HL Deb 14 May 1953 vol 182 cc514-32

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, we had a very helpful debate in your Lordships' House about ten weeks ago on the East Coast Flood Disaster, and in replying to it I was able to announce the Government's intention to introduce a Bill giving river boards special emergency powers so that, when plans for restoring our East Coast sea defences were ready, there should be no delay in acting upon them. That is the Bill which is now before your Lordships.

I said at the time (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 180, col. 1029): We think that this is an essential and urgent measure because it would obviously be disastrous if, when works had been planned and were ready to go ahead, they were held up by procedural delays. We have to choose between drastic powers and the risk of entering next winter inadequately prepared to meet the normal winter tides and storms. I feel that there can be no doubt what our choice ought to be and must be. What I said then serves very well, I think, as an introduction to this Bill. The need for the many things that were done during February and March was clear enough. The exertions we then made had their reward. The river boards, I think, ought to be congratulated on their prompt action and the good work they put in after the floods. The emergency repairs withstood the spring tides. Now we are in the summer, and unless something abnormal happens there should be no serious threat of further flooding for a time but we cannot in any way afford to relax our efforts. We must be ready for the storms next autumn and we must, by then, so far as possible, restore our sea defences at least to the standards that existed before the floods. River boards are at the moment pressing on energetically with this permanent work. Much is already in hand, and more will be started in the near future as plans are completed and contracts made. Work costing some £8 million to £10 million is now in progress or being planned. There will be a reasonable amount of consultation with persons and authorities affected, but no formalities must stand in the way of getting this work done. Provisions contained in the Bill are designed to ensure this.

The main purpose of the Bill is set out in Clause 1 (1) (a). It is the constructing, improving or repairing of embankments for the defence against sea water of the areas flooded or threatened with flooding as a result of last winter's storms in the Kent, Essex, East Suffolk and Norfolk, Great Ouse, Lincolnshire and Hull and East Yorkshire river board areas. It is in these areas that the principal damage was done, and most of the work of reconstruction falls to be done by these six river boards. Under this clause the Minister may authorise them, in accordance with proposals submitted, to do this work of bank construction. With limited exceptions, which I shall mention, no notice of the proposals is needed under Clause 3 of the Bill, because no one can deny the need for the bank, and engineering considerations will determine the line on which it is to be built. Similarly, under Clause 4 (5), formal planning consent is not needed for this work. Under Clause 1 (3) (b), bank construction may be done on a building, or on the site or curtilage of a building, and may also be done without formal consent on Crown land and on land belonging to a Government Department. Clearly, this work of bank construction must be done quickly and cannot be subject to the ordinary processes of notification, receipt and consideration of objections, and possibly public inquiries, which, as your Lordships will agree, are proper in normal times. Similar provisions apply to earth-getting combined with bank construction and access road works so combined. These phrases are defined in Clause 18 (2) of the Bill.

The other works that may be authorised under Clause 1 (1) of the Bill contribute to the main purpose of bank construction. Under paragraph (b), authorisation may be given for earth-getting—that is to say, the winning of materials for bank construction. Under paragraph (c), authorisation may be given to construct or improve roads to give access to the bank from public highways; and under paragraph (d) temporary housing accommodation may be built for people engaged on the work. None of these three classes of work may be done on a building or on the site or curtilage of a building; nor may they be done on Crown land without consent. Under Clause 3 (1) of the Bill a fortnight's notice of any such work to the owner or occupier, and notice in the local Press, must be given; and the Minister will consider any representations made before authorisations are issued. Clause 2 deals with the special case where the construction of a bank involves interference with a highway.

This is an Emergency Provisions Bill and under Clause 1 (1) authorisations may be given during only the present year. Things authorised may be done in the period ending June 30, 1954. We hope that all the necessary authorisations will have been given by the end of this year and all the works done by the middle of next year. I assure your Lordships that we do not intend to continue special powers any longer than is necessary and can be justified. But we cannot tell at this stage what setbacks may be met. Under Clause 1 (2), therefore, the period in which authorisations may be given, or the works period, may be extended for another twelve months by order, subject to Affirmative Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.

