed and adequate regard will be paid to the interests of the river boards and the drainage authorities.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have so often heard Ministers say that the House can take their assurances that "this will be done," or "that will be done." I hope that the Labour Government will last for ever, but it may not do so. Other Ministers may hold office, and any assurances such as those given to us to-day by the noble Lord—gratifying as they are to us now—may well have not the least value then. It should be possible, I suggest, to include some such provision as:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister, after consultation with the Ministers concerned, may … make an order."
It is quite easy, to put it in the Bill. I am not asking the noble Lord to do it flow, but I beg him to give us some little glimmer of hope that when we come to Report stage something of this kind may be inserted, in order to assure the future of catchment boards and their work.
LORD SHEPHERD: All I can say is that I will see that consideration is given to the point, but I cannot give a guarantee that what the noble Viscount is asking for will be included.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have learned the form of this House, which is to be grateful for very small mercies. I have heard Ministers thanked for doing nothing at all. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I will build as much as I can on a somewhat insecure foundation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: As my Amendments also concern this point, may I say that I think the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has been most considerate, and I think his representations ought to be considered. If it has been inserted at Clause 2 (4), it can equally be inserted a little higher up in the clause without in any way defeating the object of the Bill. This would give some assurance to catchment boards that their representations might be attended to, because they would make them through the Ministry of Agriculture and not through the Ministry of Health. I gather that on the noble Lord's assurance that this matter will be looked into, the noble Viscount will ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, and therefore I do not propose to move my next two Amendments.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a very simple drafting Amendment. Its purpose is merely to indicate that river boards are drainage authorities. The Amendment will recur during the Committee stage, and if your Lordships approve the present Amendment, in future I will do no more than formally move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.53 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (2):
"(f) Any county agricultural executive committee for any county any part of which is in the area."
The noble Lord said: Here your Lordships will see that I am attempting to

125
move that one of the bodies that may be represented on this joint board will be "any county agricultural executive committee for any county any part of which is in the area" of the coast protection board. It seems to me important that the bodies which look after the interests of agriculture should be consulted regarding what these protection boards are going to do. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has already spoken about the value of food production, and the county agricultural executive committees are the people mostly concerned. They should certainly be consulted and the best way, perhaps, will be to put them on the board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CRANWORTH: The people I represent attach great importance to this Amendment. I would like to point out that questions of agriculture and food production will inevitably arise, apart from which the question of betterment is one calling for expert agricultural knowledge. It might well be that this board would not contain a single person with any agricultural knowledge whatever or capable in any way of estimating the betterment that had occurred from the carrying out of these works.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should also like to say a word in support of the Amendment. The provision of food is a matter of great importance and one with which I think most of your Lordships are familiar. I understand that something like 53 per cent. of the coast line of Britain is on farm land. Apart from what has already been said, that fact shows that there is a case for the inclusion of agricultural representatives on this authority.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We share the desire expressed by all noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment that the county agricultural executive committees should be consulted in the case of any scheme involving agricultural interests. I think the only point on which we differ is the question of the best way of bringing the agricultural executive committees into these discussions. We do not think that the proper way to bring them in is by putting them on the board. They have not such a direct interest in coast protection as the local authorities,
126
river boards and other bodies already specified in Clause 2 (2), and I do not want to clutter up these committees, which will be rather large in any case, with people who have only a small interest in their work. I would like to suggest an alternative way of getting the views of agricultural executive committees, and this suggestion is an assurance that, if it is acceptable to noble Lords opposite, something on these lines will be done. What I am suggesting is that the advice of the county agricultural executive committees will always be asked if agricultural interests are involved in any scheme. The way we would like to see that this is brought to the notice of those concerned is for this point to be included in the circular which will be set out on the administration of the Bill when it is passed into law. We think this is the best way of bringing agricultural interests into the scheme wherever they are affected. Of course, there are a good many cases where they do not come in at all. I submit this is a possibly more practical and effective way of doing what the noble Lord opposite wants.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Earl for his assurance. I think that if in this circular, which will really he the instructions to the coast protection boards, it is pointed out that where agricultural interests are concerned they are to consult the agricultural executive committees, it will meet my point. That ensures that their views will be heard and will receive attention by these boards. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I must confess that I regret the last speech, because it does not seem to me that the noble Earl's suggestion will meet the point. I can suggest several instances, but will take the case of farmers in a large agricultural area. If there is no one there with any agricultural knowledge, who is to take the initiative of putting charges on the farmers and owners concerned?—because both will be concerned. It may involve hundreds and hundreds of acres, and most expert knowledge will be required. It is all very well to say that these people can be called in afterwards, but someone has to have the initiative. Who is to decide whether these questions are of sufficient importance? I regret that the Amendment is not to be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (5) (e), after the second "provisions" to insert:
"as to the manner in which the expenses of a constituent authority under the last foregoing paragraph are to be defrayed and provisions."
The noble Lord said: This is largely a drafting Amendment. The order may need to deal with the manner in which the expenses of a constituent authority are to be defrayed—for example, as to whether the expenses of a county council should be general or special. It is felt on further consideration to be of sufficient importance to justify specific mention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 29, after ("provisions") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) The accounts of a coast protection board shall be subject to audit by a district auditor appointed by the Minister, and copies of the audited accounts shall be supplied by the coast protection board to the constituent authorities respectively on completion of the audit."
The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple point. We feel that as the accounts of a county council have to be submitted to district audit, and as the accounts of a district council have to be submitted to a district audit, the expenses of one of these coast protection authorities should be treated in the same way. After all, a considerable amount of the ratepayers' money is involved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount opposite for this Amendment, and I hope that the reception of the Amendment by the Government will show that we do not obstruct for the sake of obstruction. We agree with him that the accounts of these boards should be audited, and that copies should be sent to those authorities represented on the board. However, we are not altogether happy about the wording. I would ask the noble Lord to be good enough to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that I will consult with
128
the draftsman and produce another form of words at the next stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I have no objection to that. I may perhaps remind the noble Earl that this subsection is similar to a provision which was included in the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defences Act, 1947, without any objection. But if there are these somewhat mysterious complications, I am only too willing to give way at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is quite a short Amendment. Although the River Tweed is in Scotland, the fisheries area of the Commissioners appointed under the Tweed Fisheries Act, 1857, extends into England. Accordingly, just as under the paragraph to be amended the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries acts jointly with the Minister of Health in relation to an English fishery board, so provision is made by this Amendment for the Secretary of State to act jointly with the Minister of Health for the protection of the Tweed Commissioners. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 7, after ("board") insert ("(other than the Tweed Commissioners)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I recognise that this Amendment is necessary, partly to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland into this clause. This points more clearly to the anomaly that Scotland as a whole is left out of this clause, and more will be said about this on another Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: The next Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("(b) in relation to the Tweed Commissioners means the Minister and the Secretary of State;").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to omit subsection (10). The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I did not take any exception to the last two Amendments because, not having, seen them when I put down my Amendment, I assume that any consequential Amendments that follow the Amendment I move will naturally be made at a later stage. I look on this as a very serious Amendment, and unless the noble Lord who replies has some very strong reasons for rejecting it—which I cannot for the life of me imagine—I hope your Lordships will support me in putting it in the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill commences:
"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister may, where it appears to him expedient for the protection of land in any area, make an order providing for the constitution of a board …"
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has assured your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government to set up boards only where there is some special work to be done in coast protection which affects one or more areas. Clause 2 (10) says:
"This section shall not apply to Scotland."
If this power is, or may be, necessary for the protection of the sacred land of England—and it is just as sacred to me as it is to its inhabitants—why should not that power be put into the hands of the Minister for the protection of Scotland? It may not be necessary to use these powers but the clause is purely permissive. Whether they are used is entirely in the hands of the Minister. I am free from the embarrassment that afflicted the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, because in Scotland, as your Lordships know, there is only one Minister—namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no difficulty there. He has it entirely in his own hands.
I would like to reinforce this argument with another. I would ask your Lordships to recall the map of Scotland and to consider how it differs from the map of England. In the first place, it is not sheltered from the Atlantic by Ireland: it is unprotected on the West coast. If your Lordships look at the map, you will find that from the Outer Hebrides there is one vast curve which goes round the land of the Outer Hebrides, off the North-West corner of
130
Scotland and then along the North coast. I submit that the forces which form one part of that curve form the whole of it. Behind that protecting barrier lie the counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Sutherland. These powers which are to be in the hands of the Government may, in special circumstances which may arise—if your Lordships draw the same conclusion from the map as I do—affect all or some of those counties. I submit that in such circumstances the Secretary of State should have the power to form a board.
If your Lordships look at the map, and go round to the other side of Scotland, you will find one great inlet, bay or gulf—namely, the Moray Firth. I submit that there may arise in the Moray Firth questions of coast erosion which affect the whole of that area. We cannot tell, but if that should happen it would concern the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Elgin, Nairn, Inverness, Cromarty, Sutherland and Caithness. There is a Clear case where, should something happen, it might be necessary to form a board. As I say, this clause is permissive, but I feel that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have the same powers for use in an emergency as his colleague in England.
Finally, in support of this, I will draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (5), which contemplates the arising of emergencies. It is the subsection where objections to action can be heard and it says:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent a coast protection authority from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land in their area."
I will not answer for the grammar of that clause, because I think the wording might have been a little different to make it clearer But it shows that His Majesty's Government do contemplate the arising of some urgent case where new work has to be constructed in a hurry to prevent loss of land. If that is so, it may well affect more than one area, and the Secretary of State ought to have the necessary powers to deal with the emergency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (10).—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before the noble Lord replies, I would like to associate myself with the Amendment moved by my noble friend—and for this reason. On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed the view that we might have been better served by a separate Bill for Scotland. Following that, the Secretary of State courteously wrote to me explaining that in principle the Bill was the same for both countries, and that the machinery differed only in a small way. The main difference in machinery is from the fact that Scotland is omitted from the provision of making boards. I have thought it over a good deal, and I cannot see that the omission is justified, because the clause is permissive. The Secretary of State is not enjoined to make these boards; he may make them. If, as I imagine, the noble Lord says the answer is geographical, and that Scottish problems are probably smaller, I would suggest that that has yet to be seen, and the Secretary of State should be armed with those powers. I hope that at a later stage the noble Lord will accept this or some similar Amendment, which will put the Secretary of State in precisely the same position as his English counterpart.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I should like to support this Amendment, from the point of view that there are areas in Scotland, which are larger than those that have been referred to, where there is an obvious combination. I refer to the inlets, the big firths, the Firth of Clyde, the Firth of Tay and the Firth of Forth. In those areas there are counties on both sides intimately associated with this kind of problem. In two of them at least, the Firth of Clyde and the Firth of Forth, there are at present harbour authorities or conservancy authorities who are engaged on problems of the same kind. It seems to be entirely wrong that, where there is a combination of authorities, in a case of this kind Scotland should not be permitted the same procedure as that permitted to England. If it is good for England, certainly Scotland should have the same permissive power, through its Secretary of State, to have these boards, in order that they may operate in a combined way, instead of having each county operating in a committee under the next clause. I therefore support this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: We in Scotland often object to Scotland being included in a Bill for England because the conditions are not the same. But here the conditions are exactly the same and, therefore, I cannot see why Scotland should not have the same rights as England. Further, it is a most extraordinary thing that, in certain clauses which follow, provisions applying to Scotland are included. Why is it said that Clause 2 shall not apply to Scotland, if other clauses do? I cannot see any clause which is equivalent to Clause 2 applying to Scotland. I hope the noble Lord who replies will give very sympathetic consideration to this Amendment. It is essential that we in Scotland, who have a much more rugged coast, should have coast protection where it is possible. I do not see why, where the circumstances are the same, Scotland should not have the same advantages as England.
LORD MORRISON: Ever since I have, unhappily, been made responsible for defending from this side of the House the Government's views on Scotland, I have always been met with the argument—to which, frankly, I knew no satisfactory reply—that it was totally unfair to treat Scotland the same as England. It was said that they were two separate and distinct countries, with separate and distinct histories; and, in particular, that the history of Scotland went back into the dim and distant past, long before the people in England knew what civilisation was. Therefore, to say to them of an English Act, "This shall apply to Scotland," was an insult to Scotland. Now, to my surprise, almost all the speakers have taken exactly the opposite line to-day; and it has somewhat disconcerted me. They have now reversed the usual dictum and they say: "Treat Scotland the same as England."
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, started by saying that he regarded this as a very important Amendment. I have no doubt he sincerely does so regard it, but he will forgive my saying that in those circumstances it is a pity that it did not appear on the Paper rather earlier. I think it was only the day before yesterday that it first appeared. Therefore, there has not been a great deal of time to give it the attention which it might deserve.

