HC Deb 31 March 1982 vol 21 cc380-94
Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to move amendment No. 12 in page 21, line 32 at end insert— '(3A) If the Corporation is of the opinion that the modifications specified in a direction given under this section could impair the safe operation of the pipe-line, it shall inform the Secretary of State and submit alternative proposals. In the absence of agreement on how the modifications are to be carried out, the matter shall be determined by arbitration.'. I think that it is as well at the outset to explain the purpose of the amendment. We perhaps got into bad habits in Committee, wandering around the point before returning to the actual purpose of the amendment—and very valuable that was. We thought carefully about this amendment. If the corporation believed that the modifications could impair the safe operation of the pipline, it would inform the Secretary of State in any event, but before dealing with alternative proposals and arbitration I ask the Secretary of State how this would work without the amendment.

In the past couple of days, a number of us have met people working in the industry who came here to protest. A very sensible group of people came to talk to us. They put too many points for my liking about problems of safety as a result of the changes. The arguments were not made with bravado or for the sake of making them, but the question of safety arose far too often for my liking. I leave that matter there.

How does the system work at the moment? The fear that it does not work properly is the reason for the amendment and the request for arbitration. In proceedings on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, the present Minister of State put forward an impassioned argument for arbitration on a similar issue. He said that it was a vitally important point and something about which the industry not unreasonably feel very strongly".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 10 July 1975, c. 1504.] We are now in Opposition and I use exactly the same argument.

It has been put to me that the integrated system of the Gas Corporation operates at pressures from 100 psi to 0.5psi. With regard to modifications to planned lines, the Secretary of State's directions are restricted to pipelines above 7 bars, but he can direct the location of junctions in any part of the pipeline. The powers of direction therefore have potentially far-reaching consequences. A decision affecting one part of a pipeline may have repercussions throughout the system. Gas may be supplied to premises by more than one route. In the event of pipeline failure it will still be possible to supply gas. Indeed, British Gas does rather well in guaranteeing supplies as it did last winter, particularly in the Northern regions and in Scotland where gas was re-routed by means of the reticulated system.

The extent to which the ability to guarantee supplies will continue depends upon the degree to which the Secretary of State or his staff choose to use the powers of direction over technical matters. My inquiries reveal that such powers are unknown elsewhere in the world. The Government talk as though common carrier provisions were well established overseas, but that is not so. There are a number of voluntary carrying agreements, but there are no cases in which there is a rigid carrying obligation and technical decisions are taken out of the hands of the pipeline owners.

Our request for arbitration arises out of the fact that decisions may be taken out of the hands of the pipeline users. Without our amendment, the situation could be extremely serious. If the Secretary of State wishes, he may direct the corporation to increase capacity or to locate junctions to his specifications. That means that he has the final say. Yet the Under-Secretary of State said that Directions of the Secretary of State cannot take away responsibility from BGC…If the system leaks after the modifications have been carried out, it is clear that the sole responsibility must be with BGC."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 11 March 1982; c. 918.] 9.15 pm

That is extremely difficult to understand. The sole responsibility rests with BGC and yet it is the Secretary of State who takes the decision. The amendment seeks to allow the Gas Corporation to refer back to the Secretary of State any modification that it believes to be dangerous and to submit alternative proposals. In many cases it will not be a clear-cut issue. There will be a need for professional engineering judgments.

What are these modifications? The Secretary of State can direct an increase in the capacity of an existing pipeline. That means that a compressor will need to be built, which will require a highly complex decision. Judgments must be made on existing and future demand and on where that demand will come from. I understand that the balancing of the pipeline and compressor requires a great deal of effort. The Secretary of State could direct the building of a compressor that would have an adverse effect on the economics of transmission and on the provision of future gas supplies. If the third party requires the carriage of gas using BGC pipes which have no spare capacity, BGC will have to work out how to provide the additional capacity that will take into account present and future demand. There is no spare capacity in the system, so these powers of direction may be used more frequently than we expect.

In some instances the gas corporation will not be able to carry the gas direct to the customer's premises, and it will be necessary for the private supplier to use his own pipeline to take the gas from a suitable point on the gas grid system. Our anxiety relates to the location and type of junction that is used.

These technical difficulties were recognised in previous gas legislation, in that supplies direct from bulk transmission mains can be refused. I do not know what party was in power when that was done. Such a proposal would not have been in a party manifesto, but would have come from the Department itself. It is part of the main work of Government that is necessary whichever party is in power. One cannot alter the facts of life with a party manifesto.

