COAST PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 27 January 1949 vol 160 cc378-416

5.10 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The LORD KERSHAW in the Chair]

Clause 17 [Application for planning permission for development of land on the seashore in certain areas]:

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "authority" to insert: or any drainage authority or river board not represented on a coast protection board. The noble Lord said: The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, is not able to be with us to-day—unfortunately he is not very well—and he has asked me if I will move some of the Amendments standing in his name. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has a statement to make on Clause 17, and it is for the purpose of hearing this statement that I beg formally to move the first Amendment standing in the name of the noble Viscount.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 31, after ("authority") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD SHEPHERD

When the first draft was made of Clause 17, its purpose was confined to giving supervisory powers to coast protection authorities over work to be done by private persons in the interests of coast protection. Subsequently, however, the clause was widened so as to provide some measure of control over the development of land. The widening of the clause has brought a substantial number of Amendments, and on examination we have come to the conclusion that if the Amendments were included in the clause it would become almost unreadable and certainly unwork- able. We have thought that the best thing we can do is to ask permission to introduce on Report a new draft, which will go back to our original intentions. If we do that, we shall avoid certain difficulties that are anticipated by the town planning authorities, and we can at the same time afford certain safeguards to river boards and drainage authorities so as to give them what they have been trying to aim at in these Amendments. That being the case, I have to suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws the Amendment he has moved, and to other noble Lords, with the permission of the Committee, that the Amendments standing in their names should not be moved, so that we do not unnecessarily spend time on amending a clause which we want to alter completely on the Report stage.

LORD LLEWELLIN

As the Committee will realise, I anticipated some such statement as that from the noble Lord. If we are going back to the original idea, which will dispose of a large number of these Amendments, because they will then be unnecessary, it will be a great saving of the time of the Committee for the whole of the discussion on this clause to be postponed at this stage. I say that on the understanding that the Government is to produce a new draft of Clause 17 between now and the Report stage. All I would ask—and I think it is a reasonable request—is that we shall be able to see a copy of that new clause some little time before the Report stage, because it will be a completely new draft and we shall only, as it were, have "one go" at it unless we have a quite exceptional Third Reading.

LORD SHEPHERD

I thank the noble Lord for his approach to the suggestion I have made, and I can give him the undertaking he requires.

LORD LLEWELLIN

On that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. Perhaps it would be right to give notice now that I, at any rate, do not intend to move any of the Amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, under this clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

Prohibition of excavation, etc., of materials on or under the seashore.

(5) The authority by whom an order has been made under subsection (3) of this section may grant to any person a licence, as respects any portion of the seashore described in the order, to do anything which would otherwise be a contravention of subsection (1) of this section, and any such licence may be granted subject to such conditions as the authority may determine:

(8) The Coast Protection Act, 1939, shall cease to have effect.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (5): Provided also that a licence shall not be granted under this subsection in respect of any part of the sea-shore which includes or adjoins the drainage works of any drainage authority or river board without the previous consent of that authority or that board.

The noble Lord said: I am not going behind the back of the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in not moving the Amendment he had on the Marshalled List, because I think he prefers my Amendment to his own. For those of your Lordships who have not fully studied Clause 18, I may say that its object is that the coast protection authority may specify an area from which nobody may take sand, ballast, gravel, or make excavations. But power is given to the coast protection authority to allow this to be done by licence, and I am suggesting, by my Amendment, that once an area has been so specified, a licence shall not be granted if any part of the sea-shore upon which the licence is to be effective "includes or adjoins the drainage works of any drainage authority or river board without the previous consent of that authority or that board." Once an area has been specified, a river board may sit back content and say: "We need not bother further about this, because people will not take away ballast or sand from this area and affect our drainage works, because they will not be allowed to." All I am suggesting is that where an area has been specified, the consent of these river boards shall be obtained or, at any rate, there shall be consultation with them, before any licence is given which may interfere with their drainage works. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 48, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD SHEPHERD

We were under the impression that Clause 18, in the proviso to subsection (5), gave all the protection which was required, but in discussions which have taken place we have felt that it would be desirable, before the coast protection authority gave licences, that there should be some form of consultation. Therefore, if the noble Lord agrees and withdraws his Amendment, we will on Report stage provide a suitable substitute which will give him the solution that he requires.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. As some noble Lords realise, I am never particularly wedded to my own words, and I have no doubt that others can be provided which will amply fulfil the undertaking just given by the noble Lord. In view of that undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.21 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to add at the end of subsection (8): with the exception of subsection (3) of Section two, which will continue to apply to Scotland. The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I observed that we might have been better served by a separate Bill for Scotland, and the point that now arises illustrates the obscurity which has resulted from the rather cumbrous adaptation of an English Bill to suit Scotland. I am informed courteously by the Secretary of State that the principle of the Bill is entirely the same in relation to England and Scotland, and yet, in the result, I fear that harbour authorities in Scotland will be placed in a disadvantageous position. I refer in particular to two major authorities, the Clyde Navigation Trust and the Forth Conservancy Board but there are others. Is this Bill going to result in interference with them in their statutory duties? I fear it may, because it does not contain the safeguard for the port authorities which was in the 1939 Act, now to be repealed. Your Lordships will be aware that Section 2, subsection (3) of that Act provides: Nothing in this Act or any order made thereunder shall take away, diminish, or prejudice any rights, powers, or privileges in relation to conserving, maintaining, or improving the navigation of a tidal water.… This safeguard for harbour authorities is to be repealed, but the harbour and navigation authorities of England and Wales are still protected, because all the rivers in England and Wales that affect such authorities appear in the list in the Fourth Schedule of the Bill. I should like to ask the noble Lord why the Scottish rivers are not so scheduled.

The effect of paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule appears to be that a harbour authority in Scotland, as distinct from one in England or Wales affected by the proposed order, may have to be put to the trouble, expense and uncertainty of special Parliamentary procedure to obtain the safeguard which the 1939 Act recognised. The Bill should ensure that harbour authorities are not let or hindered in the carrying out of their statutory work. It would, for example, be against the public interest if it were necessary for such authorities to get Government permission before carrying out emergency work. As I have said before, I welcome the general purpose of this measure, but I am anxious, and the harbour authorities are anxious, about their position under the Bill as it stands. Possibly the noble Lord, when he replies, can make a statement that will clarify the situation. I realise that this Amendment is not in itself workable, and I do not propose to insist on it; but I am bound to say that unless we can get a statement which will relieve the minds of the Scottish navigation authorities, we shall have to seek on Report stage for words to be inserted in the Bill to serve that purpose. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, Line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)

LORD MORRISON

I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to satisfy the request of the noble Lord. I know he will forgive me if I do not follow him into the question of whether there should have been a separate Bill for Scotland. As I remarked the other day, however arguable that may be, it is too late, at the Committee stage of a Bill, to turn back and produce a separate Bill for Scotland. I gathered from what the noble Lord said that the Amendment which he has moved is prompted by a fear that harbour authorities in Scotland will be placed in a disadvantageous position by being deprived of their existing rights to undertake dredging and other works at present available to them under the Coast Protection Act of 1939; and the noble Lord asked me a number of questions which, I gather, are intended to elucidate whether those fears are well founded. I will endeavour to allay his fears, at least to some extent.

