HL Deb 02 March 1961 vol 229 cc231-42

3.19 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Powers of local authorities]:

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD CRAIGTON)

This Amendment meets an undertaking given in the other place. Under Clause 2, subsection (1) (a) and (1) (b), the local authority can carry out maintenance and management of works which are not grant-aided. Works of a more major character require a scheme, are grant aided, and are provided for in paragraphs (c) to (f) of subsection (1). There are bound to be borderline cases, and the description "major", which we wish deleted, might deter a local authority from proceeding with a scheme at all, because they could not themselves afford it, and they might not think the work was sufficiently major to qualify for grant aid. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2. line 3, leave out ("major").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1) (e), after "watercourse" to insert "or reservoir". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the second Amendment, standing, in the names of my noble friend Lord Wise and myself. This Amendment, if accepted, would allow a local authority to construct an intermediate or hillside reservoir for the purpose of holding back, and to some extent controlling, the flow of a river in spate. It would have the dual purpose of a delaying action and of providing a useful reserve of water against the time when it was less plentiful. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, in the letter which he was kind enough to send to me after the Second Reading debate, pointed out that subsection (1) (e) of Clause 2 does, in fact, permit the erection of a barrier, embankment or other works as a defence against flooding, and that if the construction of a reservoir were necessary for such defence, it would be possible under the Bill as it now stands.

We are pressing this Amendment because it still seems to be necessary to insert the word "reservoir", first of all to underline this possibility which, apparently, had not occurred to the Government when the Bill was drafted. Another reason why it should be accepted, in my view, is that normally reservoirs are constructed with the sole object of storing water, and although other powers are certainly available to local authorities for that purpose, it is usually a very complicated legislative business, especially when one authority wishes to construct a storage reservoir in the area of another.

Under this Bill the procedure is very much simpler—in fact, the Bill invites a local authority to co-operate with others in order that works may be constructed in the area of another local authority. In our view, it is quite likely that (shall we say?) a valley or lowlands local authority might find it a most attractive proposition to seek agreement with an uplands authority to the construction of a hillside reservoir in their area which would minimise the risk of flooding and serve as a useful reservoir of water. We regard it as a substantial contribution in some circumstances to the reduction of the risk of flooding, and we hope that the Government will accept our Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, at end insert "or reservoir".—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD WISE

I should like to support the Amendment, and I do so because of personal, practical experience. Some years ago I happened to own a farm in the Midlands, next to which was a very large reservoir. Originally the old monks had had a pool at their priory, and this was extended to some fifteen acres. This reservoir served a very useful purpose, because part of my land was low-lying land, by a river, and was likely at times to flood. The water was held up in this particular reservoir, with the result that the land in the valley did not flood nearly as much as it would have done had the waters in the uplands always been flowing down to the river and the canal there. The reservoir also served another purpose, in that in a very dry season the water was let out from the reservoir and into the canal, making it possible for the canal to be used. So I think it a very good idea to insert the word "reservoir" into this particular clause, and I hope that the Minister will agree.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to the two noble Lords for the way in which they have explained this Amendment. I am in sympathy with its intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says, the Bill as it stands gives a local authority power to carry out the sort of work which is envisaged, or the sort of work which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to in his speech—even the local authority right up the hill, where a reservoir or some water catchment would help them to get together in a scheme which would be grant-aided. What I had to satisfy myself about, in asking the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, was why one could not add the word "reservoir". I felt that I should not leave the impression that it did no harm to leave it in the Bill; there must be a concrete reason why it should not be added.

I am advised that the term "reservoir" is usually associated with other existing statutory powers for collecting and stor- ing water. If we accept this Amendment—in the knowledge, of course, that the Bill already does what is wanted—although my right honourable friend has the final decision in approving any scheme, a local authority might consider that grant-aided flood prevention work should also be used to provide grant-aided water supply; and that is not the purpose of this Bill. This Bill is for the prevention of flooding and not for the purpose of the storage of water, for which powers exist under other Acts. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment, on the firm assurance that the Bill does all the things he would wish it to do.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful for the noble Lord's explanation, but I am afraid that my noble friend and I cannot agree to withdraw the Amendment. Whilst it is gratifying to know that the noble Lord did look to see if there was a reason of substance why this word should not be gratuitously added. I am afraid that the reason given does not seem very substantial. What it amounts to is this: that the Government do not want to run the risk of a local authority getting grant-aid for a reservoir under the guise of preventing floods. That is virtually what the reason for the rejection of the Amendment amounts to. It does not seem a convincing reason at all, because the local authority, and those who will co-operate with them in agreeing the scheme, have to submit that scheme to the Secretary of State, and the prime reason for the acceptance of any scheme will be that it 'will make a contribution to flood prevention. The only reservoir which could be approved in the scheme is one which could be shown directly to minimise the risk of floods by helping to hold back the water. My noble friend Lord Wise gave an actual example of exactly how that would work. It is a well-known factor in preventing floods, and it is, in my view, one of the most substantial ways (I will deal in a later Amendment with the other substantial way) of contributing to flood prevention.