133
In England, coast protection may cover long stretches of the coast line, and, while the noble Lord himself dealt with the extraordinary position of the Western coast of Scotland, with its multitude of islands and its rugged coast line, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, dealt with the question of the Forth and the Tay. That seemed to be not an argument for including Scotland in this clause, but rather an argument as to why any joint action necessary on the part of the adjacent coast protection authorities (the county councils or town councils, who are much more suitable, so far as Scotland is concerned) can more suitably and adequately be effected by the setting up of a joint committee, as provided for in the next clause of the Bill.
That is the only reason I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment—and I put that reason for his further examination, which I am certain he will give. In the meantime, I would add that, so far as the Scottish Department is concerned—I include myself in that, I hope—they have no information, apart from the Amendment which the noble Lord has so recently put on the paper, of any objection to the proposal in the Bill. During the discussions on the clauses of this Bill the Scottish Department met the County Councils Association of Scotland on two separate occasions when, I am informed, a very large number of points were raised. But this point was never mentioned. I am sure the noble Lord will recognise my difficulty when, after having attended two conferences at which no one mentioned this point, I suddenly find myself confronted with a request from the noble Lord, backed by other noble Lords whose words are of considerable importance, to concede something that does not appear to have been considered. If the noble Lord will be good enough to think over that point and withdraw his Amendment for the present, I will, provided that between now and the Report stage there is some further evidence of a considered and informed demand for this from Scotland, seek fresh advice from the Department which I represent.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask the noble Lord whether, being an Aberdonian, he is of opinion that Scotland should have a separate Bill?
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, knows the answer to that. Whatever my views may be, it is too late to discuss the matter now, in the middle of the Committee stage of a joint Bill. I admit the soft impeachment of the noble Marquess that I am an Aberdonian—though I have been so long away that it is only recently that Aberdeen realised that it is so.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: With regard to the negotiations with the County Councils. Association of Scotland, I was present at the conferences and I know it is true, up to a point, that this question was not raised; but the point as to whether or not there should be a Scottish Bill was raised by me. As I have received from the Secretary of State a letter similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has mentioned I have told that body that I presume we should not pursue that matter any further; but undoubtedly there is a feeling in Scotland that this permissive clause should be allowed.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord said that consultations have been held with local authorities, but I am not sure that these consultations included the port and harbour authorities and the navigation authorities responsible for the navigable rivers Clyde, Tay and Forth.
LORD MORRISON: I expressly said the County Councils Association of Scotland.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: I think the matter needs further reflection, because these authorities may have an interest in this Amendment. The committees allowed for in the next clause can be formed only by the authorities under this Bill forming a committee and inviting others; whereas under Clause 2 it is the Secretary of State who takes the initiative, and it is possible that the harbour authorities may not be invited to join. There is a case for consideration, at any rate, of the value of this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have already suggested that Scotland needs this clause even more than England—not merely an English Bill with maimed rights. But when the noble Lord said that he had not had sufficient notice of this important Amendment, I am afraid he found a hole in my armour. I was convinced