If I may deal with the noble Lord's first question, whether this Bill will result in interference with the harbour and conservancy authorities in their statutory duties, the answer is, "Yes," in the sense that the Bill will impose certain obligations on harbour and conservancy authorities in common with other bodies—but only in so far as is necessary for the proper carrying out by coast protection authorities of their duties under the Bill. Naturally, navigation authorities are somewhat concerned about the possibility that this clause may require them to obtain a licence from the coast protection authorities in respect to their dredging work. But I would point out two things. First, Clause 18 applies only in cases where an order is made and confirmed by the Minister for its application to any area. Secondly, the Bill provides safeguards to ensure that any objections raised by navigation authorities receive full consideration by the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord is no doubt familiar with the Second Schedule, which requires a draft order to be advertised, notice allowed for objections and, unless the objections are withdrawn, a long inquiry or special hearing before the order is confirmed. In an effort to meet further the noble Lord's points, when we come to the Schedules my noble friend Lord Shepherd will propose an Amendment to page 44, line 26, requiring notice of a draft order to be served on any catchment board, conservancy authority, harbour authority, navigation authority or river board whose area comprises land to which the draft order relates. Where objection is made to an order on the grounds that it would interfere with the exercise of statutory functions, the confirmation of the order is made subject to Parliamentary procedure. There seems no doubt, therefore, that in the event of any coast protection authority proposing to apply Clause 18 to the area of a navigation authority, the navigation authority would have ample opportunity of bringing their objections to the notice of the Secretary of State and, if necessary, before Parliament.

The noble Lord went on to ask (I think quite reasonably) why a harbour authority in Scotland may have to be put to the trouble and expense of special Parliamentary procedure. The answer is that dredging work undertaken by such an authority might create problems for the coast protection authorities along the banks, and in these circumstances it would not be proper to remove navigation authorities altogether from the operations of the Bill. I think I may add that should any case arise in which a navigation authority feel that their opposition to an order must be carried to the furthest lengths, I am sure the noble Lord and I would be the last to desire that that right should be denied to them.

The noble Lord asked why this Bill does not contain the saving for the port authorities which was in the 1939 Act, now to be repealed? The answer is that the Coast Protection Act of 1939 was much more limited in scope than the present measure. Its object was merely to enable the Board of Trade to restrict the excavation of materials on or under the seashore. This Bill is much more comprehensive in scope and, as I have already said, it is not felt that it would be proper to exempt navigation authorities altogether from the operations of the Bill.

This brings me to the further point: Why are the Scottish harbour authorities not safeguarded, while the corresponding English authorities are safeguarded? Perhaps to put the question in exactly that form is a little apt to mislead. It is true that the Fourth Schedule excludes from the operation of the Bill the tidal waters of nearly one hundred English rivers.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

One hundred and ten.

LORD MORRISON

Parts of the English rivers are, however, still within the scope of the Bill. It is also true that no Scottish rivers are included in the Fourth Schedule of the Bill, and consequently the powers of the Bill apply to Scottish rivers as far up as the tide flows. I can assure the noble Lord—if, indeed, he needs such assurance—that this is not done with any intention of placing Scotland in an inferior position—it is not the first time that I have had to make statements of that kind. On the contrary, it merely indicates that in these problems Scotland is proceeding with its proverbial caution. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it is not an easy matter to determine precisely where in each river the line of demarcation should be drawn, and it would be very unfortunate if, by over-hasty action, a deserving project were excluded from a grant.

The Secretary of State has been anxious to proceed with care in this matter. It is more difficult in Scotland than in England and Wales to be quite clear about the points on tidal rivers beyond which the powers of the Bill will not be needed, since there are no river boards or drainage boards in Scotland, and the definitions must be framed with care. The Secretary of State's Departments have been examining this since the Bill was introduced and, so far as they are aware, no coast protection problems in the sense of the Bill are likely to arise above the following points on the four main estuaries: the River Forth—above a line between Hound Point, on the south bank, and Inverkeithing, on the north bank; the River Clyde—above a line between Newark Castle, on the south bank, and Cardross Burn on the north bank; the River Tay—above the bridge carrying the railway from Wormit to Dundee; and the River Dee—above a line joining the seaward end of the south breakwater and the seaward end of the north pier.

The Secretary of State is anxious to look into the position a little further before Amendments are moved to the Bill, but if the lines were drawn at the points just indicated they would exclude from the Bill the whole area of the Clyde Navigation Trust, the whole area of the Forth Conservancy Board and substantial parts of the area of the Dundee and Aberdeen Harbour Trusts. I hope that from that reply the noble Earl will realise that a good deal of consideration has been given to the matter. I trust he will find the reply at least reasonably satisfactory.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should, first of all, like to thank the noble Lord for having at last made a statement to indicate, in some way at least, what is intended. He says that it is too late to go back to what some of us would prefer. He said that it is a Bill with some eighteen adaptations of different clauses, but I have never seen a Bill with eighteen separate adaptations. But still, the noble Lord has made his bed and he has got to lie on it. The first question, upon which we seek an assurance, for we have not had any assurance yet, is this: Does the noble Lord intend to retain the Clyde Trustees, the Forth Conservancy Board and the Dundee and Aberdeen Harbour Trusts, as I think they are called? Is it intended to retain them? Because at the present tirae—and this is the real point—these are apparently completely "swamped" by the Bill. That is the point I want to emphasise.

It is quite different from what is arranged in the Fourth Schedule, which sets out all the different rivers in England. These authorities are completely "swamped" by the Bill. Presumably, the whole of their work is to be undertaken by the coast protection authorities. I should like to have it from the noble Lord—and I invite him to answer the question: Is it or is it not intended to retain these authorities which have previously been responsible? At the present moment, the most one can say is that there is a parallel for it—that is to say, the Clyde Trustees, for instance, may continue to exist, but it will be possible for exactly the same duties to be carried out by the coast protection authorities which are alongside. So far as I am able to judge from the Bill, the great majority of the Clyde Navigation Trustees' tasks, whether statutory or otherwise, can equally well be carried out by the coast protection authorities.

It is all very well to say that this is what the Minister intends to do, but we are discussing what is to become an Act of Parliament. I do not know whether it is intended to alter the Fourth Schedule, but I see that the Fourth Schedule may be added to, or altered, by order. Perhaps your Lordships will be good enough to look at the regulations and orders. I understand that the Minister can change an order—I ask for confirmation of that—without reference to Parliament, so that the boundaries laid down in the Fourth Schedule can, at any time, be altered by an order without putting forward an instrument which will have to lie before Parliament. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but that is apparently the definition in Clause 39 (2). I would be grateful if the noble Lord would contradict that, but it seems that any alteration can be made up or down the rivers.

