HC Deb 17 October 1950 vol 478 cc1910-6
Mr. Higgs

I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, at the beginning, to insert: Subject to the provisions of this subsection.

The Chairman

I think that this Amendment and the next Amendment on the same page, line 40, may be taken together.

Mr. Higgs

If the public have any hope about this Bill, it is that we shall put an end to those games which are played when one authority after another who have pipes, wires or drains under streets come along in succession to dig their holes. That, we hope, is one thing we shall stop; we hope they will all come along at the same time. It is to give power to those responsible for streets to impose conditions upon those who seek to carry out such work as to when the work shall be carried out that we have tabled these two Amendments.

We hope that the highway authority, and others, when they are approached by the Water Board, for example, will cast their minds around to see whether the electricity, gas or drainage people are likely to want to lay mains; and then, if possible, try to ensure that all the work is done at the same time. It is with that end in view that we seek to give them the power when the plans, specifications or sections—or the documents—are referred to them, to say, "Do not do your work until two months' hence, because at that time we know that some other work is to be done in this street." In that way we hope, if these Amendments are accepted, that a great deal of inconvenience to the public may be saved.

Mr. Barnes

I think that this proposal is going a little too far. Statutory undertakers are now under very heavy responsibility to provide and maintain their supplies. Both this Clause regarding the submission of plans, and Clause 28 represent agreement between all the undertakers on this question of timing. As I understand it, the hon. Member is now proposing that the authority or managers of highways shall be able to fix an indefinite time ahead in which this work is to be done. That appears to me to be going a little too far. Surely agreement can be obtained without an arbitrary decision that the work is not to be done until a whole lot of other work is done, which may not at that stage be sufficiently advanced to be carried out.

To propose that interested parties, as a condition of their plans being approved, shall not start their work until a time specified by other interested parties, is something which would not work out in that spirit of co-operation which we have secured in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment, but will leave it under the general arrangements we have made both in Clause 4 and, later, in Clause 28.

Mr. Higgs

Perhaps it is not optimistic to hope that some of the words spoken in this place will reach the ears of those concerned, and that the spirit of co-operation to which the Minister has referred may occur. Having called attention to the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes

I beg to move, in page 7, line 6, at the end, to insert: unless the notice is withdrawn in the case of each such authority or managers who have duly given such a notice (in which case the plan and section as submitted shall be deemed to have been settled by agreement between them and the undertakers). This is a drafting Amendment. No express provision is made for the circumstances in which an authority or other interested party raises an objection and then subsequently withdraws that objection. This Amendment makes provision for that contingency.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I beg to move, in page 7, line 43, to leave out from "also" to the end of line.45, and to insert: concerned as the street authority or street managers or as a transport authority. This Amendment seeks to put right something to which I drew attention on Second Reading. It is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it. It seems a little unnecessary to say: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to a sewer authority, or to a bridge authority or managers, who are also an authority or managers concerned as being also the street authority or street managers or a transport authority concerned. There seem to be a lot of "alsos"—I do not know which ran third. I think it can be shortened, and it is in an endeavour to shorten it that we have put down the words on the Order Paper, of which the meaning is precisely the same.

Mr. Barnes

To shorten discussion I propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)

I beg to move, in page 8, line 27, to leave out paragraph (b).

The purpose of this Amendment is to call attention to the special position of dock and harbour authorities under this part of the Bill, and to seek to retain the safeguard of arbitration in the circumstances under this Clause where a dock and harbour authority is concerned.

The position is that a dock authority is a transport authority under the Bill, and as such is what is called "an authority concerned." As I understand it, and I think that the Committee will agree, by Clause 3 which we have passed there is provided that, before the parties can be allowed in the street, the authority concerned must be supplied with a plan and section showing the work proposed. Under the Clause, if the authority disapproved the plan or seeks to modify it then the undertakers, those who propose the work, may refer the matter to arbitration.

It is for the arbitrator to settle the facts concerning the plan and section, and it is a very valuable safeguard. For example, if a dock authority has a scheme for a new dock and takes the view that the proposed street works will greatly interfere with the project, they are entitled to make representations, and those representations will be considered by an arbitrator.

5.0 p.m.

Although gas, electricity and water will be the greatest concerns and all will be subject to the safeguard of arbitration, a new situation arises under Clause 4 (8), which places a Government oil pipeline in a special position. The effect of paragraph (b), which I seek to delete, is to prevent an arbitrator from requiring any modifications of a plan and section if such modification would involve the lateral diversion of that pipeline. It also appears that the Minister of Fuel and Power is entitled to disregard the fact that a dock or harbour authority has disapproved the plan and section.