I think I need only refer briefly to the other main provisions in Part I of the Bill. Clause 4 enables authorisations to be given subject to conditions, and also confers various ancillary powers on river boards in connection with works authorisations, including powers of entry, which are subject to certain limitations where occupied premises are concerned. This clause empowers river boards to restore land on which work has been done and in appropriate cases the Minister may require such restoration. Clause 5 deals with the maintenance of works constructed under a works authorisation, and Clause 6 applies the ordinary land purchase provisions of the River Boards Act to land for which a works authorisation has been given. This clause also makes it clear that the river boards' powers include a power both to acquire an existing easement and to create a new easement in their favour.

Clause 7 enables river boards to use private ways to gain access to the site of authorised works, and Clause 8 confers on the river board the same power as the occupier himself has to exclude persons from land subject to a works authorisation. It is most important that the works done for the defence of the community against further flooding should not be hindered or damaged by crowds of sightseers. Clause 10 deals with compensation for various things to be done under the Bill, and your Lordships will notice that paragraph (a) of subsection (1) is drafted in very wide terms. The draft Order providing for compensation has to be presented to each House of Parliament, and no works authorisation can be given until it has been so presented. A draft Order is nearly ready, and I would prefer not to discuss the possible contents of it now.

Clause 11 deals with Government contributions towards work, and I should explain that this clause is necessary only because the existing power under the Land Drainage Act to pay grants is limited to things done under that Act, so we have to provide also for things done under this Bill. Clause 12 provides that the powers of the Bill are additional to, and not in substitution for, those contained in the Land Drainage Act, 1930, and the River Boards Act, 1948. I would stress this point, because much of the work of restoration or improvement of sea defences will, in fact, be done by agreement or under the ordinary powers of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. We have already instructed river boards that they should, so far as possible, proceed under these powers, and should resort to the exceptional powers conferred by the Bill only when work cannot be done quickly under normal powers.

My Lords, it is essential that nothing should hold up this vital work. We now have only four and a half months before the autumn equinox in which to complete at least the restoration of our sea defences. In some areas, also, improvement works must be done before the autumn.

So much for Part I of the Bill. Part II deals with an entirely different aspect of the floods—namely, that of repairing the damage caused to farm land when the sea broke through at the end of January. All told, the flooded area was just short of 160,000 acres, to which must be added several thousand acres—we cannot yet say with any precision how much—impregnated with salt by the passage of the sea water up the ditches and land drains beyond the area actually inundated. To get all this land back into production again is a national responsibility. The operation will be long and expensive, and it is not a matter that falls within the scope of the Lord Mayor of London's Fund. Perhaps I may digress for a moment to congratulate the Lord Mayor on the resounding success of his appeal. To have reached a total of over £4 million—to which the Government are contributing pound for pound—is a truly remarkable achievement.

We feel sure that if the land is given proper treatment much of it will be fit for ordinary cultivation by 1955. The worst of it may take another two years. The Government propose to give generous financial help towards restoration. Part II of the Bill will enable the Government to make acreage payments to those occupiers of agricultural land that was damaged by salt water, provided that the occupier conforms to an approved programme of rehabilitation I can assure your Lordships that these programmes will be kept very flexible. There will be nothing cut-and-dried about them. All we ask is that the farmers will cooperate with us in this task. Acreage payments will be payable for allotment gardens, but it would create a serious administrative burden if each allotment holder had to be paid directly by the county agricultural executive committee in the same way as farmers will be paid. For allotment gardens, therefore, payments will be made to local authorities, allotment societies and similar bodies who have an interest in not less than half an acre.

In addition to these acreage payments, owners and occupiers will be relieved of almost all the cost of getting the drains and ditches running freely again, repairing and renewing fences, hedges, farm roads and farm bridges, removing debris from the fields and grubbing up and replanting orchards.