135
that I had written to him in December, before Christmas, asking that this Amendment be put down; and my astonishment two days ago, when I found that I had not so written, was great. I asked for it to be put down at once, and that was done. It is my fault that the noble Lord did not receive sufficient notice, but my intentions were quite pure. In these circumstances, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment now, but I would ask whether I can be taken into consultation before the next stage is reached, because I have a great deal of work coming forward in Scotland and I should like to arrange to be here. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
General powers of coast protection authorities
4.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Act, a coast protection authority shall have power to carry out such coast protection work, whether within or outside their area, as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area.
(2) A coast protection authority may enter into an agreement with any other person for the carrying out by that person or by the authority, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement, of any coast protection work which the authority have power to carry out under this Part of this Act.
(3) A coast protection authority may acquire, whether by way of purchase, lease or exchange, any land, whether within or outside there area, being land—

(a) required by them for the purpose of carrying out thereon any coast protection work which they have power to carry out under this Part of this Act, or

(b) for the protection of which they propose to carry out any such work as aforesaid, not being work of maintenance or repair.

(4) For the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power of a coast protection authority under this Part of this Act is to be exercised, the authority may defray or contribute to the cost of obtaining a report of a consulting engineer or surveyor as to any coast protection work or proposal to carry out any such work.
5.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that, except with the consent in writing of any drainage authority or river
136
board which is for the time being maintaining works for the protection of the coast, a coast protection authority (not being a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented) shall not carry out any coast protection work in the area in which such protective works are maintained."
The noble Viscount said: Under Clause 4 of this Bill coast protection authorities are authorised to carry out certain works. The catchment boards are concerned that no work should be carried out which is detrimental to their work. This is safeguarded, so far as the Government have thought of it, in Clause 42, paragraph (c), as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has pointed out. But the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has overlooked a technical point—the fact that something might be erected altogether outside the area of the board which would nevertheless affect the work of the board. For example, a groyne might be constructed outside the area of the board, or the joint board, on which the catchment board was represented, and it might be detrimental to the work of the catchment board. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: Lest it be thought that I have offered a straight bat to all the proposals put forward by our noble friend, I think I had better say that later on there may be one or two cases where it will be possible for us to give way and to accept proposals. But I am afraid that in this particular case the Government cannot accept the Amendment. To begin with, the first line of the Amendment contains the words "consent in writing," so that if a coast protection authority desired to do any work and the river board or drainage authority proved stubborn, nothing could be done, because the consent of that board is necessary. We think, therefore, that in that particular case the effect of this Amendment would be far too strong.
The second point is that in Clause 42, to which I have already referred, we think there is ample protection for the interests of the river boards and the drainage authorities; and in Clause 5, subsection (3), paragraph (a), there appears a statement that where an objection is made by a river board or drainage authority to works to be carried out by a

137
coast protection authority, then the objection will be dealt with not by the Minister of Health alone but by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture jointly. I think, therefore, that my noble friend will see that the river boards and drainage authorities are fully protected, and that there is a joint ministerial decision to be taken in any objection that may be levied against the work. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will find it in his power to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am much obliged to my noble friend for what he has said, but I should like to correct his first impression. I would point out that he will be conferring no favour upon me or upon anybody else by accepting these Amendments. These matters were put forward in the public interest by boards who are doing an important job. Therefore, if we urge them upon him, he must be satisfied, as I am sure he is, that we are doing so in order to protect that work. What does it come to? The noble Lord has not said a word against the merits of this Amendment. This Amendment says: "If something is proposed to be done which is going to spoil the work of a catchment board, if that catchment board is not a, party to a joint board, then it must not be done." What is unreasonable about that? What is the good of saying: "There may be an inquiry and, if there is an inquiry, the Minister of Agriculture is to be put in to make the picture more agreeable"? That is not the gist of the matter at all.
However, since my noble friend has promised to consider these points, all I ask is that he will, between now and Report stage, leave these matters open and give careful consideration to them. After all, if our coast protection works are as adamant as his replies to-day, then our island is safe! If he will do that, I shall be quite prepared to trust to the merits of the arguments I have advanced and to his consideration of them to see that something is done. The noble Lord must remember that the whole gist of this Bill is to take the works of these catchment boards and put them under the direction of the appointed Minister—in this case the Minister of Health, who is made the Czar of this scheme. If my noble friend will remember that and give us permission to raise these points in a
138
more favourable atmosphere on the next occasion, then I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that the atmosphere to-day is not unfavourable. We are endeavouring to carry out our duty as we see it, and we have no complaint against my noble friend for doing likewise. But I think my noble friend must be fair in his description of the Bill. It is not true to say to us that, if a coast protection authority starts to do work, the river boards and drainage authorities are helpless. I have drawn his attention to the fact that under Clause 5, the river board or drainage authority may protest against a proposal to undertake work which in its opinion will be detrimental to its interests. I also pointed out to him that, if it does make that protest, it will not be settled merely by the Minister of Health, but by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture jointly. Therefore, I hope that, that being the case, and as I am prepared to think over the points that my noble friend has raised, he will not find it too difficult to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: In the sunny atmosphere introduced by the Minister. I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Viscount said: This Amendment goes with an Amendment standing in my name after Clause 24. It is little more than a drafting point. What I have in mind is to make this subsection into a separate clause of its own and to add after the words "coast protection work" the words "or other function." The simple effect is to extend somewhat the power conferred on a coast protection authority of making agreements. The real object of these two Amendments is to save unnecessary expense and officials. May I give an example from the Sea Defence Commission, of which I happen to be chairman? We have an administrative staff of two—a clerk and a treasurer. If this Commission were to become a coast protection board under the Bill, I should like to have full liberty to make agreements with the constituent authorities, not only in regard to the actual coast protection work upon which we are engaged, but also in regard

139
to the various administrative problems that arise.
For example, if we made a works scheme under Clause 7, I should like to be guided very largely by the constituent authorities as to the land to be included and the charges to be made upon the land. I feel that it would be a great waste of money if we had to engage special surveyors and other officials to do this sort of work. Similarly, cases may arise where a district council would wish to avail itself of the services of a county council staff. Rightly or wrongly, I am advised that the wording of this subsection as it stands, confined as it is to the work of coast protection, might give insufficient latitude for what I have in mind. Your Lordships will remember that the accounts of district councils and county councils have to be audited by the district auditor, and, if there is any question of something not being allowed, those councils are advised that they have no power to undertake such work. The point is a simple one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 7, leave out subsection (2).—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If I may follow the example of the noble Lord opposite, I should like to save time and speak both to this Amendment and to his subsequent Amendment, using the same words in my reply. In the first place, I am advised that the small alteration in the wording which the noble Viscount wishes to secure by adding the words "or other function" does not, in fact, alter the effect of Clause 4 (2); therefore, it would not carry out what the noble Viscount has in mind. On the other hand, if what the noble Viscount has in mind has been rightly interpreted by me, what he wants can be achieved without any of the powers conferred by this Bill. For example, if a coast protection authority wants to arrange with a county council to borrow its staff for a specific purpose for which it has power to act, it can do so by ordinary arrangement, by paying the staff while it is engaged upon work on its behalf. Therefore there is no need to provide for this specifically in the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that, if I have understood the noble Viscount correctly, he will feel that the problem that he has raised is already covered.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It seems to be a case of conflicting legal advice—which is not unknown. But if the noble Earl can assure me that the simple proposition that I have in mind can be properly undertaken under the wording of the Bill as it now stands, I will certainly withdraw my Amendment, although I may perhaps be allowed to consult my own advisers and come back to this point at a later stage. I have in mind only the idea of saving unnecessary expense, wages and officials. If that point is already covered, then there is no need to insert it in the Bill. On that understanding, I will withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly look at this matter again in the light of what the noble Viscount has said this afternoon. We have not hitherto had the benefit of his own remarks upon this subject. I should like to refer them to my departmental advisers to see that I am quite right upon this particular point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), after "carrying out" to insert "or supervision." The noble Lord said: This is a simple, short Amendment. Under Clause 4 (2), as drafted,
"A coast protection authority may enter into an agreement with any other person for the carrying out by that person or by the authority.…"
of the work. Then we come to subsection (4), where we see that:
"For the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power of a coast protection authority under this Part of this Act is to be exercised, the authority may defray or contribute to the cost of obtaining a report of a consulting engineer."
It seems to me that here we may have a contrast, because in Clause 4 (2) we have the words:
"for the carrying out by that person"
of the work. I would like to be assured that the "carrying out" means that you may employ some person who may be an outside consulting engineer. Every coast protection authority may not want to have a high-powered consulting engineer, but may wish to have power to employ such a person for a particular scheme, and I would like the assurance that that will be included in the words "carrying out." If it is not included in those words, then I suggest that my wording—namely, "carrying out or supervision"—should