It seems to me that this Bill places almost complete reliance upon the widening and deepening of watercourses. In most cases, that would merely be a more speedy transference of surface water from one area to another, and it is precisely the people down below in the valley, who will be getting the water more quickly, who will suffer from floods. That is why we feel that this is an important Amendment and that the Government should accept it. I am afraid that we cannot withdraw it.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am sorry that I cannot help the noble Lord. I know that my right honourable friend has all the powers, but we feel that it would be misleading Ito the local authority, and wrong, to add the words in the Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

I appreciate that the noble Lord wants to be helpful, and I understand that the actual terms of the Amendment might be misleading, as holding out false expectations to local authorities that they may get subsidy for something for which this Bill never intended them to get it. Bat is this not just a matter of the form of words? Could not my noble friend's point be met by making it clear in the Bill that a reservoir for the purpose of flood prevention would conic within its terms, whereas a reservoir for the purpose of the storage of water would not? I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of Whitehall to find a form of words to meet exactly what is intended and no more.

LORD CRAIGTON

The noble Lord, with his great skill, will appreciate our difficulty. At the moment, the Bill refers to "any new work" which may be necessary, but directly one says "reservoir", then we have something else, shall we say, a wall, which may be built right up a hill, and the matter is in doubt; the wider the terms and the less getting down to details, the better the Bill. That is the trouble. The words "any new work" mean what they say—any new work for securing the end which the Bill has in mind.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord referred to my skill, for which I thank him very much. Perhaps if he and I got together, we might be able to devise a form of words which might meet my noble friend's point.

LORD CRAIGTON

Indeed, but it might be too long. We cannot clutter up the Bill.

LORD STONHAM

I am grateful for the help of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, will meet us to this extent: that he will avail himself of my noble friend's skill, and also of the great skill which I am sure is available in his own Department to devise a form of words to meet this point without "cluttering up" the Bill. In any case, it is only a small Bill of 16 pages and it cannot hurt the Bill if a dozen or two dozen words are added. If the noble Lord will agree to look at this Amendment again, I am willing to withdraw it.

LORD CRAIGTON

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I will certainly look at this again, in the spirit in which we have discussed it, but the noble Lord should not take that as an undertaking to put something in the Bill.

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to say to my noble friend that I heartily support the Bill and its purpose. May I ask whether the words "any new work" do not mean any new work of any kind?

LORD CRAIGTON

Clause 2 (1) (a) (ii) says that the operations would be any barrier, embankment or other work for defence against flooding;

LORD STONHAM

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.34 p.m.

"() the planting of trees."
LORD STONHAM

Obviously, on the ground of the owners of the respective land. That does not constitute a difficulty, because the Bill explicitly states that a local authority who wish to sponsor a scheme can combine with other local authorities or with private owners. So there is no difficulty whatsoever about that. Surely this is an example of the mutual helpfulness and cooperation for which Scotland is famous. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of pointing that out. There are cases where this would obviously be desirable, and it is no answer to say that the local authorities are not the proper people to carry out the work of planting trees.

THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I am bound to disagree with him, because very few local authorities know the real way to plant trees. It takes an expert to do it.

LORD STONHAM

I am grateful to the noble Earl for confirming another point which I was about to make. If the noble Earl had heard me aright, he would have heard me say that it was no answer to say that local authorities are not the proper people to plant trees—because in fact the Bill permits a local authority to enlist the co-operation of other authorities, such as the Forestry Commissioners, the local landowners. I am glad that the noble Earl is with me on this aspect. There must be cases where such a policy would be desirable, but it cannot be carried out unless this Amendment is accepted.

Although I have not had the experience of other noble Lords in this matter, I have had sufficient experience to know that it is no good getting rid of surplus water by widening, deepening and strengthening watercourses. That merely makes the water flow more quickly. But we must think of where it has to flow to and the consequences of the overflowing of a river in spate. In my experience, this kind of work usually means the transferring of flood water more quickly from one area to another. If the Government are really serious about wanting to prevent, or minimise, flooding in Scotland, they must, in my view, accept this suggestion, because the only way of preventing flooding is to slow the flow of water, to find a means of holding it back. And the acceptance of this Amendment would provide that means. The Bill give local authorities the right to cut down trees: it should also give them the right to plant trees, within the meaning of this Bill. I cannot see why the Government should find any difficulty in accepting this Amendment. Surely it would constitute an improvement and help to prevent flooding in Scotland.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 14, at end insert— ("() the planting of trees.").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD SALTOUN

I think the noble Lord has asked for support from this side of the Committee, and I will give him an argument which I do not think he used in his speech and which is probably the most important result of planting trees that could be mentioned; that is, that the planting of trees is a great preventive of denudation. Anybody who sees the effect of the cutting of trees and the denudation that follows must feel that that is probably the most important point. My difficulty, however, is that I fail to construe the Amendment as drafted and its insertion in the Bill. Clause 2 (1) (f) refers to the reinstatement of land damaged by operations carried out by virtue of this Act, and the execution of works for the protection of land against damage likely to be caused by such operations. The noble Lord moves to add, "the planting of trees". What does that mean?