Perhaps I may say a word about Clause 15, which applies the sanctions of Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947 to the rehabilitation of land damaged by salt water. We are confident that the overwhelming majority of farmers who suffered so heavily from the floods will readily co-operate in the long and arduous process of getting their land back into productivity. But if this is to be treated as a national responsibility, your Lordships will agree, I feel sure, that powers must be taken to deal effectively with any wilful obstruction. I hope that your Lordships will accept the emergency powers contained in this Bill as right and necessary; and that we shall have the help of your Lordships in passing this measure through all its stages speedily so that it may receive the Royal Assent before the Whitsun Recess. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Carrington.)

2.55 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, it had been arranged that my noble friend Lord Listowel would speak on the Second Reading of this Bill, but I regret to say that, for some reason unknown to us at present, he is unable to be here. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not mind my trespassing on your time for a few moments. Some days ago we were approached by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House with a request to expedite the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House, in order that it might become law at the earliest possible date. We were quite willing to agree to the suggestion made, because we realised the importance of speed, not merely in the interests of those who have been affected, but also in the interests of the nation itself, in view of the coming of next winter. Therefore, we shall not work very heavily in changing the character of this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. This will not be because we fail to see ways in which it could be improved, but because we feel that speed is even more important at this stage than changing some of the provisions of the Bill.

I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord who has just spoken that farmers who do not carry out their duty in the recovery of the fertility of their land will be thoroughly dealt with. I agree with the noble Lord that farmers, in the main, not only are industrious workmen in their own interests but think constantly of the needs of the nation. However, there are among them, as in every walk of life, men who will neglect their duty, and it is our business to ensure that they do not profit by it. This Bill is to operate only for a short period, and during that time certain actions will be taken without the usual arrangements for examination and determination of what should be done. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed that there shall be a periodic report on the progress made under this Bill, and whether such reports will be placed before Parliament. If Parliament is to pass this Bill through quickly, without too much investigation, then we should be kept aware of what is actually taking place. Because of the need for speed, planning consent will not be necessary for any action taken by the river boards in carrying out the work which they will be called upon to do. Nevertheless, I presume there will be consultation with the persons responsible for planning. It seems to me that, if that were done, there would be no great risk of these new works interfering with the future planning of the area which they cover.

My final word is this. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned the Act of 1930, covering drainage, and the Act of 1948, dealing with coast erosion.

LORD CARRINGTON

The river boards.

LORD SHEPHERD

Yes, the river boards. I take it that at some time we may be informed whether the Government contemplate any major legislation of a more permanent kind, in order to enable works protecting the coast to be carried out over a wider area than may be possible through the smaller authorities. It will be helpful if we can be told about that matter, because we shall then know exactly what we are doing. With those few words, I would say that noble Lords on this side of the House will support the Second Reacting of the Bill and will see that it is carried through quickly.

3.0 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very good explanation to your Lordships of this most important Bill. He was good enough to ask me whether I was going to speak on the Bill, and I told him I was not. But there are one or two questions I think my noble friend, Lord Listowel, was going to raise, and hope your Lordships will allow me in his absence to refer to them. First of all, the noble Lord spoke of his forecast of the Bill in your Lordships' House in reply to a Motion that I myself was allowed to raise. I do not know whether he knows it, but the fact that he made that forecast to your Lordships' House has been criticised in certain quarters. I cannot imagine why. I see no reason at all why a responsible Minister like the noble Lord should not make pronouncements to your Lordships' House on any subject which affects our discussions, and I am very glad personally, as I think most of your Lordships will be, that he took that opportunity.

May I ask these questions? The noble Lord gave us the figures of the immense area flooded in this terrible disaster last January. Has all the water now been cleared off the land? The last we heard was that there were still 12,000 acres inundated. Has the water all been drained away, and is the land now dry—I do not mean a few acres, but is there any large area remaining under water? Secondly, the noble Lord spoke about the Lord Mayor's Fund. We all echo what he said about this remarkable achievement and the great debt we owe to the Lord Mayor for his energy in the matter and to the public, both here and abroad, who have subscribed over £4 million to this worthy Fund. Is it possible to say how much of that has been expended?