141
be put in. That is the short and simple point. I think everybody will agree that there may be cases, certainly in big coast protection works, where it is necessary to have a supervisory firm to look after the general planning of the work. I want to know whether the words in the Bill are wide enough to cover the employment of such persons, should they be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, after ("out") insert ("or supervision").
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. Clause 4, subsection (2), which gives a coast protection authority power to enter into an agreement with any other person to carry out coast protection work, also implies that such an agreement can be entered into in regard to the supervision of the work that is to be executed by the agency employed by the coast protection authority. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree that his point is covered.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged. I only wanted to make quite certain, because there may be a number of cases where it will be necessary to employ such people. In view of the noble Earl's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (3), after "purchase" to insert "feu." The noble Marquess said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, may I move this formal Amendment, the object of which is merely to include the word "feu" after the word "purchase" in regard to the acquisition of land in Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("purchase") insert ("feu").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD MORRISON: I am particularly happy to accept the noble Earl's Amendment, and I know he will suitably thank me for this great concession!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Viscount said: The County Councils Association feel rather strongly on this point. They con-
142
sider that this subsection is at best unnecessary, and at the worst dangerous. The point is that in previous Acts local authorities have often been given powers of such a nature as may require the advice of consultants for their proper discharge. The Statute referring to water supply is a good example. But never before has it been suggested that the authorities require a specific provision to enable them to engage consultants for this purpose. They are, in fact, always bringing in consultants to advise them. The point is, that if the subsection remains in the Bill the legality of action taken or contemplated by authorities under other Acts will become questionable and may have serious results. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There may be some misunderstanding on the part of the County Councils Association about the object of this subsection. This subsection is not concerned with the cost of the employment of a consulting engineer to draw up a report in order to enable the coast protection authority to proceed with the work which it then executes. That is the ordinary case, which can be paralleled in the, work of many other authorities. This subsection covers the case where a report is asked for and drawn up, and then, in the light of the report, the authority decides to go no further. What is felt is that we must make certain that coast protection authorities are not deterred from investigating problems of this kind, where they feel it may be necessary to carry out works or to protect the coast, because they think that if they do not act on the report of their consultant they will not be able to recover the cost of the report. We want to make it quite clear here that, even if they do not execute works in the area covered by the report, they will be able to recover the cost of the report drawn up for them by the consulting engineer.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I seem continually to become involved in legal discussions which I am quite unqualified to maintain, but I must confess that I am rather surprised at the answer given by the noble Earl. The Bill starts by making every maritime county borough or county dis-

143
trict into a coast protection authority, and I would have thought that, as they are coast protection authorities (although they may well be inactive coast protection authorities), they should have the right to get in a consultant without running a risk of surcharge. It is not a question upon which I desire to divide against the noble Earl, but I should have thought there was a substantial point here. I have often been told that where authorities are given powers they are also given authority to spend money on those powers, and I find it very difficult to understand why they should have to have some special authority here. Perhaps this point can be looked into between now and Report.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly examine the point again, but I think the noble Viscount will agree that this subsection does give the coast protection authority power to employ a consulting engineer to draw up a report, whether that report is acted upon or not; and that this power, standing as it does in terms in the Bill, makes the position absolutely clear, where otherwise it might give rise to doubt.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think the point which my noble friend is making is that, as county councils always do this in any other case, to put it in here and give them specific power in this Bill, will cast a doubt as to whether they have a power in the normal functions which they have always exercised. There must, in the normal functions of a county council, be a number of cases where they call in a consulting engineer or surveyor and do not follow up on the works. I think it would be wise to take another look at this. It is obviously safeguarding their position as a coast protection authority, which is the way the noble Earl answered the point; but the inclusion of the particular words here may cast a doubt as to their position when they are not acting as a coast protection authority. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will have it looked into again so that there may not be a doubt cast on the vast volume of activity which the county councils have always carried out under their general powers, without any such specific provision as this.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly look into it again.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With that assurance I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Objections to, and approval of, proposals to carry out coast protection work.
5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to works schemes, a coast protection authority proposing to carry out any coast protection work, other than work of maintenance or repair, shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct, such notice of that proposal as may be so prescribed or as the Minister may so direct.
(5) Nothing in this section shall prevent a coast protection authority from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land in their area.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (1), after "proposal" to insert "including an estimate of the cost of the work." The noble Viscount said: I have some reason to suppose that if the wording of this Amendment is slightly altered it may stand a chance of being accepted, which would be very agreeable for me. Therefore, with your Lordships' approval, may I move it in this form?—that, instead of the words as printed, the words "specifying the estimated cost of the work comprised in the scheme" should be inserted. I do not think it is necessary to explain this at any great length. I know that the estimation of the cost of coast defence work is extremely difficult, but we feel that there should be some indication given to ratepayers as to whether a particular piece of work is going to cost £10,000, £100,000 or £1,000,000. I beg to move this Amendment in that form.
Amendment, as amended, moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("proposal") insert ("specifying the estimated cost of the work comprised in the scheme").—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I hope the noble Viscount will not consider that we have any desire to be niggardly or to indulge in any hair-splitting in regard to

145
our generosity, but the fact is that, while accepting the principle of the Amendment, we like his first version of it better than the second. If he will oblige us by withdrawing the Amendment which he has just moved and substituting the Amendment which stands on the Marshalled List, we shall be glad to accept it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It is all the same to me. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which I have just moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg now to move the Amendment which stands in the Marshalled List in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("proposal") insert ("including an estimate of the cost of the work").—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, after subsection (2) to insert as a new subsection:
"(3) Where any such work as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section is proposed to be carried out in the area of a drainage authority or river board by a coast protection authority (not being a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented) the coast protection authority shall, in addition to the publication required by that subsection, give to the drainage authority or river board notice in writing of the proposal, and the drainage authority or river board may, within the period prescribed under subsection (2) of this section, serve on the Minister and the coast protection authority notice of objection to the proposal on the ground that the proposed work will or will be likely to—

(a) affect detrimentally any of their drainage works; or

(b) interfere with the exercise by the drainage authority or river board of their functions under any enactment other than this Act."