There will be a change. A Gas Corporation customer could be refused a connection from such a line while an identical customer, or even the same customer, could receive a connection under a direction from the Secretary of State. Once that is done, it is the responsibility of the Gas Corporation, although the decision is taken by the Secretary of State.

In Committee, and previously, the Government stated that they did not doubt the British Gas Corporation's intentions. If so, surely the amendment is sensible. It gives to the organisation responsible for the carriage of gas the final say in the manner in which modifications are carried out. It does not hinder private sector access to the corporation's pipelines and ensures that it can be done in a manner that allows all present and future customers to take advantage of the integrated network.

There may be disagreements in technical matters of this nature. The amendment provides for arbitration. I accept that the method of arbitration would have to be considered in another place.

Many of my arguments apply to clauses 16 and 17. Clause 15 is concerned with planning the transmission and the most suitable network. Amendment No. 12 states: If the Corporation is of the opinion that the modifications…could impair the safe operation of the pipe-line, it shall inform the Secretary of State"— which I presume it does now— and submit alternative proposals. If the argument continues, it goes to technical arbitration.

At this time of night, and as we near the end of our consideration of the Bill at this stage, I shall not go on to dream about whether we shall win or lose the amendment. With the exception, perhaps, of those who produce or read technical journals, very few will ever know that we have discussed it. However, it is important that we do not cut corners on safety. These are highly technical matters involving, for example, reticulated gas systems—I rather fancy "reticulated" having discovered it today. We should put our minds to all these systems and joints about which I know precious little—I hope that I shall never have to put my mind to them again—if safety is involved.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

First, I compliment the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on the extreme honesty of his approach. I pay tribute to his remarkable knowledge of reticulated systems and his sound determination to wipe all these matters out of his mind for ever as soon as tomorrow dawns.

On the face of the amendment, it seems reasonable that the British Gas Corporation should not be held responsible for carrying out modifications to which it may have objections. I had hoped that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South would tell us rather more about the form of arbitration. It seems that the arbitration might take a considerable time. When discussing a previous amendment the right hon. Gentleman appeared rather worried that delay would be caused. It seems that the proposed arbitration could lead to considerable delay. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give us his views on how long the arbitration process will take, how it will be carried out and who will arbitrate.

I did not have the great pleasure of considering the Bill in Committee. Therefore, I do not know whether at that stage much light was thrown on the type of direction that the Minister might give. Until it is proved otherwise, we must presume that Ministers are sensible people, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. After 32 years in the House, I live in hope that things will improve. However, we must not presume that Ministers will give directions that will be clearly dangerous. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us on the consultation that he will have with the corporation—presumably it will be fairly elaborate—and I hope that he will reassure us on the expertise to which he has access and the method by which any directions will be carried out.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

I am sure that we would have all been delighted if the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) had been with us in Committee. It would have been a source of great pleasure. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister would not have taken long to nominate the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute, if they had been asked, instead of one of the Members who in fact served in Committee.

The amendment seeks to rectify the clearly unsatisfactory situation that prevails in the modification of pipelines. I implore the Secretary of State to accept the amendment. If any part of the Bill is crying out for amendment, it is that which concerns the modification of pipelines.

As I have said, I am glad that the Government have seen fit to accept half the logic of the argument that I used in Committee when I moved an amendment to raise unrestricted sales from 1 million therms to 3 million therms. The Secretary of State tabled amendment 8, which we have accepted tonight. However, the fact remains that between 25,000 and 2 million therms unrestricted use, subject, as far as I can see, to only minimum constraints, will be available. I am grateful for any small mercies that the Government are prepared to give us. We all know, having served those endless hours in Committee, that the small mercies have been small indeed. Nevertheless, I am happy to accept those small mercies rather than none—half a loaf is better than none.

Mr. Dalyell

While we are on the subject of loans, it might be appropriate, as the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) is also in the House, to voice the real concerns that were put to us during the Committee stage, especially on junctions, by the National Farmers Union. There is also the seeming discrepancy between the letter from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central on 25 March to Sir Richard Butler and that from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on 29 March about public inquiries. Will my hon. Friend accept that I gave notice to the Government that I would raise the matter, not in the form of an amendment, but at an appropriate stage? Either on clause 15 or 16 is the appropriate moment to do so. I hope that these rather complex issues of public inquiries that bother the National Farmers Union can be sorted out, especially with regard to junctions.