Obviously, the Secretary of State is being rather "canny" about this. For all we know, he may go on being uncertain about the areas. Our reason for pressing this matter is that we think it is a question which deserves a good deal of pressure and consideration. The whole of Glasgow depends entirely upon the navigation of the Clyde. The Clyde is an artificial river. Its navigational qualities are entirely built by man. The responsibility for its maintenance is that of the Clyde Navigation Trustees. Is it proposed in this Bill in any way to undermine those statutory duties? As I understand it, the Clyde Navigation Trustees are to have special duties thrown upon them, as the noble Lord said, by the coast protection authorities. If they have additional duties thrown upon them, it may well be that some of their existing tasks will be rendered more difficult. That means that they will find it increasingly difficult to maintain the high standard of navigation on the Clyde which is absolutely essential for the welfare of the city of Glasgow.

Those duties are important, and I think we should have in this Bill something which definitely makes it clear that it is intended to retain these bodies and not in any way to upset their statutory duties. There is no parallel authority in England, so far as I know. There, you do not have river boards or drainage boards working in parallel with the coastal authorities. So far as I can gather from the noble Lord, it is intended that there should be a parallel jurisdiction. Can we have an answer on that point? Is it intended that this parallel jurisdiction should continue?—because if it is, it is quite a different principle. It may be necessary to have a different principle—I do not know. But I do suggest that there is a point in this, and I think that on Report stage we should insist that the matter should be cleared up to a greater extent than at present. I have great sympathy with those upon whom the task of dealing with this Bill has fallen. It is not an easy Bill, and it is no doubt an extremely difficult one to attach something to. If I may use a vulgar expression, it is "something of a cat's breakfast," and to attach something to it and to look into it is an extremely difficult thing. I sympathise with those who have to do it, but I think we are entitled to a fairly close statement of policy upon it.

LORD MORRISON

I would like to thank the noble Earl for his expression of sympathy, which is very welcome and I hope deserved, because personally I would much prefer to pilot a purely Scottish Bill through the House than one of these hybrid measures. The noble Earl has asked me many questions, most of which I am not prepared to answer on the spur of the moment because, as he no doubt realises, the statement I made in reply to Lord Clydesmuir was a well considered speech, and therefore I am not in a position to add materially to it. Perhaps the noble Earl himself would prefer that he should read over the reply in Hansard and, if he finds it unsatisfactory, he can raise the matter again. I would, however, like to repeat that if the lines were drawn at the points I indicated, they would exclude from the Bill the whole area of the Clyde Navigation Trust, the Forth Conservancy Board and a substantial part of the Dundee and Aberdeen Harbour Trusts. Of course, the Clyde Navigation Trust and the Forth Conservancy remain, and the purpose of the proposed Amendment is to take the sections of the river for which they are responsible out of the Bill. I endeavoured in the considered statement I made to make it clear—I do not think I said that additional duties would fall upon any of those bodies—that it had not been found possible altogether to contract them out of the responsibilities which will come under this Bill, and which are much greater than those in the Bill which is being repealed.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

With great respect, you did say that obligations would be put on them by the coast protection authority.

LORD MORRISON

I did say that, and I then pointed out that if these obligations were in their opinion unreasonable, there were measures they could take, even up to the point of bringing the matter before Parliament. I thought I pointed that out fairly clearly, and I then went on to try and answer the question raised by the noble Lord as to why, in those circumstances, there was put upon them this additional burden of their perhaps having to take Parliamentary procedure. However, will the noble Earl accept my suggestion, that he should look at the statement I have made, which has been well considered and thought over, and then, on Report Stage, if the position is still unsatisfactory, I will, as Wilfred Pickles would say, "Have another go"?

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I thank the noble Lord for his thoughtfully prepared statement. I have heard this Bill described as "a Bill of major obscurity," but he has made a real effort to throw light on the obscurity. I am afraid I have still some anxiety for these harbour authorities. I should like to see the safeguard which the noble Lord read out to us incorporated as an Amendment to the Bill, whether in the Schedule or elsewhere. He will also understand when I say that I reserve the right to put an Amendment down on the Report stage. I thank the noble Lord for his courteous reply and will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SHEPHERD

The two Amendments standing in my name to page 24 run together. Clause 18 makes fresh provision in place of the Coast Protection Act, 1939, which is therefore repealed by subsection (8) of this clause. Subsection (9), pending the making of orders under Clause 18, keeps in force orders made under the 1939 Act and in force at the passing of this Bill; but as drafted the subsection does not save orders made under certain Acts repealed by the 1939 Act, which were saved by that Act. These Amendments fill that gap. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 12, leave out ("under") and insert ("or deemed for the purposes of that Act to have been made, under section one of").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move the second Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 26, leave out ("order") to ("or") and insert ("continued in force").—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

So far as those for whom I can speak are concerned, we have no objection to these Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the clause: (11) Nothing in this section shall be construed as annulling, altering or affecting any prohibition or restriction imposed by any bylaw of a drainage authority or river board for the time being in force. The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Stansgate, I beg to move the Amendment that stands in his name. I think we all want to ensure that any of these orders or by-laws which have been made by drainage authorities or river boards and which are in force, and indeed have the force of law once they are approved by the Minister of Agriculture, shall not be affected and altered by anything done by a coast protection authority. In moving this Amendment, I would like to add that I have my views as to whether this is not already covered by Clause 18, subsection (5) and the proviso thereto. If it is, and that assurance can be given me, I think it ought to satisfy those for whom I speak in proposing this Amendment. But I should like an assurance that these bylaws of the river boards are not going to be affected by any licences given under this clause in the future. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I am advised that the proviso to subsection (5) takes into account all the things contained in the noble Lord's Amendment, and, as he remembers, it reads as follows: Provided that a licence granted under this subsection shall not render lawful anything which would be unlawful if subsection (1) of this section had not been enacted. As the ground is already covered, and as it would not be wise that there should be two provisions for the same thing, I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I thought that would be the answer and I foreshadowed it in the remarks I made. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

5.49 p.m.

Clause 19:

Contributions towards expenses of coast protection.

19.—(1) The council of a county in England or Wales shall from time to time pay towards the expenses incurred under this Act by the council of any county district within the county such contributions as may be agreed between the two councils, or as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Minister.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "may" for "shall." The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it would be convenient if I took this Amendment and the next together, as they both run together. This clause gives the Minister power to order a county council to make payment out of the rates towards the expenses of any coast protection authority—that is to say, any district council within their area—and he may order them to make it, according to this clause, up to any amount he may determine, whether or not the county council are willing to pay and whether or not the county council approve of the project. The County Councils Association feel very strongly that as a matter of principle this provision ought to be resisted.