The noble Viscount said: The Minister, in defining various parts of the Bill, has drawn attention to the fact that there is a right of objection. If anyone is to exercise that right, he must know that something has happened to which he should take objection. So the purpose of this Amendment and of a later one at page 10, line 31, which also stands in my name, is to make quite sure that the catchment boards shall be duly notified of any works in their area, so that they
146
may know whether or not there is ground for objection on their part from the practical point of view of their operations. I move this Amendment in order to ensure that the catchment boards are duly informed, individually, of works that are to be undertaken, so that they may judge whether or not those works will affect any works which they themselves have in hand. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 9, at end insert the said new subsection.
LORD SHEPHERD: We are not quite able to accept this Amendment as drafted. We think that if it is included in the Bill difficulties will arise from time to time because it will not be known what drainage authorities will be affected by particular works—that is, in their entirety. But I am authorised to say that if the noble Viscount withdraws this Amendment, an undertaking will be given that in regulations which may be drafted to deal with any particular scheme the subject matter will be dealt with. I trust, therefore, that the noble Viscount will accept this undertaking and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Am I right in thinking that these regulations come under a Special Order, and the Special Order is submitted to this House?
LORD SHEPHERD: Not in this case, I think.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Not in any case, I believe. The position, as I understand it, will be that orders made under this Bill can be negatived by this House.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is what I mean.
LORD LLEWELLIN: They do not necessarily come before this House, unless someone raises them. That means that a watch must be kept to see that that is done. I do not know what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, thinks of the reply which he has received, but I should have thought that a coast protection board must know whether its works are likely to affect a particular drainage authority. I understood Lord Shepherd to say that, if words such as the noble Viscount has suggested were put into the

147
Bill, a coast protection board would not know on which drainage authority they had to serve notice. But perhaps I misunderstood what Lord Shepherd said.
LORD SHEPHERD: As the noble Lord will, I am sure, understand, when you do work of this character on the coast you do not know to what extent the coast and the interests of other bodies may be affected. It would make things rather difficult if there were in the Bill a provision which forced us to notify people when we were not quite sure. We thought—agreeing to the pressure which we have had from the bodies concerned in this matter—that we could deal with it much more effectually by regulation than by putting something into the Bill itself.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask this question? We have here a difficulty with which your Lordships are, of course, familiar. I wish to know whether we shall see a draft of these regulations before the Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Then how do we know whether the regulations will be effective for what we have in mind? We want to be sure that when work is to be done affecting its area a catchment board will be told. Surely it should not be very difficult, certainly not impossible, for us to see the regulations. I know that Ministers always say that it is, but surely there should be some means by which we can be acquainted with the outline or with the type of the regulations and so can judge whether they meet the case.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Viscount will understand that, generally speaking, regulations cannot be drafted until it is known what the Act itself is to contain. It would not seem to be wise that before a measure became an Act of Parliament we should determine what regulations were going to be made under it. Surely an undertaking given by the Minister that this matter will be dealt with in regulations so that the authorities concerned may know what is afoot, ought to be acceptable. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Stansgate, will see the matter in that light.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My noble friend is so winning in his ways that it is very difficult to resist him. But we have had this difficulty many, many times before. Every old House of Commons man knows it well. A Minister says: "Do not put a provision for this in the Bill; I will do this by regulations." We say: "We would rather see it in the Bill," but in view of the Minister's statement we ask to see the regulation. The Minister then says: "I cannot make the regulation until the Bill is passed." What on earth are we to do in a situation of that kind? It is vital that these authorities should be notified in the circumstances to which I have referred, and I think that the demand we are putting forward is very reasonable. I must say that I am rather surprised that there should be any opposition to it. We are not talking here about small fishery boards or railway companies that may be affected; we are here dealing with a major piece of machinery for protecting the agricultural land of this country. We ask that if something is going to be done to affect the land or works of one of these bodies, they should be told. If I understand it correctly, regulations will be embodied in an order which will come before a Special Committee (I believe we have a Special Committee to deal with such matters) and which can be negatived in this House. Of course, I am only too happy to accept the noble Lord's suggestion, if a way can be found to see that proper regard is paid to the interests of these people. I have no desire except to do the reasonable thing by these catchment boards.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would point out that this Amendment refers only to any works proposed to be carried out in the area of a drainage authority or a river board. A coast protection authority must know whether or not it is going to do work in the area of one of these bodies, and if such work is going to be done, why should not the body affected be notified? It is not as though it would be necessary to notify a drainage authority in whose area work was not going to be done. Under the terms of this Amendment you have to notify only the authority in whose area you are actually doing work. I should have thought it would not do a great deal of harm to the structure of this Bill to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have not heard a breath of evidence on this side that the Minister is prepared to accept my point. Any arguments have escaped my notice in the course of the debate. If the noble Lord would give me the assurance that these regulations will in fact achieve what is in my Amendment and that they will be embodied in a statutory order subject to a negative Resolution in this House in the ordinary way, I would be satisfied that he had given me something of substance.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is quite true that when these regulations have been drafted they will be in an order which will be submitted to both Houses of Parliament and will be open for discussion and decision.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that the order will, in fact, incorporate the points which I now make?
LORD SHEPHERD: It is the purpose of the Government to make quite sure that all persons affected by any work to be done shall have proper notice of what is proposed. It would be against the interest of both the Government and of the authority for it to be otherwise.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: No. Surely it is a very simple point. You can write a letter to the authority. There is no difficulty about that. It would seem from the wording of the Bill that this strange Minister who comes for the first time into the work of the catchment boards may be anxious, but not too anxious, to keep them properly informed. If the substance of my Amendment is embodied in regulations, I will withdraw my Amendment. Otherwise, I do not know whether, if my Amendment is negatived, it is prejudiced at Report stage. I do not know the practice here.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am afraid I am very ignorant about these regulations. When, in accordance with the promise made to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, these regulations finally appear, are they subject to amendment if the House decides that they are not in accordance with that promise?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I do not know what happens about an order in this House, but the practice in another place is that some orders require an
150
affirmative Resolution, but that sort are rare, while most are subject to negative Resolution. I understand that when an order is made, it goes to a special Committee and comes to this House for confirmation. It is then open for noble Lords to say, "Off with its head!" but they cannot amend it in any particular. It is either all or nothing—and it is usually nothing.
LORD SHEPHERD: It is laid down in the first subsection of this clause that facts relating to works shall be published as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct. All I can say is that I have given an undertaking in this matter that the points raised by the noble Viscount will be considered, and that I hope he will be satisfied with what transpires.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I cannot understand what that means. The noble Lord referred to keeping his bat straight, but that was the best blocking motion I have yet heard. He just managed to slice the ball somewhere beside the wicket without it going down. Is the Minister, in these regulations, to direct the coast protection authorities to notify the drainage board that they are going to do work in that area? If the noble Lord can say "Yes" to that question, I gather the noble Viscount behind him will be satisfied, and I shall be satisfied. That is the least we can do for these boards, which have a most valuable function to perform. We have made several attempts to-day, without success, to get them represented on the new coast protection authorities, and the least we can do is to say that when the coast protection authority is to carry on works in their very own area the boards should be notified, so that they may object to it, if necessary. All we want to know is "Yes" or "No." If the noble Lord cannot say that now, I suggest he should be in a position to say it to us on Report stage.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will give an assurance that this point will be covered by the Minister's directions or by regulations, wherever appropriate. That, I think, meets the point the noble Viscount has just raised.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Appropriate?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I have seen all kinds of Front Benches. We have a most charming Front Bench ourselves. But I have never heard evasion like this. I made a simple request. A letter should be written to an authority saying, for instance, that, "We are going to put up a groyne." The answer is that it will be covered by whatever is thought "appropriate" by the Minister concerned. It is priceless!
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Viscount will listen to what I am saying, I do not think he will misrepresent the import of what I have said. Will he please listen to this? I will give an assurance that this point will be covered by the Minister's directions, or by regulations wherever appropriate. As I indicated to your Lordships, that is all I can say.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If the noble Lord means that it is appropriate for the Minister to deal with it either by regulation or direction, that seems all right; but the point we are making is that it will always be appropriate, where a coast protection authority is putting up works in the area of an authority, to let that authority know. Does the noble Lord see the distinction I am making? If the words mean that it is either in the directions or the regulations, whichever is appropriate, but that it will always be done in one way or the other, I shall be satisfied.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am prepared to answer "Yes."
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: If the noble Lord opposite is satisfied—and he is a lawyer—I will gladly save your Lordships' time by withdrawing my Amendment. I should have thought we could have cleared this up twenty minutes ago.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 19, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, in subsection (5), before "provisions" to insert "preceding." The noble Viscount said: It is provided that the catchment board should be informed when works are in hand. We have just been discussing
152
how that is to be done. In the case of emergency works, there is no provision in Clause 5 (5). All we ask is that an immediate message in some form should be given to the catchment board. It is obvious that it may affect their work. A telephone message might do, but the requirement should be in the Bill, so that we may have the co-operation between the two authorities which the noble Lord has recommended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, after ("the") insert ("preceding").—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We are prepared to accept the principle contained in this Amendment. If my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment now, I will see that a newly drafted Amendment appears on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
Clause 6 [Power to make schemes for carrying out work]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, after ("pay") insert ("to the authority").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (2), of which the first was to omit the word "and" at the end of sub-paragraph (a). The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that my powers of anticipation went slightly wrong; the second of these is the Amendment which I thought possibly the Government would accept in the form in which I read it out earlier. The first of these two Amendments, to leave out "and," is drafting. I was misled earlier by the fact that the effect of the second of these Amendments and that of the one I was moving then was the same, whereas the Government wish to distinguish between the two. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("and").(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, at end insert—
("and (c) specifying the estimated cost of all work comprised in the scheme.")—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for moving the form of words which he tried unsuccessfully to move on his former Amendment, and I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Works schemes providing for coast protection charges
(6) Any person aggrieved by the determination of an authority under the last foregoing subsection may appeal to the Minister on the ground that the determination is inequitable or unduly onerous; and the Minister, after giving to the appellant and the authority and any other person appearing to him to be conceined an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, may confirm, reduce or cancel the charge levied upon the appellant as the Minister may think fit.
(8) In this section—
(a) as respects England and Wales, the expression "interest" means the interest of the owner of the land or any other interest being the fee simple or an interest under a tenancy, and the expression "tenancy" includes a tenancy under an under-lease and a tenancy under an agreement for a lease or under-lease but does not include an option to take a tenancy and does not include a mortgage;
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out are not required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 37, leave out from ("land") to end of line 40.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (3) to insert as a new subsection:
"(4) Where a development charge under section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has been paid or secured to the satisfaction of the Central Land Board in respect of any contributory land, any part of the development chare which is attributable to the execution of coast protection work shall he paid by the Board to the coast protection authority."
154
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is occasioned by the new theories of ownership brought about by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. As your Lordships are aware, under the theory of that Act owners now possess only the existing user value of their property; the whole of the potential development value has passed to the State. That seems to mean that if a coast protection authority want to put a charge on land, which they can do under this clause, if they decide to protect it, all they can claim from the owner is the improved value of the particular purpose for which it is being used at that time.
If there is a house standing on the land, they can claim the improved value of the house; if it is an agricultural field, they can claim the improved value of that field. But they cannot claim any of the improved building value of land that has not been built on, because that value no longer belongs to the owner. That will obviously reduce the value of this clause to a coast protection authority. There may be cases where large tracts of agricultural land will be greatly improved as a result of this Bill; but I think such cases will be rare, because in most cases that agricultural land is already protected by catchment boards which, so far as I have been able to understand, are left to carry on as they have done in the past. I do not think anybody is likely to use this clause and put these contributory charges on small pieces of agricultural land, because it would hardly be worth doing. Therefore, unless some such Amendment as that which I propose is inserted, it does not appear that this clause will be used very much, except in the case of the protection of existing buildings. The County Council Association cannot see any logical reason why the Amendment I am proposing should not be inserted. If the coast protection authorities improve the value of property which now belongs to the Central Land Board, why should they not pay a contribution in the same way as any other owner?
I am not attempting to argue this on high theoretical grounds; it seems to be a question of plain mathematics. I have already pointed out that unless this Amendment is passed the clause is unlikely to be used. I would go further and say that unless the Government are prepared to pay this sum, or a quid pro