The sort of situation which is envisaged and against which I seek to guard is this. To take, once again, my example of a dock and harbour authority which has it in mind to build a new dock, let us suppose there is a Government oil pipeline which, by its position, would render that scheme impossible, whereas, on the other hand, by diverting the pipeline, the scheme could become possible. I submit that there is really little reason why there should be a special situation created so far as Government oil pipelines are concerned, and that there should be retained for these dock and harbour authorities the right to make representations which will go to arbitration, as would be the case in such a situation in other instances.

The Attorney-General

I am not sure that I altogether followed the hon. and learned Member in moving this Amendment. As I understand it, dock and harbour authorities have exactly the same protection in the Bill as is afforded to other transport authorities, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that dock and harbour authorities are transport authorities for the purposes of this Bill, and that they can arbitrate in any case in which it is open to any other transport authority to go to arbitration.

The whole point of the provision of the Clause which the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to delete from the Bill is to protect the Government oil pipeline from any interference which would involve shifting it laterally. If the Committee accepted it, the Amendment would have the effect of removing that protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate the purpose of the Clause as it stands, and he knows that there is at present in the country a very extensive network of pipes for the strategic distribution of petrol, and that the Minister of Fuel and Power was authorised by Statute to maintain it in its present position as a permanent installation, though he himself has no power at all to move it laterally without getting the consent of the owners of the land on which the pipeline is laid—consent which they may not be prepared to give unless substantially remunerated for giving it.

Where the pipeline actually passes across or along a road, the Minister is the statutory undertaker, and, therefore, has to conform, like any other undertaker, to the general street works code and has to give a plan and section to the interested parties if it is to be moved, but shifting a pipeline laterally might, I am assured, involve great technical difficulties in particular cases. Apparently, owing to the mechanical way in which the pipeline is operated, a lateral shifting of the line at a particular point in a road might necessitate shifting a whole length of pipeline in open land—and most of it is in open land and not in the roads—to enable the petrol to flow freely through the system of pipes. If any lateral shifting of the pipeline was involved, the Minister would have no statutory power to shift it at all, but would have to go to the owner of the land and apply for consent to shifting it laterally, which might involve great delay and great expense.

In general, I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly desires can be achieved, and is in practice achieved, by administrative arrangements. The Minister will always, of course, consider any proposal that a pipeline should be shifted laterally. I submit that, in a matter of such obvious national and military importance, the Minister should not be placed under a statutory obligation which may result in damage to the efficiency of the project.

Mr. Hay

While I support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), I can appreciate the great difficulties of the Minister of Fuel and Power if this Amendment were accepted in its entirety. I hope, however, that the Government will also appreciate that dock and harbour authorities are placed in similar difficulties which they find very embarrassing. The Attorney-General has told the Committee that, if the Minister of Fuel and Power was required to shift one of these Government oil pipelines laterally, it might occasion great technical difficulties, and that is a very important matter. The situation frequently occurs, or it will occur under the Bill, when a dock or harbour authority wishes to extend in some way by building a new section of dock or quayside, that a Government oil pipeline is situated in the middle of the area, so that it might have the effect of stultifying the whole project.

It might be that the shifting of the pipeline laterally, even if permissible, could not easily be done without the gravest consequences, to which the Attorney-General referred, to the flow of petrol through the pipes. In that case, surely, something could quite easily be arranged between the two parties concerned. I appreciate that it is difficult for the Government to give a specific assurance about this matter, but it might very well be dealt with by mutual consultation between the parties, and I would ask the Government, between now and the next stage of the Bill, to consider another Amendment which might have the effect of leaving the matter to the authorities concerned—the Minister of Fuel and Power, on the one hand, and the dock or harbour authority, on the other—to negotiate where there is a possibility of the pipeline holding up development.

If the Minister is satisfied that no serious damage will be done by lateral shifting of the pipeline, and if that is desired by the dock authority, they might come to agreement about it. At the moment, as I read the Bill, such an arrangement is prevented, but I hope that a little reason will prevail and that something may be done to relieve dock authorities of these difficulties.

The Attorney-General

We are willing to have another look at this, though I do not think that the effect of the Clause is as the hon. Gentleman has stated. There is nothing to prevent the Minister of Fuel and Power agreeing to the lateral moving of the pipeline if it is deemed to be reasonable in all the circumstances, but I am sure we could not bind the Minister to say he would do that. What we felt difficulty about was the provision of arbitration and the possible placing on the Minister of a statutory obligation to order it when it might be contrary to the public interest to do so. However, we will certainly look at it.

Mr. Nield

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), I am grateful to the Attorney-General for his clear explanation and for the assurances he has given, and also for saying that he will look into the matter between now and the Report stage, but I wish to make one point of explanation. I did not, of course, intend to convey that the position of docks and harbours was different from that of other authorities, but only that they had rather a special interest in this part of the Bill. I think the Minister will appreciate some of the difficulties with which they may be confronted in their projects if there is not to be some diversion of these oil pipelines. I feel that the assurance that representations which are properly made to the authorities will be carefully considered will be a great help to dock and harbour authorities, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.