To make it clear that this is not just a personal theory of my own, perhaps I may read a note which I have from the Association. It runs: The purpose of these two Amendments, which run together, is to make county contributions towards the expense of coast protection works discretionary instead of compulsory. The Association are not aware of any statutory precedent for the imposition of so absolute and unlimited an obligation as is envisaged by this subsection, and it must be borne in mind that the expenditure which county councils might be called upon to contribute under the Bill as it now stands may well be very substantial. It is also to be noted that there is nothing to prevent county contributions being imposed by the Minister in respect of works upon which the county council have not been consulted and which they might well regard as inapt. unnecessary or unduly expensive. This is entirely contrary to the long-established principle that there should not be taxation without representation, and the Association take strong exception to the subsection on all these grounds. If compulsory county contributions are considered fair and necessary, a more appropriate and equitable way of securing them would be by the establishment of a coast protection board under Clause 2 of the Bill, with the county council as a constituent authority to which precepts could be issued.

That is what the County Councils Association say. I submit to the Government that as this is an entirely new and untried field of Government legislation, and as this is a feature of the Bill which is objectionable to county councils, with whom I have no doubt the Government hope to co-operate in this matter, this particular idea might well be deferred until the necessity for it has been found to be proved. It could, surely, be introduced by some simple amending Bill if a good case for it were found. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 34, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD CRANWORTH

I rise to support this Amendment as strongly as I can. It is a vital Amendment from the point of view of county councils, and more especially the maritime county councils. I have had the good or the bad fortune to be a county councillor now for forty-nine years, and I am distressed to find how, at an ever-increasing pace, the powers of county councils are diminished and their duties, works and financial obligations are increased. It is very little exaggeration to say that at the present time our position is that of agents to Whitehall and rate collectors for the Government. On top of all that, we have this imposition about to be thrown upon us. How much it will be in the case of a maritime county, I do not know. I live in a poor maritime county. A penny rate with us produces £4,000. During the four years ending 1950 we shall have spent a matter of £400,000 on coast defence work and, as I see it, under this Bill the burden of paying the whole of that sum can be forced upon us—and it would appear extremely likely that half of it will be.

I would like to call the attention of the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government to the extreme difficulty which county councils have at the present time in framing their budgets. That, of course, is a task which falls on them and on the county treasurer, and the difficulty of it is almost inconceivable, for they do not know what they are going to get and what they will have to spend. If this quite unpredictable sum—no doubt it will be a very large sum—is to be added to their burdens, it may well prove the last straw that breaks the camel's back so far as maritime counties are concerned. I beg to support the Amendment most warmly.

LORD KENNET

I also would like to support this Amendment very strongly. I do so not so much from the point of view of the local authorities—their case has been put with great clarity and force by the two noble Lords who have just spoken—but from the point of view of one who has some knowledge at the centre of what is necessary in order to maintain a healthy, efficient system of local government. In my view, this is a very bad provision indeed. It is a blow at the vitals of health in local government institutions. What do they depend upon? In the first place, upon the high sense of responsibility in the local authority. How can that sense of responsibility be maintained when they are subjected, in their most essential functions, to the arbitrary interference of the central authority, at its own sweet will, without regulations or limitations?

The next point is one which has been referred to with much force by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. The second essential for efficient local government is a budget drawn up with foresight and a rigid adherence to the budget when formed. How can that be maintained when those who are responsible for the budget see that they may be liable to have claims made upon their resources after their budget has been completed, after it has been fixed and is out of their control, without limitation? Surely it needs no words to emphasise the gravity of this interference. This may be a little case in this Bill, but let us resist its extension.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Let me say at once that we are just as anxious as the noble Lords who have spoken that county councils which may be concerned shall not be treated in any way unfairly. At the same time, I think the noble Lords would agree that there is a case for county councils to make some contribution towards the expense of coast protection work—and for this reason: the rateable value of their county area is obviously maintained if a certain portion of the coast is safeguarded against erosion. Indeed, it may be enhanced if, later on, building development takes place in that particular area. So I do not think there is much disagreement about the principle of this; rather is it about the way in which, under the terms of the Bill, it is suggested that the contribution should be obtained and the amount of the contribution assessed. What I would suggest to noble Lords opposite is that between now and the Report stage we should again examine this section, with a view to amending it in order to go some way, at any rate, to meet the arguments and the objections that have been raised by noble Lords in the course of this discussion. I need hardly add that we shall be most grateful for the assistance of any noble Lords who may care to join us—with their advisers if they so desire—in the discussions that will take place with a view to devising a satisfactory formula between now and the Report stage.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I would like to thank the noble Earl, if I may, for the very considerate speech which he has just made. I think that this also is largely a matter of prestige. If we have the word "may" in the Act, instead of "shall," I think a large number of county councils will be ready to pay a reasonable share of any expenditure on these coast protection works. What they do not like—and, after all, they are democratically elected people—is to have too many of these "shalls." Where there is a recalcitrant council the Minister can always make a scheme under Clause 2. I think the noble Earl will realise that if he changes "shall" into "may" he will get almost everything he wants from every county council and will get it willingly, instead of at the point of a pistol. I think he is wise to say he will look at it between now and Report stage, and I assure him that we shall be glad to come and discuss the matter with him.

VISCOUNT GAGE

As the noble Earl said he was prepared to try and meet the point raised on this side, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD CRANWORTH

I would also like to add my thanks to the noble Earl. I am certain he will not find county councils difficult in this matter. Many are making contributions now, but they are anxious not to have a burden thrown on them when they do not know what it is to be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD KENNET moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) The council of a non-maritime county borough may if they think fit contribute towards the cost of carrying out any coast protection work which appears to the council to be necessary or expedient for the protection of land in their area. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one in which the Association of Municipal Corporations take a warm interest. It refers to county boroughs which are not maritime and, therefore, are not included in the provisions of the Bill as taking part in defence works. The case under consideration is this. There are several large, important and wealthy county boroughs, not maritime since they are not on the coast, but they are so near the sea that they have a very strong interest in protecting their property against coast erosion, and between them and the sea comes a weaker authority. It is thought that the efficient protection of the area and the interests of the non-maritime county borough can be secured only if they have the power to come to the rescue of the weaker authority and do something for it. I think the point is perfectly clear. I hope to hear from the noble Lord that it is not necessary to include this power, as it exists under the present law; but since there has been some doubt among legal authorities, I should be grateful for an assurance to that effect. If not, I hope the noble Lord will consider including some such provision.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I am advised that the Amendment is hardly necessary. A non-maritime borough council would propose to make a contribution only where its property needed protection. That being the case, it already possesses powers, which are vested in owners generally, to make a contribution for the protection of its own property in this way. However, if the Association of Municipal Corporations are interested, I am prepared, without making any definite promise, to look at this matter between now and Report stage.