Mr. Brown

I accept that. It is something of which we should not lose sight. We had a considerable debate in Committee and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is right in saying that he asked for a commitment that we would be given some information on Report. I recall the fairly lengthy discussion that we had on the issue raised by the National Farmers Union and the concern that it expressed.

The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) is not here, but I recall that he and I had a lengthy discussion in Committee on the subject of field drains. We even got on to the subject of stone drains. I admit to being almost on terms of friendship with the hon. Member. I was almost afraid that I should have to spend half my summer recess on his farm picking taffies.

In Committee the Under-Secretary said that in practice the constraint would be one of safety. That being the case, why cannot the Government accept the amendment? At the moment, even where the British Gas Corporation, with its wealth of experience, tells the Secretary of State that any given modification is unsafe, he still has absolute discretion to override that advice simply because he thinks fit.

To add insult to injury, the British Gas Corporation will be responsible for the continued safety of the whole network. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of Stale will be brutally stupid or anything like that and simply disregard the advice of the British Gas Corporation, but there might be a conflict of advice and the Secretary of State can be out on a limb, having to make up his mind on the advice offered to him. Ministers have to do that every day, because civil servants tend to offer a series of options. It does not make the life of the Minister any easier when, at the end of the day, he has to ponder the options.

The normal option that a Minister must ponder does not involve public safety to such an extent. The BGC operates, in the national interest, a network of about 250,000 miles of pipes, all within narrow pressure ranges. The whole system is fine-tuned and should not go wrong. When the network went wrong we had the King report, which resulted in a mains renewal programme. However, before that happened there was a series of explosions.

It is not my job as the Member for Newcastle, West to put fear into either my constituents or the constituents of any other right hon. or hon. Member, but we should bear in mind exactly what happened before that major mains renewal programme was carried out. There was a series of extremely nasty explosions.

9.30 pm
Mr.Dalyell

Does my hon. Friend also recollect that in Committee I produced much evidence from such constituents as Mr. Bob Struthers and Mr. Chris Gorman along exactly the same lines? The events are not confined to the Newcastle area, but are in the minds of trade union officials in Scotland.

Mr. Brown

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that I did not create the impression that the problems were confined to the Newcastle area. They are nation-wide.

The Secretary of State need not give reasons why he directs a modification. Although he is duty bound to consult the BGC, he is not duty bound to listen to it. If he has already been nobbled by civil servants—he may be very busy with Cabinet meetings—he may not be too intent on listening to the BGC. It reminds me of the old chestnut about consultation being: I am going to tell you what to do and what I am going to do—when you have had your say I am going to tell you how I have done it. If that is the proposed consultation, I hate to think of what we shall have in the future.

Public interest will not be best served if the British Gas Corporation is overruled. It has some of the best safety standards in the world, with some of the most experienced gas engineers. If it says that any given modification is unsafe, for my money it is definitely unsafe. Although the Secretary of State will receive representations on modifications from equally experienced engineers, their experience is in oil technology, which is very different from gas. The chances of confusion or accident with such a finely-tuned mechanism as the transmission system will become infinitely greater.

In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said—I regret to say with absolute seriousness—that, if the BGC was unhappy with the safety provisions arising from modifications, it could go to court. Their Lordships do not understand basic economics, let alone the finer points of gas safety. I would be happy to leave public safety on the streets to Lord Scarman, but heaven help us if he must adjudicate on public safety under the streets. I doubt whether he or his colleagues would wish that burden to be put on their shoulders.

The Under-Secretary of State gave the game away in Committee when he said: To leave the details of the Government's modifications entirely in the hands of the corporation would, I fear, be tantamount to asking the private supplier to sign a blank cheque."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 11 March 1982, c. 918.] That is not what we mean by creating conditions of real competition in the market place. In other words, commerce, not safety, will decide and dictate modifications to British gas pipelines.

While arbitration is not the most satisfactory method to be adopted in any event, it is, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland indicated the least damaging option. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will be a little more generous and accept the amendment.

Mr. Douglas

The Opposition have tabled an interesting amendment. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) is now in his place. The Secretary of State knows that he has pressed the Government to write into the Bill a definition of gas that we did not have before. The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated by every hon. Member.