155
quo, to the coast protection authorities for protecting values that now belong to them, the Bill itself is not likely to be used very much. After all, there has been little legislation dealing with coast protection, but a good deal has been done in more vital parts, under private legislation and through catchment boards. The main reason why more has not been done is simply that it has not been worth stopping these odd bits of cliffs from falling into the sea. If the Government are going to take all the building value out of the land, the incentive to local authorities to protect their land will be still smaller than it has been up to now. Unless the Government are prepared to pay to the coast protection authority at least the equivalent of these values, and probably a good deal more, it seems very unlikely that anything will be done. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The effect of this Amendment would be to secure the development value of land as building land for the local authorities instead of for the State, through the Central Land Board. That is contrary to the principle of the 1947 Act, which laid down that such values would accrue to the State. We cannot see why land adjacent to the coast which has been protected by some scheme for preventing erosion should be treated differently from land in any other part of the country. The noble Viscount said it was depriving local authorities of an incentive if they were not able to reap the development value of the land they are going to protect. I do not altogether agree with him. The local authorities who engage in one of these schemes will be able to claim a grant from the Treasury if they wish to get Treasury assistance for their scheme.
One of the arguments which they could use would be: "We are going to protect land which might otherwise be washed away but which, if we protect it, will become of value to the Treasury at a later stage if developed as a building site." I think they stand to gain in that way by being able to use that argument in order to obtain financial assistance from the Exchequer. I do feel that it is not right to say as a principle that this land
156
should be treated differently from other land. After all, the land requires work done on it, not only because it is protected, but because it happens to be situated in an area which is suitable for development, which has public works, gas and electricity, and where people want to live. I really cannot see any good reason for making an exception in this case.
LORD CRANWORTH: I hope my noble friend will not be satisfied with that explanation, because it seems to me that his Amendment is a matter of only simple justice. The unfortunate boards and people who find this money, will be very hard put to it to raise that money. Why on earth, when they expend the local ratepayers' money, and thereby create a development value which someone is going to have, should they not get some share of it? I am quite certain that my noble friend is right when he says there will not be much incentive on the part of the authorities to do this work if they can avoid it, unless this Amendment, in some form, is passed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I was a little concerned to hear the noble Earl say that this would be a way in which the local authority could try to persuade the Treasury to give a grant. Believe me, nothing is going to be done under this Bill unless the Treasury do give grants—and pretty substantial grants—because these are costly works. I hope that in any case where it is valuable to have one of these coast protection works—even if there is no development charge likely to follow—there will be some help from the Treasury; otherwise this Bill will be completely ineffective.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did not mean to suggest for a moment that the major argument as to the necessity of the work, and the need of the authorities engaged to receive assistance from public funds, was not going to be used to carry more weight with the Treasury than the minor argument which I mentioned.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am a little confused by the noble Earl's argument, which seems to be that the local authority have no right to this money, and that it is quite wrong that they should wish to have this value but that nevertheless it would be a good argument when approaching the Treasury. The local authorities would say: "Here we are protecting this land.