LORD KENNET

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assurance that according to his own advisers, the present powers are adequate. I am grateful for his assurance that if he finds they are inadequate he will consider including such a provision, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:

Power to use for incidental purposes land acquired for coast protection

"It is hereby declared that any power of the council of a county borough or county district in England or Wales, or the council of a burgh or county in Scotland, under any other enactment to provide concert halls, entertainment rooms, reading rooms, pavilions, restaurants or other places for the provision of meals or refreshments, bandstands, public conveniences or other buildings on land belonging or let to them, to lay out public parks, pleasure grounds or recreation grounds on such land, or to adapt or use land for any other public purpose, shall be exercisable in relation to any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act, notwithstanding that the land continues to be required for some other purpose for which it was so acquired; but the said power shall not be exercised so as to interfere with the use of the land for that other purpose so long as it is required therefor."

The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The new clause originally appeared in the Bill as Clause 14, subsection (3). Several words have been added, however, since the transfer took place. We have included "restaurants or other places for the provision of meals or refreshments." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the words "some other purpose for which it was so required" and inserting therefor the words "the purposes of their functions as a coast protection authority." The noble Lord said: The noble Lord started by saying that this is a drafting Amendment. My Amendments merely object to the drafting. I am not objecting on principle; I am objecting to the rather vague drafting. It is declared that any power of a council to do certain things shall be exercisable in relation to land acquired by them under this Part of this Act, notwithstanding that the land continues to be required for some other purpose for which it was so acquired; but the said power shall not be exercised so as to interfere with the use of the land for that other purpose so long as it is required therefor. The only purpose for which land can be acquired under this Act is for coast protection work. I cannot for the life of me imagine why we cannot use some such words as these: "Notwithstanding that the land was acquired for coast protection work and continues to be used for such work." The words of this new clause should be looked at again to see if we cannot put down clearly what we mean. Our meaning is that if a coast protection authority acquires land for the purpose of coast protection, they can put up a handstand or lay out a garden so long as those things do not interfere with the use of the land for coast protection. I am sure we can put that in far simpler words than those which the noble Lord proposes.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 12, leave out ("some other purpose for which it was so acquired") and insert ("the purposes of their functions as a coast protection authority").—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made. I will undertake between now and the Report stage to consider the alteration of the words to meet his point.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and on his assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Powers of entry and inspection

(4) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a justice of the peace or in Scotland a justice of the peace or the sheriff, on sworn information in writing—

(b) that there is reasonable ground for entry on the land for the purpose for which entry is required,

the justice or sheriff may by warrant under his hand authorise that person to enter on the land, if need be by force:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in the opening paragraph of subsection (4) to delete "a justice of the peace or." The noble Earl said: Clause 23 is the "big stick" clause, which inevitably finds a place somewhere in these Bills. It includes, among other things, the rather remarkable right of forcing entry in the event of a refusal being apprehended. The question arises: who is to grant authority for a forced entry? I am suggesting that in Scotland this authority should be confined to sheriffs and should not include Justices of the Peace. It so happens that a Commission has been examining the question of Justices of the Peace and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read a passage which says that: The English conception of the office of Justice of the Peace is not applicable to Scotland. In some parts of Scotland at present many Justices have no judicial functions. Their duties are "negligible or completely nonexistent." I think this clause will very rarely be used, but if it is used, it is important that it should be used in the right place by someone connected with judicial functions.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 45, leave out from ("Scotland") to the second ("the").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl has been brief, and he will not mind if I am equally brief. I am unable to accept this Amendment—for two reasons. The noble Earl said that it was somewhat unusual but, in fact it is not unusual, to have these powers in Scotland. There are precedents. In Section 72 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, similar powers are given to Justices of the Peace in Scotland; and under many of the Defence Regulations, Justices of the Peace in Scotland are authorised to grant a search warrant. I will not go into the question of whether the Justices of the Peace in Scotland are persons of lower status than the English Justices of the Peace. I know there are differences. I am not quite sure that the noble Earl is on good ground in trying to reduce the powers of the Justices of the Peace in Scotland. I am advised that, particularly in the sparsely populated areas of Scotland, a sheriff may be very difficult to find. For that reason, it might be extremely inconvenient to obtain the services of a sheriff, and less inconvenient to obtain the services of a Justice of the Peace. That is the reason I have been given why "justice of the peace" is included in relation to Scotland as well as in relation to England.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I do not propose to press the Amendment. I am bound to say that I think in the sparsely populated areas Justices of the Peace are quite sparse too; they multiply in much larger numbers in urban areas than in sparsely populated areas. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

6.12 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved after Clause 23 to insert the following new clause:

Power of coast protection authorities to require information as to ownership of land

".—(1) A coast protection authority may, for the purpose of enabling them to perform any of their functions under this Part of this Act, require the occupier of any land, and any person who either directly or indirectly receives rent in respect of any land, to state in writing the nature of his own interest therein and the name and address of any other person known to him as having an interest therein, whether as freeholder, mortgagee, lessee or otherwise.

(2) Any person who having been required by a coast protection authority in pursuance of this section to give to them any information fails to give that information or knowingly makes any misstatement in respect thereof shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds."

The noble Lord said: The Committee will be aware that authority has been given to make charges where works are undertaken. It becomes essential, therefore, that authorities should know, not merely the owners of land, but in addition those having an interest in land, in order that they can carry on their work properly. The new clause that I am proposing is, in fact, Section 277 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which has proved a useful and worth while power in relation to the purposes of that Act. The present Bill is one for which it would prove very suitable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 23, at end insert the said clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not think there can be any objection from this side if the Government follow the very good practice of lifting a section from an Act for which we were once responsible and adopting it as their own. It is quite applicable here. If they would do that all the time it would be most agreeable to us, so let us not disagree with them when they do it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Default powers of Minister

(3) If the authority declared to be in default by an order made under this section fail to comply with any requirement thereof, the Minister, in lieu of enforcing the order by mandamus or otherwise, may make an order transferring to himself such of the powers of the authority as he thinks fit, or may make an order transferring those powers to the council of the county in which, according to the nature of the default, they ought to be exercised:

VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (3): Provided also that authorise the transfer any powers of any authority without the council. The noble Viscount said: This is really a simple point. If a coast protection authority decides to do nothing, they run the risk of the Minister taking default powers against them. One of those default powers may be to transfer their responsibility to the county council. Similarly, the county council may not wish to do anything, and in that case the Minister would have to carry out the work himself. As the Minister cannot physically compel a county council to take action, we thought perhaps it might be more dignified to give them the statutory power of withdrawing, rather than finding themselves in the position of having to declare, as it were, a sit-down strike and compelling the Minister to take default powers against them as well as the original coast protection authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

As the noble Viscount has said, this Amendment really raises a question of procedure rather than a question of substance and principle. I think he would agree that it would be right and proper, as a general rule, for a neighbouring county authority to assume the responsibility for carrying out coast protection work if, say, a small rural district authority on the coast adjoining it were unable to discharge this essential work. In that event it would be natural for the larger authority to assume the duties which the smaller authority was unable to carry out. I understand that in other matters there have been many cases of the transfer of powers from a minor to a major authority in this way, and that the transfer has not worked unsatisfactorily, or given ground for complaint in time past. On the basis of our accepted practice, I feel there is a good deal to be said in favour of continuing to use existing machinery when this Bill is applied as an Act. I am inclined to think that experience has shown that the way we propose is quite satisfactory, and that there is no need for modification in the manner suggested by the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I do not feel very strongly about this matter, but, as I have said, it is always open for the county council to compel the Minister to take default powers against them. I do not wish to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:

Transfer and compensation of officers, and superannuation rights.