Unfortunately, in a way this involves a comprehensive view of what should be included—not only natural gas or methane, but propane, butane, ethane and so on, and this could be an area of possible and probable dispute between the Secretary of State and the BGC. The clause states: the Secretary of State may, after giving the Corporation an opportunity of being heard about the matter, give directions to the Corporation in accordance with subsection (2) below, in consequence of the application. With his industrial wisdom, the Secretary of State knows that it is bad for civil servants or anyone else to second-guess, especially when there are people in the field engaged in the day-to-day operation. As a principle, that is a difficult and bad thing to do. Nevertheless, under this clause, the Secretary of State takes unto himself the responsibility of adjudicating what shall be in the best interests of the system as a whole. He takes unto himself the responsibility of determining major and difficult matters of public safety.

It is one thing to take on such responsibilities if one is running a system that will be totally related to United Kingdom requirements. Even that is difficult to embrace. However, in his oft-quoted speech at the Institute of Petroleum dinner, the right hon. Gentleman gave great credence to the fact that he would be favourably disposed to the export of gas. That is quite another matter. In that event, he will be concerned not only with the commercial good of the United Kingdom but with judgments of what is good in terms of the North Sea operators getting a higher price for the gas should it be exported.

Even in the best of all possible worlds, there is bound to be pressure on both individuals giving advice to the Secretary of State and on the companies. We all know that lobbying is part of the parliamentary system. People can exert pressure and write to Members of Parliament or to the Secretary of State stating that we should open up the system because such-and-such an application would be beneficial to their constituency and attract jobs. That is perfectly legitimate. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not argue that he will not be subjected to such pressures or that somehow or other he will remain completely above them. It would be almost impossible for anyone to be in that position.

Therefore, if there were a legitimate difference of opinion between the Secretary of State—that is, his advisers—and the corporation on modifications specified in directions on safety, there would be a real need, in the public interest, to have it ventilated. I am sure that the Secretary of State would listen to the corporation's view.

However, he could not say, having listened to its view, that it was his judgment against the corporation's. No Secretary of State would want just that. Somehow or other, that fact would get out and he would have to defend his position. It is much better to have this type of highly technical matter ventilated and determined, where possible, by arbitration.

I am obviously in some difficulty on this aspect because it is a question of who will second-guess both the Secretary of State and the corporation. That is a difficult decision. The appointment of an arbitrator or, in Scottish terms, an adviser, could be mutually agreed. I hope that the Secretary of State will deploy his mind on that issue. I am sure he appreciates that the whole House wants to be sure on this matter.

There may be a conflict of opinion on opening the systems in terms of junctions and many modifications. The Secretary of State should not shut his mind to calling in opinions from outwith his Department and the corporation to settle such issues. That would be judicious and no Secretary of State, desirous of making it abundantly clear that public safety and not commercial gain was the main interest, could possibly resist this amendment.

Mr. Michael Morris

I listened with care to the representations from the Opposition Benches. I find it difficult to believe that any safety dimension should be considered by arbitration. If the Secretary of State feels that the large number of modifications referred to by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) is a smokescreen for preventing expansion, he should expose them as such. However, if there were genuine safety dimensions because of some particular—I cannot imagine there would be more than one or two at the most—modification, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would take advice. On taking that advice, he would respond to it.

We would show gross dereliction of our duty in the House if we suggested that the whole issue should be shrugged off on to some arbitrator. In any case, he might get it wrong. The Secretary of State or his successor and the British Gas Corporation between them ought to be able to resolve the safety requirements. No Secretary of State, regardless of which party is in Government, will in the end go against the safety requirements.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon

I am astonished at what has happened tonight. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) argued the case ambitiously for more than can be achieved. The Secretary of State does not want this amendment or change. He wants to stick to what he has got so far. In retrospect, perhaps a year from now, the Tories will substantially regret what they have done or are going to do tonight. They are doing something that is difficult to understand.

The Tories are trying to evaluate a situation that does not exist. The Minister wants to privatise. That is what he is there for and that is why he has been sent to the Department. In the long run, he might be wrong. We are trying to argue with him. We should like him to come back to the House of Commons and say that we should discuss both this and other parts of the Bill. He will not discuss them. He knows—

9.45 pm
Mr. Dalyell

Please sit down.

Dr. Mahon

I am not aware that the guillotine descends at 10 o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does. "] I must have made a mistake.

The Minister is wrong and will regret his decision. I ask him to reconsider his decision, and to agree with the amendment.

Mr. Lawson

I agree that we suffered a sad loss due to the absence of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) from Committee. However, I regret that I cannot agree with the amendment.