157
We acknowledge we have no right to it, but we think it is a very good argument to persuade you to give us a lot of money." It seems to me as broad as it is long. I was quite a little concerned from a different angle as to the rights of these local authorities which are now claimed by the State, but I do not wish to digress into the higher realms of town planning. I must take it that what the noble Earl has said is correct, that we shall not "get away" with this argument, but we shall stand a chance of receiving an equivalent payment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (4):
"and in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection a coast protection charge shall be payable by the person who, at the time of the determination of the interest by reference to which the charge is to be levied is entitled to that interest."
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) provides that the interests in the land shall be determined as soon as maybe after the work has been completed. The Amendment which I am moving secures that where the determination of coast protection charges is deferred until after the works are carried out, the charge in respect of an interest is to be payable by the person entitled to that interest at the time the determination is made. This seems to be the most practicable and reasonable course in view of the circumstances. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page, 9, line 25, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved in subsection (8) to leave out "the interest of the owner of the land or any other interest being." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment, and perhaps your Lordships will not mind if I pay strict attention to my notes. As the Bill is drafted, it provides for the recovery of charges both from the mortgagee and from the mortgagor, the respective charges being limited to the betterment of the respective interests. It is possible, in certain cases, where that method is adopted, for the collection of charges to be greater than the amount of betterment determined, and it has been felt that
158
there should be a variation to the extent that only one person should have the charges fixed upon hint. There is, however, the case to be dealt with where the mortgagee has entered into possession or put in a receiver. Here he is, for the time being, the effective owner of the land. The proposed new subsection (5) to Clause 10 accordingly provides that in such a case the charge shall be recoverable from him; but under Clause 11 (2), as proposed to be amended, the mortgagee will be able to get the amount of the charge back out of the land on sale or redemption—that is to say, when he ceases to be the owner—and will be entitled to interest in the meanwhile.
The agent, who is in receipt of the rackrent on behalf of his principal, is an "owner" within the definition of Clause 44, and as Clause 7 (8) (a) is drafted, a coast protection charge would be recoverable from him as agent, subject to the limitation in Clause 10 (5) that he cannot be made to pay any amount greater than the money he has in hand as agent. This is right in principle, but as a matter of machinery the Bill, as introduced, is not entirely satisfactory. This is because the amount of a coast protection charge is limited by the betterment of the interest of the owner, and it is difficult to say that an agent, as such, has any interest. Accordingly, the Amendment proposed to Clause 7 (8) (a) cuts the agent out, so that the charge will be levied on his principal But the new subsection (6) proposed to Clause 10 enables the charge to be collected from the agent, subject always to the limitation mentioned above, that the agent cannot be made to pay beyond the amount of money which he has received for his principal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, leave out from ("means") to ("the") in line 9.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I understand that the noble Lord has been dealing not only with the Amendment which was called but with his Amendments to Clause 10 and Clause 11.
LORD SHEPHERD: I certainly made reference to them.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I take it that all three together have the effect that the noble Lord has explained to the House.

159
I think he was extremely wise, if I may say so, to stick to the exact words that were given to him: I do not know whether he fully understood their implication, but I certainly did not. We have not had this Amendment on the Order Paper for very long, as the noble Lord will realise, and so far as I am concerned I shall be prepared to take all three on trust now. Perhaps we may have to revert to one or more of them on the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Confirmation of works schemes
8.—(1) A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct, a notice stating that the scheme has been prepared and naming a place where a copy thereof may be seen at all reasonable hours, and shall serve copies of the scheme on the owner and occupier of any land, other than land vested in and occupied by the authority, on which the work provided for by the scheme is to be carried out.
(2) If the scheme provides for the levying of coast protection charges the authority shall also serve copies of the scheme—
(b) where the scheme contains such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, on all owners of contributory land, and not only on those on whom copies of the scheme would be required to be served by the last foregoing subsection.
(3) Where a notice has been published by an authority under subsection (1) of this section, any person may serve on the Minister and on the authority, in the manner and within the period prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, notice of objection to the scheme on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary, or that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector, or that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory land includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to be so indicated, or, in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words from "publish" down to "as" and insert:
160
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority and in such further manner, if any."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will observe on the first line and onwards in Clause 8 the words:
"A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, or …"
I am seeking to leave out the words after "publish" and to put in, as is nearly always done in these measures, the words:
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority and in such further manner, if any,"
There may be some cases where the Minister will want to prescribe publication of a very large scheme in a London newspaper. That will probably not always be necessary with most of the smaller schemes, but we should do the same in this Bill as we have done in others. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("publish") to ("as") in line 25, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It may save your Lordships' time if I am permitted to refer briefly to an Amendment in my name which follows immediately and deals with a similar point. My Amendment is to the effect that notification should be given to catchment boards in writing. That is the same point except that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is speaking of publication in the newspapers. I should be quite satisfied if I were given to understand that this point was covered by the assurance which the Minister gave a little earlier in the debate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We accept gladly the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, but we should like the form of words changed a little. I should be much obliged if he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment and substitute a different form of words. I will give him the form I am suggesting, so that he can make certain whether or not the words correspond with his intentions. I suggest that on page 10, line 24, the words between "publish" and "a notice" in line 26 should be omitted, and in their place the words:
"in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority"

161
be substituted. The passage will then read:
"(1) A coast protection authority by whom a works scheme is prepared shall publish, in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority, a notice stating that the scheme has been prepared. …"
I think that that meets the noble Lord's point. It is merely a drafting alteration.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I shall be quite prepared to move the Amendment in the form suggested by the noble Earl. I think that would be the better way. I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I move to omit the words between "publish" on page 10 of line 24, and "a notice" in line 26, and to substitute the words: "in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority."
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out from ("publish") to ("a notice") in line 26, and insert ("in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority").—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE VISCOUNT STANSGATE moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where any such scheme as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section affects any part of the area of a drainage authority or river board, and the coast protection authority by whom the scheme is prepared is not a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented, the coast protection authority shall, in addition to the publication required by that subsection, give to the drainage authority or river board notice in writing of the proposed scheme, accompanied by a copy thereof, and the drainage authority or river board may, within the period prescribed under subsection (3) of this section, serve on the Minister and the coast protection authority notice of objection to the proposal on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme will or will be likely to—

(a) affect detrimentally any of their drainage works; or

(b) interfere with the exercise by the drainage authority or river board of their functions under any enactment other than this Act."

The noble Viscount said: I referred to this matter a few moments ago. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he is going to put down an Amendment on the Report stage specifying how catchment boards
162
are to be informed—whether there are to be some words which will reassure those who have been uncertain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Stansgate.)
LORD SHEPHERD: The undertaking I gave was that the matter should be dealt with in the regulations, and that river boards and drainage authorities would be advised.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The regulations would say that they must be advised?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, that they would be advised. I did not say that we would bring the matter up on the Report stage.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I understand that the situation is that my request that a letter should be sent to catchment boards is to be met by a regulation, but we cannot see the regulation for the time being: that is not in accord with, so to speak, the virginity of the Department; they never reveal these things prematurely! But what we can be sure is that these things will be put in the regulation. We shall no doubt have an opportunity of drawing attention to the matter later. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Clause 8 (2) (b) reads as follows:
"where the scheme contains such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection, on all owners of contributory land, and not only on those on whom copies of the scheme would he required to be served by the last foregoing subsection."
I seek to insert here the words "as well as" instead of the words "and not only." These copies have to be served not only on owners but on other persons interested. What we want to make quite certain of is that the words which we have here in paragraph (b) do not cut out the proper service on other persons who may be interested, such as occupiers who are not necessarily the owners. I do not like the wording as it stands because, on my reading of it, it looks as if it is only