".—(1) An order constituting or dissolving a coast protection board, an order under the last foregoing section transferring or retransferring functions of a coast protection authority, and an agreement setting up or dissolving a joint committee under Section three of this Act, if made with the approval of the Minister, may make provision as to the transfer, compensation and pension rights of officers and servants of the authorities concerned.

(2) In this section the expression 'the authorities concerned' means—

1. (a) in relation to an order constituting a coast protection board or an agreement setting up a joint committee, the constituent or appointing authorities;
2. (b) in relation to an order or agreement dissolving such a board or committee, the board or committee and the constituent or appointing authorities;
3. (c) in relation to an order under the last foregoing section, the coast protection authority and, where the order transfers or retransfers functions to or from a county council, that council."

The noble Lord said: This is a proposal to cover the transfer and compensation of officers, and superannuation rights in respect to whole-time employees who might suffer the termination or reduction of their jobs, or who might necessarily be transferred to another authority. The circumstances in which this might be necessary are as follows: if a coast protection authority's functions were transferred to joint board, or if a board were dissolved and the functions re-transferred to a local authority; if two authorities agreed to set up or disband a joint committee; or if on the default of an authority their functions were transferred to a county council or the Minister. I think it right that this new clause should be put in the Bill for the safeguard of those employees, and I trust that your Lordships will approve the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 10, at end insert the said clause.

LORD LLEWELLIN

We have no objection at all to this clause going into the Bill. It is quite right to make provision so that if any of those events occur the rights of the staffs of these bodies should be protected, as they normally are.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Application to the Crown]:

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the clause: (5) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the expression 'Crown Land' does not include land an interest in which belongs to any body corporate established by or under any enactment for the purpose of carrying on under national ownership any industry or part of an industry or undertaking.

The noble Lord said: I always rather dislike, on principle, an Amendment which starts with the words, "For the avoidance of doubt," but that is what I am proposing that we should put in here. I am not at the moment, however, quite certain whether, in Clause 27 (4), where it says: … land an interest in which belongs to a government department or is held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department … includes land owned, for instance, by an electricity or gas undertaking or, in these days, the Railway Executive. If I am assured that those wore s do not include such land, there will be no need for my Amendment; but if there is any doubt, then I think we should put in some such words as those I am moving. There are many parts of our seashore where the railway runs along the coast, and if anything has to be done by a coast protection authority in that area, then I see no reason why the railway company should not pay its contribution just as other owners of land and local authorities will have to pay their contributions for these schemes. I should like some assurance that the point is covered by the words in this subsection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Llmellin.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and, indeed, he suggested that, given a certain undertaking, he will withdraw it. I say that for two reasons. First, if he presses for the words "For the avoidance of doubt," it will cast doubt upon the definition of "Crown Land" in those Statutes where Crown Land is not defined in the way in which he now proposes to define it. Secondly, Clause 27 (4) makes it absolutely clear what Crown Land includes and, inferentially, what it excludes. I will not read out the subsection, because it is rather long, but I can give him the assurance that "Crown Land," as defined in this subsection, would not include land held by any nationalised undertaking or industry such as a railway company or a mining company. I do not think any doubts have been raised in times past by the customary definition of "Crown Land," and I hope in those circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Earl for that assurance. So long as I have that assurance I will certainly not press my Amendment, especially if by commencing with the words "For the avoidance of doubt" it would create doubt in other Statutes where the term "Crown Land" appears.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Restriction of works detrimental to navigation]:

On Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD CLYDESMUIR

I would like to ask whether the Minister would look carefully at the wording of this clause between now and the Report stage. Subsection (1) (b), if unreasonably and strictly interpreted, might prevent the master of a vessel dropping anchor without written permission of the Minister, because he would depositing an object and causing obstruction to navigation.

LORD SHEPHERD

We have not time to consider the point now, but we will look at it before the Report stage.

Clause 29 agreed to.

6.25 p.m.

Clause 30:

Operations excepted from s. 29.

30.—(1) The following operations shall be excepted from the restriction imposed by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, that is to say—

LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to subsection (1): (f) any work which a conservancy authority or a harbour authority or a navigation authority is empowered to carry out for the removal of any vessel sunk or stranded or of anything causing or likely to cause an obstruction or impediment to any navigation. The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the Amendments that he has put down on behalf of the Government to meet two or three points which I raised on Second Reading? This Amendment raises in a still more acute form the same point which the noble Lord opposite raised with regard to dropping anchor. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid delay in the carrying out of work by a conservancy, harbour or navigation authority under their statutory powers. Clause 29 of the Bill provides that … no person shall without the consent in writing of the Minister of Transport, carry out any of the following operations"— which are set out in subsections (a) (b) and (c)— so that obstruction or danger to navigation is caused or is likely to result. Clause 30 of the Bill contains particulars of various operations which are excepted from the restriction imposed by Clause 29, and those exceptions include, under subsection (c)— the carrying out of any dredging operations (including the deposit of dredged materials) authorised by any local Act in accordance with the provisions thereof. There is not included in the exceptions any operation which a harbour or navigation authority is empowered to carry out for the removal of any vessel sunk or stranded, or of anything causing or likely to cause an obstruction or impediment to navigation.

I submit that these operations, for which most harbour and other authorities in England and Wales have powers, include, under paragraph (c) of Clause 29 (1), the removal of an object from the seashore below low-water mark, and, under paragraph (b), a deposit above high-water mark. I may say that this is not a hypothetical difficulty. Let me tell your Lordships that His Majesty's ship "Worcester" sank in the Thames off Grays in Essex on August 29 last. In order to make it safe for navigation she had to be lifted and moved to a position further inshore, where, at low water, the depth of water was twelve feet. Under the provisions contained in Clause 29 (1) (b), it would in future be necessary for the Authority to communicate with the Minister of Transport and obtain his consent in writing before such an operation could be carried out.