Let us remind ourselves of the purpose of the exercise. We are seeking to bring competition in the supply of gas that can be achieved only if there is effective private access to the British Gas Corporation's pipeline network so that there is a common carrier. At the same time, we have to maintain safety standards.

I fully appreciate and accept the concern that Opposition Members voiced about safety, but the Bill correctly strikes a balance. In the debate on the previous amendment, the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) spoke about problems of delay. If amendment No. 12 were carried, that would be a recipe for delay and procrastination.

There ar two concepts in the amendment—that, if it wishes, the BGC should come forward with alternative proposals for safety and that there sould be arbitration on disagreements. Those are already in the Bill as drafted, but the amendment seeks to submerge the common carrier under a welter of superfluous bureaucracy. Our intention is to operate—[Interruption.] We are concerned about safety. If the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowland) is not concerned about safety, he should not pretend that he is.

We intend to operate the common carrier provision in the clause in a businesslike and expeditious way. Of course, it is right that the BGC should be given the opportunity to state its side of the story, whether on safety or any other matters. However, that opportunity is already guaranteed through clause 16(1). Once that has been done, the way is clear for me as Secretary of State to consider the evidence and to decide whether I propose to give a direction. It is in the interests of everyone that matters should not drag on or be dogged by uncertainty, but should be resolved definitely.

Mr. Robert C. Brown

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is manifestly unfair that, when his direction is directly against all the engineering expertise of BGC, he says that BGC is still responsible for safety?

Mr. Lawson

I do not think it is.

Perhaps I should develop my account of the procedure as it is in the Bill. That might go some way towards satisfying the hon. Gentleman, although I doubt whether it will satisfy him totally.

Under the amendment that we are now debating, the private supplier would be put in a totally impossible position. He might apply for a direction under clause 16 and, after the corporation had been heard, I might then issue a direction. However, the private supplier would still not know whether he could rely on that direction. The gas corporation might submit alternative proposals even at that late stage. The amendment proposes no time limit on the corporation coming forward with alternative proposals—it could be months, or indeed years, later.

guru How is a private supplier to undertake what may be a considerable investment in his project with this open-ended uncertainty hanging over him? The private supplier is not mentioned at all in the amendment. He will not even be informed if the corporation submits alternative proposals. Nothing in the amendment gives him any role whatever in an arbitration.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not ask for an answer now, but can we have an assurance that the Government will consider the complex matter that has arisen relating to the farmers and the public inquiry and the letters of the two Under-Secretaries? Can that be looked at and a possible Lords amendment introduced?

Mr. Lawson

The worries of the National Farmers Union on this matter are unfounded. In the letter of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), to the president of the National Fanners Union, he wrote: I hope that I have fully answered the main concerns expressed in the memorandum, but if there are still points of difficulty, please let me know. I shall be happy to discuss them further if you feel that would help. No response has been received, but that offer remains open.

The potential for delay, the issue that we are discussing in this amendment, has been borne out by discussions that we have had with oil companies about the operation of the common carrier system. As potential private suppliers, the companies want certainty and procedures that are not so lengthy and open-ended as to make commercial arrangements wholly impractical. That is what I fear would be the result of the proposed amendment.

I am not sure whether the Opposition have discussed this amendment with any of the companies which are potential private suppliers. I rather doubt that they have done so. If they had, they would know that the amendment would render clause 16 useless from a private supplier's point of view. That could be their intention—I do not know. The Government are bound to reject it.

As for the gas corporation coming forward with alternative proposals where it is concerned about safety, the corporation already has an opportunity to do so in the Bill as drafted. Indeed, it will have two such opportunities, I made it clear on Second Reading. I said: In the first instance it will be up to other suppliers to negotiate with the corporation the terms on which it is prepared to transmit their gas through its grid."—[Official Report, 19 January 1982; Vol. 16, c. 173.] In Committee, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State mentioned that it would be open to me, as Secretary of State, to reject an application under clause 17(1)(a) where I was not satisfied that the applicant had made sufficient attempt to achieve his objective through commercial negotiations with the corporations. He explained that the filter would probably also affect applications under clause 16 because it is unlikely that an applicant would pursue a question of increased capacity or the installation of junctions, the cost of which he would have to defray in normal circumstances, unless he was confident that he would have the opportunity to make use of the pipeline once the modifications under clause 16 had been executed.