The other matter to which I should like to refer is this. This Bill is still only a temporary measure; it is still emergency legislation. It is very important and we certainly support it, but it really does not tackle the whole problem of the defence of the East Coast against further flooding. I presume that we are waiting for the Report of what I may call the Waverley Committee, which is a very powerful Committee set up to examine the whole question. I was wondering whether the noble Lord has any indication as to how long the deliberations of that Committee may take. The Committee cannot be hasty. It is an immense subject, and they must take expert advice in all sorts of directions, but I think it would be useful if we could have some indication. I was rather disturbed at the time when the announcement was made by the noble Marquess who leads the House, that Lord Waverley had accepted the chairmanship of the Committee that is to examine the future administration of work on atomic energy. I protested at the time, and said that I hoped that this delving into the future administration of atomic energy research would not detract from the noble Viscount's very important work as Chairman of this Committee. I did not receive any reply at the time, but I hope that this added burden on Lord Waverley's broad shoulders will not mean any delay in the work of the Flood Committee over which he is presiding, and whose findings will be of the greatest importance for all of us who live on the East Coast of England.

As I say, this is still only emergency or temporary legislation to take advantage of the summer months to make good the worst of the weaknesses in the defences, and to prevent, so far as we can, any trouble next winter. But the whole problem will still require tackling on a national basis, and I am sure the noble Lord is well aware of that. If the matter is left in his hands, I am sure we can have every confidence.

3.4 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I rise to give my full and enthusiastic support to this Bill—support which I am sure it is bound to have from all parts of your Lordships' House. I do so the more readily as I feel that the Bill goes far to implement the Government intention, as was originally promised in another place, to treat this calamity on the East Coast as a matter of national responsibility. It is not surprising that the Bill does not attempt to cover the whole scope of the calamity and the damage. But undoubtedly it goes straight to the very root of the flatter in providing for the repair and strengthening of the sea defences, and the rehabilitation of the farmlands. In both these matters time is the urgent consideration, and such a bold attempt to tackle these problems must of necessity make wide and sweeping provisions, the execution of which is almost bound to displease somebody and which I think, cannot avoid the label "drastic." However, quite rightly, the bigger issues are held to prevail; and the fact that the Bill contains measures which would probably normally be unacceptable to your Lordships, and also to honourable Members in another place, is, I think, amply justified by the circumstances, having regard to the entirely temporary nature of the measures and the safeguards provided.

In this connection, I feel that attention should be called to the very large amount of work which was carried out in Committee in another place. To my way of thinking, that work has vastly improved the Bill and, consequently, left a much lighter task before your Lordships. There are, nevertheless, aspects about which I am not yet entirely happy, and about which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may have something to say in due course. The first is the question of the integration of the whole of the work to be carried out by the various authorities responsible. The Bill gives special and extra powers to the six river boards concerned, and to them only. I hope to be reassured, first, that the Minister will see to it that their respective schemes of operations will fit neatly into one another, so that not only repair is achieved but, preferably, improvement of the sea defences and certainly ensuring that there are no weak links left.

Then there is the question of action by the various local authorities controlling coastal areas within the areas of the river boards, and who have local responsibilities for action under the Coast Protection Act, 1949. No doubt the reason these local authorities do not figure in the Bill is that they already have sufficient powers to deal with the present situation which the river boards lack. But the point about which I am mainly concerned is that the efforts of all these authorities, and possibly in some cases even of private individuals, shall be so co-ordinated as to avoid any wasted work or duplication, or, again, weak points. I have no wish to complicate the issue, in view of the short time which is available in which to do so much, nor do I wish any cumbersome system of consultation to be set up which will handicap the Minister in his difficult task. But I sincerely hope that it will be possible to pay the close attention which is due to this rather important aspect. There is another point on which I should also welcome some reassurance. Ample provision is made for compensation where damage of some sort or other occurs after the Bill has received the Royal Assent, but I should like some further reassurance, in view of the measures which have already been started—and rightly so, in order to avoid delay—that there is ample provision for compensation for any such damage that may already have occurred.

