KENT RIVER BOARD (HARBOUR OF RYE) BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 6 June 1962)

§ LORD KILLEARN

My Lords, I must declare my direct interest in this Bill because I am the President of the Port of Rye Protection Society, which went to the great expense and trouble of petitioning against it. It was naturally a keen disappointment to the Petitioners that the Preamble to the Bill was found by the Select Committee to be proved, but their disappointment was to some extent relieved by the decision of the Select Committee to accept certain Amendments which will help to safeguard navigational interests in the future. I confess that I find it astonishing that 599 these elementary safeguards should have had to be fought for and won at private expense. But, even now, the future of the port and harbour of Rye is left dangerously at the mercy of a drainage authority whose regard for amenities in-including navigation has been manifestly shown to be lacking. I should have thought that such a Bill should have been shelved at least until the passing of the legislation promised by Her Majesty's Government to deal with the whole question of water conservation and to set up new river authorities to serve the interests of all river users. That is the Bill on which we had a debate a few days ago in which I very briefly intervened.

My object now (and I have been told I must be brief) is neither to divide the House nor to criticise the Select Committee, but to draw attention to one outstanding fact which emerged from the evidence given by the Promoters of the Bill. The sum of £400,000 is to be spent for the direct benefit of only 6,000 acres of agricultural land which even now is valued at £100 an acre; that is an average rate of expenditure of £60 per acre, which seems quite a lot. Disregarding all its other defects, these figures alone suggest that it would be very unwise for the Government to allow this Bill to reach the Statute Book without further investigation from this financial aspect if from no other.

Before I sit down, may I remind your Lordships of what I said previously when I raised this question on, I think, March 1, when the Bill was referred to the Select Committee? I ventured to submit to your Lordships we are in fact a very odd people. We have recently had the example of a superb advocate, Lord Birkett, convincing the House that the loss of Ullswater was not in the public interest—and he carried the House with him, God bless him! It was the last speech he ever made and it was a magnificent effort. The House of Lords is here, thank Heavens! and it acted. I must not compare small things with great, but as a matter of fact the "great township of Rye" is in itself rather unique. It is a remains of mediaeval England, if you like. It is the last of the Cinque Ports. It is not actually a Cinque Port; it was a limb, which 600 is a curious subdivision, but it is the only Cinque Port harbour left. And these people, with all respect, come along with what is a drainage Bill at this enormous expense for 6,000 acres already drained.

I have been to see them. The 6,000 acres in question have already been drained—I refer to Shirley Moor; I have been to look at it. Why spend another £400,000 on that? Whatever we may say or do, they are going to sink a great obstruction in the middle of the river fairway. That cannot improve the prospects or attractions of the harbour. We are indeed a most extraordinary people. We have one or two things one might call national heirlooms left, and what do we do? Throw them aside with a flick of the finger; who cares? The public is not alerted. The Rye people are alerted; they are furious; but what can a poor humble member on these Cross Benches do to stop it? It wants public influence and the day will come—the day is not far off—when the public, when we all, will regret these things, these national losses. Now is the time; yet we go on fiddling, just letting things drift. My Lords, I have had my say.