When a private supplier approaches the gas corporation to negotiate in this way, and the corporation sees some safety difficulty—this is what Labour Members were particularly concerned about—there would be nothing at all to prevent the corporation from suggesting alternative modifications. That is the first opportunity.

The second opportunity comes if the corporation and the private supplier disagree. The private supplier then applies to me for a direction under clause 16. Clause 16(1) provides that, before giving any directions, I have to give the corporation an opportunity to be heard. Here again, if the corporation sees any safety problem, it will be able to draw it to my attention. It should do so; I am sure it would do so, and would propose alternative solutions. Therefore, there is no need to provide yet a third opportunity, as the amendment would do.

The concept of arbitration—the other part of the amendment—is also a duplication, because the whole purpose of clause 16 is to permit access to me as Secretary of State so that I can arbitrate on differences between the corporation and private suppliers which it has not been possible to resolve through negotiation. The only effect of laying one arbitration on top of another, as the amendment proposes, would be pointless delay and burgeoning bureaucracy.

It is possible to conceive of a totally different system in which the regulatory responsibility rests not with the Secretary of State and the Department but with an independent regulatory agency. I made it clear on Second Reading that as we gain experience it may well be sensible to move the regulatory responsibilities from the Department to an independent agency, but at this stage it would be foolish to set up some brand new agency. To get off the ground it would be much more sensible to have the regulatory functions carried out by the Department and by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell

Just who in the Department actually does the arbitrating?

Mr. Lawson

The Department is recruiting extra staff. That was made clear on Second Reading when the hon. Member mentioned the matter.

It is implicit in the suggestions of Labour Members that I or any other Secretary of State would be likely to make directions which flew in the face of safety considerations and that there should be some further safeguard or some outside arbitrator, although the amendment does not say precisely who that arbitrator would be, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. There is no need for such a safeguard because the clause already provides the opportunity for everybody to be heard. It is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would make directions which flew in the face of safety.

I remind the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and his hon. Friends that ever since the Gas Act 1972, which he and his hon. Friends fully support, it has been specifically the responsibility of the Secretary of State to make safety regulations under section 31 of that Act—regulations that we are strengthening, incidentally, in clause 14.

Very shortly we shall be moving on to part IV of the Bill, dealing with offshore safety—another very important area of safety—where again the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State. This has all been agreed on both sides of the Committee and I am sure that it will be agreed on both sides of the House today.

I do not believe that there is any reason on safety grounds for accepting the amendment. In practice, the amendment would make the common carrier provisions of the Bill a dead letter. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees:

The Secretary of State referred to legislation from the early part of the last decade. The whole point is that we now have a common carrier provision. That is the change.

The Secretary of State also said that perhaps in the long run there would be an independent agency. In that respect, minds on each side of the Chamber are thinking in the same direction. I would not contend that the amendment as drafted is the correct way to deal with the question, but it appears that the Secretary of State is thinking about the same problem as we are.

We were prompted to table the amendment because it was said in Committee that the Secretary of State would direct the gas corporation to act in a certain fashion. The Under-Secretary said that from that moment on the responsibility was that of the gas corporation. In a court of law, whose responsibility would it be if the gas corporation's representative, following an accident, an explosion or whatever, said that modifications had been carried out not as the Corporation had wanted, but as the Secretary of State had desired. In my view, in law the responsibility would rest with the Secretary of State. We were directing our minds to that aspect when we tabled the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 282.