If I may turn now for a moment to the rehabilitation of the agricultural land, here again I feel that the proposals in the Bill are good and that the system of acreage payment will prove satisfactory—although the present provisional forecast of the rates per acre may possibly require second thoughts, particularly in the case of the normal farm cereal crops. The main point, though, has already been mentioned, and that is that prompt and energetic action must be taken with regard to the land and that any scheme must carry with it the obligation for such action to be taken. Experience has shown, notably in the case of large areas of land after the war, that such action, allied to various modern methods now available for the purpose. restores the land with quite remarkable rapidity to its full and proper use. It is a matter of very great regret that the Dutch also should have had to tackle this all over again, and it is most sincerely to be hoped that our efforts now will be as expeditious and effective as theirs were when they tackled it previously.

3.12 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I am sure I shall be expressing your wishes when I offer congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on his excellent and most thoughtful maiden speech and say that we all hope that we shall hear from him very frequently in the future. I should like in a few words to join those who have welcomed this Bill. I do not think that anyone who has seen even a small part of the devastation can fail to realise the magnitude of the problem or the necessity for speed, both in the restoration of our defences and the bringing back of the land to full production. Nor can we fail to appreciate the magnificent work which has already been and is now being done, or to be impressed with the immense power of the sea. The essence of the problem is speed, and I agree that on that ground alone the wide temporary powers given in Part I of this Bill are justified. It would be a tragedy if essential work were to be held up by procedural delays.

I feel that the Bill goes as far as is possible to combine the necessity for speed on the part of the river boards with the obvious rights of the individual to be warned of their intentions and to object where he thinks the proposals are unreasonable, and also to claim compensation. I understand from the noble Lard, Lord Carrington, that very shortly we shall be hearing what the terms are. I think, too, that the scheme of acreage payments and other compensation for agricultural land, ditches, orchards and so on, are generally acceptable and should encourage the speedy restoration of our farms. We shall have further opportunities of discussing the schemes in detail when they are laid before Parliament, and I am sure that any small anomalies will be ironed out then. We all hope that this Bill will help those who are doing work on the defences and the farmers and farm workers in the fields. The measure of its success will be the speed with which our defences are restored and the crops are growing again in our stricken fields.

3.16 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, I should like to add to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, welcoming the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I also hope, as I am sure all noble Lords do, that this is only the first of many opportunities we shall have of listening to him. This Bill is one demanding speed and expedition in its execution. It is one which I believe has the support of all Parties in the State. Certainly, this was evidenced very clearly in another place by the great co-operation between all sections of thought in the House, with the purpose of making the Bill as efficient as we all hope it will prove to be.

The difficulties are immense. They are largely local; and between the localities, very often, there are great differences in conditions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will give us the assurance which has been asked for, that there will be the closest consultation between those who are occupying the land and those who are responsible for making the plans for remedying the conditions that now obtain. I should like to know whether there is any more definite information with regard to the extent of the acreage which has been under water. I believe that in another place the Minister alluded to about 158,000 acres. I am not quite sure whether that figure is correct or not. It would be very helpful if we could know more about it.

I will not go into detail regarding the terms of the Bill. Those who have already spoken with intimate knowledge of the position, such as Lord Amherst, have dealt with the details. They have also been dealt with in a number of points to which allusion has been made previously in the discussion on this Bill. It is a matter of emergency, as the Bill indicates; but I should like to add my voice to that of another noble Lord who spoke, who hoped that the Bill might have one further result beyond merely coping with the disaster which has occurred in the areas affected by this flooding: the consideration of the problem as a whole, all over the country. I am under the impression that there are many places in which our defences against flooding by the sea are not adequate to withstand any great stress. I hope that, as has been said, out of evil may come good and that out of the experience we have had in this particular disaster we may devise some more general and valuable schemes which may enable the various area authorities in the country to deal more adequately with this constant menace.