LORD STONHAM

If I may answer the noble Lord, I would say that the Amendment would constitute a new paragraph; it would not be paragraph (f) but a new paragraph (g).

LORD SALTOUN

I thank the noble Lord. I am answered.

LORD CRAIGTON

As the noble Lord knows, planting trees as a barrier for defence against flooding can be carried out under this Bill. When it came to more extensive planting of trees it would be for the Secretary of State to decide whether the planting came within the definition of trees planted as a barrier for defence against flooding. If we accepted this Amendment, what would happen would be that the whole scope of the Bill would be very much widened. This is a little Bill for defence against flooding, for protective works, and if we widen the scope to include substantial afforestation we should have to widen the scope under other headings as well. In the other place this sort of suggestion was resisted by the Government. I do not say that the planting of a belt of trees or afforestation might not be necessary, but the noble Lord may not know that, if it is, it can already be done by a local authority on their land and can be grant aided under existing legislation.

LORD STONHAM

May I interrupt the noble Lord? The difficulty there is that it is all land of the local authority. As I tried to make clear, in most cases a local authority will initiate a scheme and want to plant trees on somebody else's land.

LORD CRAIGTON

I agree with the noble Lord. The local authority, to do this, have to acquire the land or cooperate with another local authority. But the noble Lord will realise that they can acquire land; if they have the powers to do it, they can plant, if necessary, and they can manage; and they can obtain grants under Section 3 (3) (d) of the Forestry Act, 1919, with the approval of the Forestry Commission. So, to that extent, existing legislation goes over the line between conservation and protective works. I feel that I must, on behalf of my right honourable friend, ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, partly on the ground that the local authorities have the powers under other Acts, and also because it would be wrong to widen the Bill to the extent that he envisages. I am sorry to turn him down, but I hope that for those reasons he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

I am sorry to have had that reply My noble friend and I do not feel that we can withdraw the Amendment. We thought that what the Government had in mind was some serious attempt to minimise flooding in Scotland, and we are disappointed. The noble Lord may recall that on Second Reading I described this Bill, perhaps a little unkindly, as "a fiddling little Bill". He has now confirmed my view of it, except that he has omitted the word "fiddling". I agree that if the Amendment were accepted it would widen the whole scope of the Bill: in other words, it would make it a real Bill to help prevent flooding in Scotland. I can only express my disappointment that the Amendment has not been accepted. But at least Scots will be aware that it is only a little Bill; it can prevent only a little flood, a small puddle. I express the hope that the opportunity will be given to us to have a real Bill before us one of these days which will help to prevent flooding in Scotland.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Flood Prevention Schemes]:

LORD CRAIGTON

This is a clarifying Amendment. Clause 2 rightly excludes work on a sewer or water main (for which there are often separate authorities) from the operations that a local authority may carry out as part of a scheme. But Clause 12 envisages arrangements being made by a local authority for the sewerage or water authority to carry out any necessary work such as diversion of a sewer or something like that. Under Clauses 12 and 13 the local authority may make contributions to the sewerage or water authority and claim Exchequer grant on them. But one has to read as far as Clause 12 to learn the extent to which sewerage and water can come within the scope of the Bill. This earlier reference is a signpost—and no more than a signpost—tto Clause 12 and makes the Bill much easier, to read. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 7. at end insert ("and, where in connection with any such operations it is intended that operations for the diversion of a sewer or a watermain shall be carried out by a sewerage or water authority (whether a different authority from the local authority or not),the scheme shall also specify those last-mentioned operations").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause. 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 [Contributions to and by local authorities]:

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment strengthens the local authority's entitlement to grant aid. As I explained on the previous Amendment, a local authority may make grant-aided contributions to a sewerage or water authority for work done as part of a flood prevention scheme. There will probably be cases where the sewerage or water authority is a department of the same parent authority as that doing the flood prevention work. I am advised that in such cases, unless this subsection is added, it might be held that any payment, say from a local authority's flood prevention scheme account to its sewerage account, would not be "a contribution" for the purpose of the Bill. So the cross entry would not rank for grant. This Amendment removes any doubt on that score. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 17, at end insert— ("(2) Where a local authority are a sewerage or water authority and as such incur expenditure in carrying out, or paying compen- sation in respect of, any operations such as are specified in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection in relation to a flood prevention scheme made by themselves, they may appropriate to the accounts of their sewerage, or, as the case may he, water, undertaking such sum as they think fit in respect of that expenditure; and any such appropriation shall he deemed to he a contribution tinder this section towards the expenditure.").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Interpretation]:

LORD CRAIGTON

This Amendment corrects an omission. In every Act requiring the service of notices it is a common form provision to define what action is required to prove service of the notice. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 18, at end insert— ("(6) For the purposes of this Act the service of any notice, scheme or other document on any person, body or association may (without prejudice to any other method of service) he effected by sending it to him, or, in the case of a body or association, to the secretary or other similar officer thereof, by post at his usual or last known residence, place of business or office.").—(Lord Craigton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.