Division No. 115] [10.00
AYES
Abse, Leo Dalyell,Tam
Allaun,Frank Davidson,Arthur
Alton,David Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L 'lli)
Anderson,Donald Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Archer, Rt HonPeter Davis, Clinton (HackneyC)
Ashley, Rt HonJack Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Ashton,Joe Deakins,Eric
Atkinson,N.(H'gey,) Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Bagier,Gordon A.T. Dixon,Donald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd) Dobson,Frank
Beith, A.J. Dormandjack
Benn, Rt HonTony Douglas,Dick
Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN) Douglas-Mann,Bruce
Bidwell,Sydney Dubs,Alfred
Booth,Rt HonAlbert Duffy, A. E. P.
Boothroyd, MissBetty Dunn, James A.
Bottomley,RtHonA.(M'b ro) Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Bray, Dr Jeremy Eadie,Alex
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Eastham, Ken
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W) Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS) Ellis, R. (NED'bysh're)
Brown,Ron(E'burgh,Leith) Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Buchan,Norman English,Michael
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n& P) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Campbell,Ian Evans, John (Newton)
Canavan,Dennis Field,Frank
Cant, R. B. Fletcher,Ted (Darlington)
Carmichael,Neil Ford, Ben
Cartwright,John Forrester,John
Clark, DrDavid (S Shields) Foster, Derek
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S) Foulkes,George
Coleman,Donald Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D. Garrett, Joh n (Norwich S)
Cook, Robin F. Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Cowans,Harry George,Bruce
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g) Golding,John
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill) Graham,Ted
Crowther,Stan Grant,George(Morpeth)
Cryer, Bob Grant,John (IslingtonC)
Cunliffe,Lawrence Grimond, RtHonJ.
Cunningham, DrJ. (W'h 'n) Hamilton,James(Bothwell)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tralFife) Penhaligon,David
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith Powell Raymond(Ogmore)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Prescott,John
Heffer, Eric S. Race, Reg
Hogg, N. (EDunb't'nshire) Radice,Giles
Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll) Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
HomeRobertson,John Richardson,Jo
Homewood,William Roberts,Albert(Normanton)
Hooley,Frank Roberts,Allan(Bootle)
Horam,John Roberts,Gwilym (Cannock)
Howell, Rt Hon D. Robertson,George
Howells,Geraint Robinson, G. (CoventryNW)
Hoyle,Douglas Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Huckfield,Les Rooker, J. W.
Hughes, Mark(Durham) Roper,John
Hughes, Robert (AberdeenN) Rowlands,Ted
Janner, Hon Greville Ryman,John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Sandelson,Neville
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Sever,John
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda) Sheerman,Barry
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Kilroy-Silk,Robert Short, Mrs Renée
Lambie,David Silkin, Rt Hon J.(Depfford)
Lamborn,Harry Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Lamond,James Silverman,Julius
Leadbitter,Ted Skinner,Dennis
Leighton,Ronald Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Lestor, MissJoan Soley,Clive
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW) Spearing,Nigel
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Spriggs,Leslie
Lofthouse,Geoffrey Stallard,A.W.
Lyon,Alexander(York) Steel, Rt Hon David
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W lsles)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Stoddart,David
McCartney,Hugh Stott,Roger
McDonald,DrOonagh Strang,Gavin
McElhone,Frank Strawjack
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Summerskill,HonDrShirley
Maclennan,Robert Thomas, DrR. (Carmarthen)
McNally,Thomas Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)
McNamara,Kevin Tilley,John
McTaggart,Robert Tinn,James
Marks,Kenneth Torney,Tom
Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton) Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Marshall,DrEdmund (Goole) Wainwright,E.(DearneV)
Marshall, Jim (LeicesterS) Wainwright,R.(ColneV)
Martin,M(G'gowS'burn) Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Welsh,Michael
Maxton,John White, FrankR.
Maynard,MissJoan White,J.(G'gow Pollock)
Meacher,Michael Whitehead,Phillip
Millan,Rt Hon Bruce Whitlock,William
Miller, Dr M. S. (EKilbride) Wigley,Dafydd
Mitchell,Austin(Grimsby) Willey,Rt Hon Frederick
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen) Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) Wilson,Gordon (DundeeE)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw) Wilson,William (C'trySE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Winnick,David
Morton,George Woodall,Alec
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Woolmer,Kenneth
Newens,Stanley Wrigglesworth,Ian
O'Halloran,Michael Wright,Sheila
O'Neill,Martin
Park,George Tellers for the Ayes:
Parker,John Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.
Parry,Robert
Pendry,Tom
NOES
Adley,Robert Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)