The general outlook on the matter is, I feel, very important. Every acre of this country is required for the increase of our food supplies. We know very well the conditions that obtain not merely in this country but all over the world, with its growing population, and we know that it is absolutely essential for the welfare and the continuity of the civilisation of the world that there shall be a great increase in the food production of the world. Under those conditions, anything in the nature of what at any rate I hope the Government proposals will be in this particular measure, designed for emergency though they may be, will surely have a continued good effect on the welfare of the country as a whole.

The whole country has been stirred by the effect of the disastrous occurrence of these floods. I, for my part, hope that it may lead to the devoting of still greater attention throughout the population to the essential and basic functions of agriculture, and so enable those of us who are engaged on a really great national policy to have the backing of still wider experience. That has been the case in other circumstances in other directions. I wish to conclude by thanking the Government for the measure which is in front of us. I am sure we shall pay the greatest attention to it in Committee. It was most remarkable, to observe the co-operation that existed in the other place, not on all but on most subjects, and the willingness to assist in making this a really effective measure for the benefit of those parts of the country which have been so grievously hit.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should like to say how sincerely we who sit on these Benches join with all your Lordships in giving our wholehearted support to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not have great trouble with it, even from the friendly questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.

3.22 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, the provisions of this Bill headed Compensation and Government contributions in Clause 10 appear to need a little consideration. My noble and learned friend Lord Maugham suggests to me than one must consider the case where the land, the value of which has been diminished, is in settlement; or, again, suppose the land belongs to an owner who has let the land to a tenant. It may be that the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill when it becomes an Act will diminish the value of the land to the tenant or diminish the value of the land to the owner, or affect the land that is in settlement. There seems to be nothing in Clause 10 which says what is to be done in that case. I can imagine a case where the right thing to do would be to pay compensation to the trustees of the settlement. On the other hand, I can imagine a case where the tenant may be the person who has really suffered by the exercise of the powers, and he ought to get the compensation; or, again, in another case it may be the landlord. It is not very easy to ascertain by examining the text of Clause 10.

It is quite true that subsection (2) of Clause 10 says that a draft of an Order for this purpose shall be laid before each House, and that that gives the House the opportunity of criticising it; but I would ask the noble Lord and those who advise him: is that a good way to proceed? Should not the clause contain some indication of the way in which this matter should be dealt with? Should we not in Clause 10 provide something to the effect that the Order shall direct who is to get the compensation or in what proportion it is to be got? I do not mention this with any desire to obstruct the proceedings. It is not my own inquiry, for I am not very familiar with these things. My noble and learned friend Lord Maugham is much more familiar with them and he asked me to mention this point. If I have stated it approximately rightly, possibly I may be treated as raising the point for him as well as for myself.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, may I just add that in ordinary cases between landlord and tenant, as I know from an all too long experience, it is necessary that each party should have a say: the landlord and the tenant must appear before somebody—an arbitrator, it may be, to put their points. Of course that would not be done, and probably could not be done, unless there was something about it in the Bill. I would add only this: that the tenant for life, who in many cases has the larger claim, may die before the hearing comes on, and it will be difficult then for the remainder man to establish a right to the compensation, when it comes to be assessed, unless there is something in the Bill providing to that effect.

3.26 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, the first thing I should like to do is to join in the congratulations of my noble friends Lord Amherst and Lord O'Hagan on the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. It was very pleasant indeed to hear him, and all your Lordships will have been impressed by his speech, not only for what he said but also because of his father, for whom all of the younger members of your Lordships' House had the greatest possible affection. When we left the Services at the end of the war and were overawed, timid, raw and even more nervous than we are now, the noble Lord's father led us by the hand and nursed us through those early days. We are abidingly grateful to him for that. I hope we shall hear the noble Lord on many more occasions.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the helpful attitude which he and the Opposition have adopted over this Bill and for allowing it to go through so quickly. There was a full discussion of the Bill in another place. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that Her Majesty's Government were most co-operative in their attitude there, and many Amendments were accepted to meet the Opposition's point of view. We are grateful to the noble Lord and his Party for allowing the Bill to go through so rapidly. He asked me several questions. He suggested that, since we were spending a great deal of money, there should be periodic reports. I will consider that suggestion, but I should have thought that, if necessary, Questions might have been put down by noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House to find out how the progress of these defences was going. I can assure him that we at the Ministry of Agriculture constantly have these things in mind and, indeed, are well aware, week by week, of how things are progressing.