It is obviously impracticable for a harbour or other authority to obtain consent in writing from the Minister of Transport before carrying out the work and removing such a wreck. The principle which is adopted in such cases is that where the necessity arises of disposing of a wreck at the earliest possible moment, the Port of London Authority summon their wreck raising apparatus and get to work at once, because the fairway may be impeded. I submit, therefore, that for the purpose of clarity the exceptions asked for in this Amendment should be conceded. I press the Government to accept this, and I do so with great diffidence because of the concessions which they have already made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 30, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Rochester.)

LORD SHEPHERD

The principles involved in Clause 29 arise out of the causing of obstruction. The removal of a wreck, on the contrary, is a removal of obstruction. In the first place, we were of opinion that it was not necessary to include in the list of exempted functions the proposals contained in the noble Lord's Amendment. Nor do we believe that it has been necessary up to now, for the purpose referred to in this Amendment, to make application to the Minister of Transport. However, we have been in touch with the Minister of Transport, and we are now prepared to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in the hope that this will help in regard to the point about which he has been speaking.

LORD ROCHESTER

I am very grateful to the noble Lord and the Government, but I should like to make one point. We do not contest the fact that it is a removal of obstruction; but we redeposited the "Worcester" further inshore, and that, we contend, would, under this Bill, be an object deposited. However, as the noble Lord has accepted the Amendment I will not pursue the matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to subsection (1): (g) any work which or in respect of which a conservancy authority or a harbour authority or a navigation authority is by any enactment empowered to carry out or to grant a licence or permission to any other person to carry out where the approval by the Minister of Transport of the said work has to be obtained under any enactment other than this Act. The noble Lord said: If we regard the circumstances existing in the Port of London it will be found that the Port of London Authority have power under Section 243 of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, to grant licences for the construction of works of the nature referred to; and under Section 244 of the same Act there is a provision against carrying out such works without their having been previously approved by the Minister of Transport. Under that section, if such approval is not previously obtained, the works may nevertheless proceed if proper conditions are made to provide for the immediate removal of such works upon notice from the Minister.

The practice which has arisen in the Port of London is for permission to be given under Section 244 to the applicant on an undertaking that if the consent of the Minister is not obtained the works will be removed. That is the procedure at present adopted. But although this practice has worked exceedingly well under the existing law, it is difficult to see how it can be continued under the present Bill, not only because under Clause 31 the remedy for a breach of Clause 29 is the removal of the works but because regard has also to be had to Clause 38, which imposes a penalty of a fine for an offence under Clause 29. Obviously, neither the Port of London Authority nor any other harbour authority can possibly authorise a breach of a penal Statute. Thus delay must of necessity ensue, and I submit that that delay can be avoided by the acceptance of my Amendment.

In this connection I would add that I represented Rochester in another place for many years, and I am conversant with the Medway Conservancy Act. I would call attention to the exception under paragraph (e) of Clause 30 (1), under which an operation is not subject to the restriction in Clause 29 if it is any work to which the consent of the Admiralty … is required by virtue of any local Act.… The Conservators of the River Medway were granted powers by the Medway Conservancy Act, 1881, to grant licences for works similar to those in the Port of London Act; and by Section 136 of the Medway Act such works were subject to approval by the Admiralty. What this Amendment seeks to do, therefore, is to overcome the anomaly that we shall have works in the Medway relieved of the restriction, whereas works in the Thames will be subject to it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 30, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Rochester.)

LORD SHEPHERD

Your Lordships will have gathered that under Section 29, before certain types of work can be commenced there must be the consent in writing of the Minister of Transport. You will also have gathered that under Clause 30 there appears a list of exceptions; and the noble Lord is anxious that the Amendment that he is moving now should be included in that list of exceptions. The position that arises is rather curious, for under Section 244 of the Port of London Act, 1920, there is a provision that works in the Thames shall not be commenced unless they have been licensed by the Port Authority and then approved by the Minister of Transport. It also provides that if the Minister's consent has not been obtained, he may require the removal of the works. The practice at present is for the Port Authority to issue a licence and then to refer the case to the Minister for approval. This Bill does not seek to alter this procedure, and there is no intention that any such alteration should take place. I could have understood the noble Lord better had he been moving an Amendment the effect of which would have been to amend the Port of London Act, 1920, but his Amendment fails to do that. If the Amendment were to be accepted, we should have one Act saying one thing and this Act another.

Several other matters arise besides those mentioned by the noble Lord. Many of the older local Statutes do not give satisfactory powers as regards the protection of navigation, and Clause 29 will overcome this by bringing all works by third parties under control and by enabling the Minister of Transport to attach conditions—such, for instance, as the lighting of work—to his consent. However, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I can say, without giving him any firm promise, that we are prepared to look at this matter between now and the Report stage.

LORD ROCHESTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who is continuing the courtesy he has shown to us throughout. I should like to make one point. The difference between the existing position and the position that will arise under this Bill is that now we can give permission subject to obtaining the consent of the Minister later. But the new situation created is that it becomes a penalty under this Bill, and therefore we should be authorising a breach of a penal Statute if we gave authorisation. However, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and, needless to say, I accept his undertaking to consider the matter. Perhaps I may be allowed to put the Amendment down again so that we can discuss it in the light of what has been said.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I ask how much of this occurs on the seaward side? The Fourth Schedule says: The River Thames, above a line drawn from the London Stone, North Level, Isle of Grain, to the westernmost point of the boundary of the County Borough of Southend. As this Bill applies only to the seaward side, I should have thought that this contention might perhaps fall to the ground.

LORD ROCHESTER

The noble Lord will remember that I raised that point on Second Reading. We took exception to the description. If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 21 of the Fourth Schedule—

LORD LLEWELLIN

That is what I was reading from.

LORD ROCHESTER

—our jurisdiction goes much further than that. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Enforcement of Section 29

(5) A harbour authority in England or Wales shall have power to enforce the provisions of Section twenty-nine of this Act.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in subsection (5) to leave out "in England and Wales." The noble Earl said: I move this Amendment to seek information. I presume the word "power" refers to legal power. I would be glad of information as to its meaning here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 40, leave out ("in England and Wales").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MORRISON

The noble Earl is perfectly correct. As he knows, in Scotland prosecutions are instituted at the instance of the Lord Advocate, and the proper course would be for harbour authorities to report any contravention of Section 29 to the Procurator Fiscal.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clauses 32 to 36 agreed to.

6.42 p.m.

Clause 37:

Accounts of councils of boroughs.

37.—(1) The council of every borough in England or Wales having functions under this Act shall keep accounts of the sums received and expended by them in the exercise of those functions, and those accounts shall be made up and audited in like manner as the accounts of a council specified in section two hundred and nineteen of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which provides for district audit) and shall be kept separately from their other accounts.