163
necessary to serve these notices on owners, whereas that is not the case. For that reason, I am suggesting some alteration in the wording. However, I do not think this is the best wording. I would sooner have said "not only on those persons on whom copies of the scheme would be required." I should like to ask the noble Earl if the wording could be altered so that it will mean what we all want it to mean. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("and not only") and insert ("as well as").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We also want these notices served upon occupiers, as well as upon owners of land. There is no difference between us on that. We are not happy about the wording of the clause as it stands, but we are also not completely happy about the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. If the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment, we, with the draftsman, will examine the wording carefully before the Report stage of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: From what the noble Earl has said, I can see that we are at one in what we want. Neither of us thinks that the present words are quite right. However, I agree that mine are not quite right either. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (3), after "period" to insert: "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is obvious. It is to ensure that an adequate minimum time is secured for the arrival of notices of objection, so that proper consideration can be given to the matter. I understand that the noble Lord opposite is prepared to consider the words that are down on the Order Paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1, after ("period") insert ("not being less than twenty-eight days").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I have pleasure in saying that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 29, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
Exemption of work from planning permission and development charge.
". The carrying out by the owner of any land of work specified or authorised in or by a works scheme shall be deemed not to constitute development for the purposes of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and no development charge shall be payable in respect thereof under Part VII of the said Act."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to lay down that the Central Land Board shall not raise a development charge upon any works that are carried out on coast protection works themselves. Many people may think that it is not necessary to put that provision in this Bill but, although this is neither the time nor the occasion to discuss this, perhaps we shall have an opportunity in the future of doing so. From my present knowledge, it would be just as well to have this provision put into the Bill. The Board are wonderfully good tax-gatherers at the present moment! They seize on any possible chance to get a little more into the Exchequer. It would be quite wrong that a man should have to pay a development charge on a sea wall that he has actually built. I think that would be the general agreement of the whole House. It is with that end in view that I beg to move, quite shortly, the clause that stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Of course, we agree with the noble Lord opposite that the actual land upon which the work is done does not increase in value as a result of the work, and the work should not be liable for payment of a development charge. I believe that this is a subject bristling with technical difficulties, which the officials at the Ministry of Health are at present discus-

165
sing with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I should be obliged if the noble Lord would withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that, after these consultations have been completed, I will raise the point again on the next stage of the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. When he says "I will raise the point again," let us be quite clear. Does that mean that he will put down some Amendment to meet the point, or does he want me to put down this Amendment on the next stage so that the point should be met?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I very carefully did not say either of those things, because the conclusion may be reached that the point is met by the Bill as it stands. I would be obliged if the noble Lord would leave it at that. If he is not satisfied with the conclusion reached, he will still have plenty of time to put down an Amendment of his own.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I will leave it like that. We want the same thing.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think it will be necessary to put it in this Bill. When the matter eventually conies to be considered again, I would like to put in words that the noble Earl considers the Government would approve, because I do not pride myself on being a draftsman. If we could have some form of words which we can discuss between us, that would be the better way of doing it.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I agree. I would naturally like the noble Lord, if he would be so good, to come into the discussions between now and Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Recovery of coast protection charges]:
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment says that a man shall not have an order made on him to pay by instalments unless he asks that that should be done. That is the simple purport of this Amendment. Normally, when payment is by instalments, it is the man who is paying who is asking for time to pay. I think it is right in this case that, where a man wants to pay in a lump sum, he ought to
166
be allowed to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 14, after ("may") insert ("if he so requires").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I accept the Amendment in the form in which it is moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.51 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the discussion we had just now, I beg formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 36, at end insert:
("(5) Where the interest by reference to which a coast protection charge is levied is subject to a mortgage, and at the time when the charge or any instalment in respect thereof is payable the mortgagee is in possession or in receipt of the rents or profits, the charge or instalment shall be payable by the mortgagee, and not by the person entitled to the interest.
(6) Where at the time when a coast protection charge or any instalment in respect thereof is payable a person is in receipt of the rents and profits of land as agent for the person entitled to the interest by reference to which the charge is levied, the charge or instalment may, subject to the next following subsection, be recovered from the agent.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Incidence of coast protection charges, etc.
(2) Any amount paid in respect of any such charge or expenses by a mortgagee may be added by him to the amount charged on the land by the mortgage; but nothing in this subsection shall render any such amount recoverable from the mortgagor personally.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is little more than drafting. It makes it clear that where a mortgagee in possession has paid a coast protection charge, or incurred expenses in carrying out work under a works scheme, when he comes to reimburse himself on a sale or redemption the charge or expenses will have the same priority as the mortgage debt. The Amendment also states expressly that until sale or redemption the mortgagee will be entitled to interest, at the rate fixed by mortgage, on the amount of the charge or expenses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, leave out from ("mortgagee") to ("recoverable") in line 15 and insert ("shall be treated as if it were secured by the mortgage, with the like priority and with interest at the same rate as the mortgage money:
Provided that, without prejudice to the recovery of interest, the said amount shall not be").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Recovery of cost of maintenance of works not constructed under works schemes
13.—(1) Where under the last foregoing section a coast protection authority have carried out any work of maintenance or repair on works not being works constructed, altered or improved under a works scheme and not being works in respect of which a scheme is in force under this section, the authority may subject to the provisions of this section on the completion of the work recover the reasonable cost of the carrying out of the work from the owner of the land on which the works are situated.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "owner," to insert "or occupier." The noble Lord said: This is a question of where the cost should fall when repairs and maintenance works are carried out to preserve the land in its present state. In a number of these cases the owner certainly is not the person who mainly benefits; the occupier benefits equally. My suggestion is that in appropriate cases the occupier should pay the reasonable cost, or at any rate some part of it. It is for those reasons that I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 8, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: We of course agree that it should be possible to recover some part of the cost from the occupier as well as from the owner. I would like to suggest to the noble Lord that we should accept his first Amendment, but that his later Amendments, which I think are consequential on that Amendment, should be withdrawn in order that we may have a chance of examining with the draftsmen the exact consequences entailed. They may be exactly as the noble Lord anticipates.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl and I accept his offer immediately. There may have to be some consequential Amendments following the lines of the Local Government Act, determining in appropriate cases where the burden should fall. I certainly agree that the effect of the acceptance of the Amendments will have to be looked into. I am much obliged to the noble Earl for accepting the first one, and I shall not move the others.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Compulsory acquisition of land]:
LORD SHEPHERD: I have two Amendments to this clause, and they are for the purpose of drafting. Clause 14, as a whole, deals with the compulsory acquisition of land, and it seems more convenient to turn subsection (3), which deals with incidental use of land acquired, into a separate clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("thereto") to end of line 28.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Compensation for depreciation and disturbance]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) to omit "immediately." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. Your Lordships will see that Clause 15, subsection (2) reads as follows:
"For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection an interest in land shall be deemed to be depreciated if and so far as the value thereof immediately after the completion of the work is less than it would then be if the work had not been carried out."
I think the word "immediately" is quite unnecessary, and I beg to move that we leave it out.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("immediately").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I would like to support this Amendment because I feel that not only is the word "immediately" not necessary, but it is in fact impossible in many cases to tell whether land has depreciated immediately or not. It might well be that there would be no evidence of depreciation until, shall we say, after the next spring tides, which might well do a little damage. Of course, the noble Earl may think it a rather severe step to take out the word "immediately," but I should have thought the words "some reasonable time," or something like that, might appeal to him.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think there may be some misunderstanding about the implication of the word "immediately," because I am told that the damage which would have to be assessed in order to arrive at the difference in the value of the land after work had been clone, would take into account damage that might transpire some time after the work had been executed—for instance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, said after a tide had been diverted and perhaps made an encroachment on land on another part of the coast. However, I am a little doubtful in my own mind on this problem. I shall be prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment if he will accept from me the further point that I am not completely happy about it, and I may wish to propose another form of words when the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (7):
"and any reference to land shall include a reference to fishing rights."
The noble Lord said: This was only an attempt to get rights for England that Scotland seems to have under this Part of the Bill. I am told that I was acting under somewhat of a misapprehension,
170
because, for some reason which I cannot understand, in Scotland fishing is actually part of the freehold. How it can be so I cannot understand. It certainly is not so in England. But, as I say, I acted under a misapprehension in trying to get these matters into line. With that explanation and apology for having put down a needless Amendment, I propose not to move it.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
LORD WALKDEN: May I intervene at this stage to say that we think that such good progress has been made to-day that we feel that this will be a convenient moment to adjourn? Before we adjourn, however, I wish to say that it is being arranged that we shall resume the Committee stage of this Bill on Tuesday next.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Will it be taken before, or after, the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill?
LORD WALKDEN: After.
House resumed.

CREWE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
DOVER HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
OLDBURY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL ALEXANDRA AND ALBERT SCHOOL BILL [H.L.]
ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
Referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.