CLAUSE 6.—(Power to do work for purpose of discovering minerals.) (Hansard, 11 October 1946)

§ Mr. Wilmot
I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days."
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide a minimum period of 28 days 510 which must be allowed for lodging objections. This Clause empowers the Minister to do work on land for the purpose of searching for minerals and before the powers are exercised notice in writing must be given to the owners who then have their right to lodge objections. There was a drafting omission in that we did not provide a period and the present Amendment provides a minimum period of 28 days for their further protection.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, at the end, to insert: Provided that, if such objection is duly made by a person carrying on a statutory undertaking on the ground that the exercise of powers under subsection (1) of this section may interfere with the proper carrying on of the statutory undertaking and such objection: is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, in the exercise of such powers, carry out the work specified in the notice referred to in subsection (2) of this section in such manner as may be agreed between the Minister and the person carrying on the statutory undertaking or, in default of such agreement, in such manner as may be determined by a person appointed by the Minister and the appropriate Minister. As the Minister is aware the public utility undertakings in this country, through their associations, have already represented to him that they have a certain apprehension as to the working of this Clause as it stands. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that as the Clause stands he has the last word in deciding whether the work is to be undertaken or not. In the ordinary way there would be no objection to that but in the case of public utilities acting under statutory powers a question may arise as to the relative priority in the public interest of the work that the right hon. Gentleman desires to undertake and of the work being undertaken by these public utilities. What would certainly reassure a great many of the people concerned would be either some inclusion such as that proposed by the present Amendment or, indeed, some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that where a public utility is concerned there will be consultation with the Government department interested in the subject matter before an irrevocable decision is taken. May I give a somewhat extreme example? Supposing the right hon. Gentleman wants to burrow under the Great Western Railway. Will he, before undertaking that operation and 511 disrupting the railway services, see perhaps whether the Minister of Transport has any views on the subject? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give some assurance on the matter but I am sure he will appreciate that a certain amount of genuine apprehension exists.

§ Mr. Wilmot
I very willingly give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman seeks. Of course we should consult not only the statutory undertakers but anybody whose property was going to be affected by the projected operations. Anyone who is familiar with the machinery of Government will know that ministerial consultations would certainly take place as a matter of course before any of these operations were begun, not only with the Minister of Transport in such a case as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but with the Minister of Agriculture if a farming interest were affected or with the President of the Board of Trade if other industrial interests were concerned. It is unthinkable that operations of this kind would be entered into without such consultations. I think it would not be wise to accept this Amendment, which puts the statutory undertaker in a special place, but I willingly give the much more general undertaking that there will be consultations with the appropriate departments before these operations are begun.

§ Mr. Boyd-Carpenter
In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Woodburn)
I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, at the end, to insert: (7) If any person wilfully obstructs or interferes with the exercise of powers under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act. This Amendment arises from an omission, since no sanction was included in the case of a breach of possession in regard to this Clause. The Amendment inserts the same provision as that which exists in other parts of the Bill.

§ Major Vernon (Dulwich)
I suggest that the Minister should think again with regard to this Amendment, which appears to be creating a new offence and introducing inordinately heavy penalties. In 512 these days the creation of a new offence should be scrutinised with the utmost care. People find it difficult to know what they may not do, and every additional offence that is written down is a source of worry to the general community. In this case I think it is very bad indeed. The Minister has the right to send his emissaries over people's land for the purpose of discovering minerals and working minerals, and penalties are threatened for anyone who obstructs this process. The words are: For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by the foregoing provisions of this section any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may pass, with or without animals or vehicles, over any land. Let me take a possible case. An emissary of the Minister has the idea that something may be found on a Welsh farm— perhaps in a mountainous district where minerals are more likely to be discovered. He goes in his sumptuous car over the farmer's land and wants to know all about it. The farmer is annoyed by this and next time the car is about, he locks up a gate. The emissary comes along, finds himself obstructed, and says, I am going to put the law in motion." He does so, and what can he achieve? If he can prove his case the farmer can be sentenced: (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; or (b) on conviction on indictment, to penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds, or to both such penal servitude and such fine. It seems to me that this desire to acquire powers and impose penalties is completely out of hand, and I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension because while such a ridiculous case as he instances might be possible, I think we must pass Acts of Parliament on the assumption that the people who carry them out are intelligent and use common sense. Secondly, there are other cases which would not come within his description at all. For example in my own experience there was, at the beginning of this war, an old lady who, because she would not pay the taxes on a piece of land described as a golf course, refused to allow anyone on it even to grow food. Under the processes of the law it took a con- 513 siderable time at the beginning of the war even to get cattle grazing on the land, which had been derelict property. The owner had pot the golf course people off it six years before, and would not allow anyone to use it until the long processes of the law had been gone through. This might be an urgent matter in the search for minerals, and there might be some obstinate and obstructive person—we have a few of them in this country—who would refuse to assist. Penalties have therefore to be prescribed. It is an offence which will be covered by the general power of imposing up to £100 by way of fine and three months by way of imprisonment. We have to assume that the courts would exercise those powers with good sense. We cannot specify particular fines for particular degrees of offence. We must give general powers, and rely upon the courts.

§ Mr. Richard Law
During the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) asked the Minister of Supply who would be responsible for surveying for the raw materials with which this Bill is concerned in the Dominions of the Crown outside this country. The Minister of Supply replied that the Colonial Secretary would have that responsibility. I think it is common ground that there is not much likelihood of the Minister of Supply discovering the prescribed substances in this country in large amounts, while the likelihood of discovering them in other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire are very much greater. In the Dominions, that is a matter for their own Parliaments, of course. While the Colonies are very largely self-governing, it appears that the Colonial Secretary has a responsibility under the Bill—.—

§ Mr. Blackburn
On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Major Milner, for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the Colonies in this Debate, in view of the fact that the Bill, I believe, deals only with prescribed substances in this country?

§ The Chairman
I understand that the Bill is restricted in application to this 514 country, and I doubt if questions affecting the Colonies are in Order.

§ Mr. Law
Am I not entitled to ask the Minister what provision will be made, and what duty will be imposed upon the Colonial Secretary, for the implementation of this part of the Bill, in the regions that come under his command? I think it would have been in Order for me to put down an Amendment suggesting that the Colonial Secretary should have certain duties. In preference to doing so I am asking the Minister to what extent the Colonial Office is in this field, and to what extent the Colonial Secretary will have responsibility to do in his area what the Minister is required to do in this country.

§ Mr. Wilmot
If you will be so good as to allow me, Major Milner, I shall be very pleased to answer the question which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed to me. The responsibility for survey and control in the Colonies rests with the Colonial Governments, under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Colonies in which radioactive raw materials are thought to be likely have already made regulations governing the survey and exploitation of them. Those regulations follow a pattern suggested by the Ministry of Supply and they are designed to secure control to the Colonial Government, in respect of survey, exploitation and export. In addition, the official geologists who advise the Ministry of Supply on surveys for radioactive materials and minerals are in close touch with geologists responsible for such work in the Colonies.

§ Major Bruce
Has the Minister similar arrangements with the Secretary of State for India?

§ Mr. Wilmot
Yes, Sir, that is the case.

§ Mr. Blackburn
This is an extremely important aspect of the matter. It is most unsatisfactory that the right hon. Gentleman should have raised it, but I thought the Minister ought to make some statement in order to make it clear to the House which is being done.