(2) The enactments relating to the audit of accounts by a district auditor and to the matters incidental to such audit and consequential thereon shall have effect in relation to the accounts required to be kept under this section as they have effect in relation to the accounts of the councils specified in the said section two hundred and nineteen.

LORD KENNET moved to omit Clause 37. The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which relates to all boroughs and is one in which the Association of Municipal Corporations take a warm interest. This is the clause which subjects the accounts kept by all boroughs in respect of coastal erosion to district audit. I hope I shall enlist the noble Lord's sympathy in the case against the inclusion of this provision. It is dragging in by the heels a provision which is not necessary. I ask the noble Lord to agree that it is a bad thing to extend this provision of subjection to local audit to those cases where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. The present state of affairs is that all boroughs are subjected to the district audit in respect of some purposes, while some boroughs subject themselves voluntarily to district audit in respect of all purposes. Hitherto, the principle has been that others shall not be compulsorily subjected to district audit in respect of headings of expenditure where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. Why should it be appropriate or necessary in this case?—and particularly for the following reason: that this is a case where the general purposes of the expenditure will be closely under the superintendence and the attendant safeguards of the Ministry of Health, in consequence of the Minister's obligations and responsibilities upon the grant procedure. In past instances the expenditure of the borough has not been so subjected to district audit, and I trust that it may be possible in this case for the noble Lord to withdraw this unnecessary provision.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am rather sorry that on this occasion I am not able to meet the noble Lord's request. It is true that boroughs have their own methods of audit. It is also true that urban district councils and rural district councils come under district audit. It can be said also that in the case of boroughs where Government grants are involved, it is common practice for the audit to be done by the district auditor. If the audit in these cases were not done by the district auditor, it would still be necessary for the district auditor to go into the accounts before such grants are paid. Therefore, it seems much better, to begin with, that the audit should be carried out by the district auditor if afterwards the Government grant is involved. I hope the noble Lord will see his way in this case to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD KENNET

I must say that I am not perfectly satisfied with the position as the noble Lord describes it, either (according to my instructions) as a matter of fact, or as a matter of theory. As a matter of fact, I doubt whether it has been a matter of precedent or practice that, where there is a grant, there is subjection to district audit. I should invite some further inquiry into precedent on that point. As to principle, it appears to me that what the noble Lord is really advocating is a repetition of audit in respect of this particular sort of expenditure. On general principle this is not welcome to boroughs as a whole because it involves a further infringement of their autonomy and responsibility in the conduct of their own financial affairs. However, I will accept the explanation which the noble Lord has given and withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Clause 38 [Penalties for offences]:

LORD SHEPHERD

This Amendment is consequential on the new Clause which appears at page 27, line 23. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 25, at beginning insert ("Save as hereinbefore expressly provided,").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 [Service of notice and other documents]:

LORD SHEPHERD

This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 3, at end insert ("or other.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 [Savings]:

LORD SHEPHERD

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 33, after the first ("or") insert ("other").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

This again is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 36, at end insert ("other").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 40, leave out from ("the") to ("authority") in line 41 and insert ("board or").—(Lord Shepherd.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 43 to 45 agreed to.

First Schedule [Procedure for making Orders and Provisions as to the validity of Orders]:

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 18, after ("board") insert ("or other").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule [Provisions as to Orders restricting excavation of materials from the seashore]:

6.50 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved, after paragraph 1, to insert: ("(2) Where the coast protection authority cause notice to be published under the foregoing sub-paragraph, they shall serve a like notice on any catchment board, external drainage board, conservancy authority, harbour authority, navigation authority or river board whose area comprises land to which the draft order relates. (3) In this Schedule the expression 'external drainage board' means a drainage board whose area, or any part of whose area, is not comprised in the area of any catchment board and is not for the time being comprised in the area of any river board.")

The noble Lord said: Following discussions, the Government undertook to provide for these two points in order that drainage boards and other authorities should be given due notice when works or orders are to be undertaken. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 26, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(Lord Shepherd.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think this is only right and proper. We have had considerable discussion about the position of catchment boards and river authorities. They should know what the coast protection authority is doing, and I am glad that this provision is being made to ensure that they do.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

This is consequential on the previous Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 9, at end insert ("and shall serve a like notice on any board or authority on whom a notice was required to be served by sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

This, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 43, at end insert ("and shall serve a like notice on any catchment board, external drainage board, conservancy authority, harbour authority, navigation authority or river board whose area comprises land to which the interim order relates.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

Fourth Schedule [Waters excluded for purposes of definitions of "sea" and "seashore."]:

LORD SHEPHERD

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, line 23, after ("The") insert ("River.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN had given Notice of his intention to move to leave out paragraph 12 and insert— 12. The River Yare above a line drawn between the seaward ends of the harbour breakwaters at the entrance to the Haven at Great Yarmouth. The noble Lord said: I am afraid I am not very familiar with the River Yare, but I am told that the definition which appears in the Bill at page 47, line 32—namely, The River Yare above latitude 52° 35′ 30″ North. does not convey very much in that area; and if it does convey anything, it is not what they want. Therefore I submit my Amendment. But I think I would like slightly to amend it and move it in this way: The River Yare above a line drawn between the seaward ends of the piers … instead of using the words "harbour breakwaters." That, I am told, is a well-defined line, and one that everybody in the neighbourhood will understand. I believe it meets the case better than giving latitudes, degrees, minutes and seconds, as is done in the Bill. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 47, line 32, leave out paragraph 12 and insert— ("12. The River Yare above a line drawn between the seaward ends of the piers at the entrance to the Haven at Great Yarmouth.").—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I thought I might be in a position of slight embarrassment, because the noble Lord has amended his original Amendment. I think I can say that this Amendment is an improvement. Therefore, I have much pleasure in accepting it in the revised form.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I think I can put his mind at rest. Some people call them "harbour breakwaters"; others prefer to call them "piers." They refer to exactly the same place, but they are more commonly known in the district as "piers." It does not alter the line.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHEPHERD

I beg to move this last Amendment. This alteration of the line relating to the Adur is made so as to fit in better with the limits of responsibility of a local body of sea defence commissioners—namely, the Shoreham and Lancing Commissioners. In moving the Amendment, may I express my gratitude for the very great help I have received from noble Lords in all parts of the House on this the first occasion on which I have been involved in the Committee stage of a Bill. I appreciate it very much indeed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 17, leave out from ("the") to end and insert ("Old Shoreham Bridge").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

On Question, That the House be now resumed:

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, may I raise one point upon which it might be convenient to have some information. We have several discussions in view before the Report stage. Would it be possible at the present moment for some indication to be given as to when that stage is likely to take place?

LORD WALKDEN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. I am glad to inform the House that discussions on this point have taken place and, in view of the large number of items that require further consideration, it is proposed in order to allow adequate time, that we should defer the Report stage from February 8 to February 15, if that meets with your Lordships' approval.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.