The noble Lord also referred to the question of planning consent. The position is that bank construction, earth-getting combined with hank construction, and the making of access roads, are not subject to planning consent, but all the other ancillary works, such as development for housing for the people concerned in the bank construction, will require planning consent. But even where planning consent is not necessary, the river boards have been instructed to notify the planning authorities and keep them well informed of what they are doing. Probably that will meet the noble Lord's point of view. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, raised the question of a bigger, long-term Bill to deal with the whole question of sea defences. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, really answered the question himself. I think it would be premature to talk about any further legislation while the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, is sitting. I am afraid I cannot say when the Committee will report. They have a great deal of evidence to take and a large amount of work to do, but I know they will do it as quickly as possible. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, need fear that my noble friend Lord Waverley will find that he has too many commitments. He spoke of the noble Viscount's broad shoulders, and I am sure that those shoulders will be broad enough to deal with the two Committees mentioned.

As to emergency legislation, I would remind Lord Strabolgi that the River Boards Act is a comparatively new Act, and if these floods had taken place only three years ago, instead of having these half-dozen or so authorities in charge of the sea defences on the East Coast there would have been something like twenty-five to thirty. The last of these river boards was set up only last year. They have not had very long to get into their stride and I think all your Lordships would agree that for such a young body they have done extraordinarily well. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also asked me about whether there was any land still covered by water. All the surface water has gone. The land is dry, but of course it is still very impregnated with salt.

I was also asked by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan what was the total acreage. He said that my right honourable friend the Minister in another place said that it was 158,000. As usual, my right honourable friend is right—it is 158,000, so far as we can tell. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, asked me about the Lord Mayor's Fund and how much had been spent. That is, of course, entirely a matter for the Lord Mayor, but we do know that about £1 million has been sent out already to local relief committees. Other than that I am afraid I have no information. My noble friend Lord Chesham asked me about the liaison between river boards with adjoining areas. I assure him that there is the greatest possible liaison, and that as all these schemes must be submitted to the Minister for approval, he will be able to provide that liaison himself and the engineers will be able to check whether or not the schemes are satisfactory.

As regards coast protection authorities, my noble friend will realise that they deal mostly with coast erosion; that is to say, they are concerned with cliffs and things of that kind, and broadly speaking, those authorities do not come very much into this Bill. The reason why we have not included them amongst those who are able to use these powers is that we think that they have sufficient powers already to deal with such matters as do come under their jurisdiction. I draw the noble Lord's attention to Clause 5 (4), (a) and (b), which makes it an obligation on the river boards to inform the coast protection authorities when certain things are done.

My Lords, on the question of compensation, there is no question of doubt about compensation for damage done after the passing of this Bill: but as I understand it, he is worried about what happens regarding compensation for damage done before the Bill becomes an Act. Again, I do not think there can be any doubt that a good deal of damage was done—and rightly so—in order that the sea defences should be repaired as quickly as possible after the floods. So far as the works were within the powers of the river boards, Section 34 of the Land Drainage Act provides for the payment of full compensation. So the river boards must settle claims for compensation under Section 34 of that Act, and of course they must also meet any other valid claims. The expense which they incur in this way is, I think, undoubtedly a part of the general expense of restoring the sea defences, and as this will necessarily have been incurred before September 30 it will qualify for the 100 per cent. grant.

I feel very hesitant about answering the point put by my noble and learned friends, Lord Simon and Lord Maugham, two ex-Lord Chancellors. I am advised that Clause 10 is wide enough to enable compensation to be paid to any person whose interest suffers damage, and that the draft Compensation Order will provide for the interests which are to be compensated. That should suffice. But I will look into the point again and will let both noble and learned Viscounts know the result. I think I have answered all your Lordships' questions.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Forward to