Aitken,Jonathan Banks,Robert
Alexander,Richard Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Alison,Rt Hon Michael Bendall,Vivian
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Ancram,Michael Best,Keith
Arnold,Tom Bevan,David Gilroy
Aspinwall,Jack Biffen, Rt Hon John
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne) Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Atkins,Robert(PrestonN) Blackburn,John
Blaker,Peter Gray,Hamish
Body,Richard G riffiths, E. (B 'ySt. Edm 'ds)
Bonsor,SirNicholas Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Boscawen,HonRobert Grist,Ian
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W) Grylls,Michael
Bowden,Andrew GummerJohnSelwyn
Braine,SirBernard Hamilton,HonA.
Bright,Graham Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)
Brittan, Rt.Hon.Leon Hampson,DrKeith
Brooke, Hon Peter Hannam,John
Brotherton,Michael Haselhurst,Alan
Brown,Michael(Brigg& Sc'n) Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Browne,John (Winchester) Hawkins,Paul
Bruce-Gardyne,John Hawksley,Warren
Bryan,SirPaul Hayhoe, Barney
Buck,Antony Heddle,John
Budgen,Nick Henderson,Barry
Bulmer,Esmond Heseltine,Rt Hon Michael
Burden,SirFrederick Hicks,Robert
Butcher,John Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Butler, HonAdam Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Cadbury,Jocelyn Holland,Philip(Carklton,)
Carlisle,John (LutonWest) Hooson,Tom
Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln) Hordern,Peter
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Chalker, Mrs.Lynda Howell,RtHonD.(G'ldf'd)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul Howell, Ralph (NNorfolk)
Chapman,Sydney Hunt,David (Wirral)
Churchill,W.S. Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n) Hurd,Rt Hon Douglas
Clark, SirW. (Croydon S) Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Jessel,Toby
Cockeram,Eric JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Colvin,Michael Jopling,Rt Hon Michael
Cope,John Joseph,Rt Hon Sir Keith
Corrie,John Kaberry,SirDonald
Costain,SirAlbert Kershaw,SirAnthony
Cranborne,Viscount Kitson,SirTimothy
Critchley,julian Lamont,Norman
Dean, Paul (NorthSomerset) Lang, Ian
Dickens,Geoffrey Latham,Michael
Dorrell,Stephen Lawrence,Ivan
Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ. Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Dover,Denshore Lee,John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward LeMarchanLSpencer
Dunn,Robert (Dartford) Lennox-Boyd,HonMark
Durant,Tony Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Dykes,Hugh Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lloyd, Ian (HavantA W'loo)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke) Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Eggar,Tim Loveridge,John
Elliott,SirWilliam Luce,Richard
Emery, SirPeter Lyell,Nicholas
Eyre,Reginald Macfarlane,Neil
Fairbairn,Nicholas MacGregorJohn
Fairgrieve,SirRussell MacKay, John (Argyll)
Faith,MrsSheila Macmillan, Rt HonM.
Farr,John McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Fell,SirAnthony McNair-Wilson, P. (NewF'st)
Finsberg,Geoffrey McQuarrie,Albert
Fisher,SirNigel Marland,Paul
Fletcher,A. (Ed'nb'ghN) Marshall,Michael (Arundel)
Fletcher-Cooke,SirCharles Marten,Rt Hon Neil
Fookes, Miss Janet Mates,Michael
Forman,Nigel Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman Mawby, Ray
Fox,Marcus Mawhinney,DrBrian
Fraser, Peter (SouthAngus) Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Fry, Peter Mayhew,Patrick
Gardiner,George(Reigate) Mellor,David
Gardner, Edward (SFylde) Meyer,SirAnthony
Garel-Jones,Tristan Miller,Hal (B'grove)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian Mills,Iain (Meriden)
Glyn, DrAlan Mills, Peter (WestDevon)
Goodhart,SirPhilip Miscampbell,Norman
Goodhew,SirVictor Moate,Roger
Goodlad,Alastair Monro,SirHector
Gorst,John Montgomery, Fergus
Gow, Ian Moore,John
Grant, Anthony (HarrowC) Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester) Sproat,Iain
Mudd,David Squire,Robin
Murphy,Christopher Stainton,Keith
Myles, David Stanbrook,lvor
Neale,Gerrard Stanley,John
Neubert,Michael Steen,Anthony
Newton,Tony Stevens,Martin
Normanton,Tom Stewart,A. (ERenfrewshire)
Nott,Rt Hon John Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Onslow,Cranley Stokes John
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S. StradlingThomas,J.
Osbornjohn Tapsell,Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West) Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Page, Richard (SWHerts) Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Parris,Matthew Temple-Morris,Peter
Patten,Christopher(Bath) Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Patten,Johnf(Oxford) Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Pattie,Geoffrey Thompson,Donald
Pawsey, James Thorne,Neil(IlfordSoufh)
Percival,Sir Ian Thornton,Malcolm
Peyton, Rt Hon John Townend,John(Bridlington)
Pollock,Alexander Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)
Porter,Barry Trippier,David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Trotter,Neville
Proctor, K. Harvey van Straubenzee,SirW.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis Vaughan,DrGerard
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy Viggers,Peter
Rathbone,Tim Waddington,David
Rees-Davies, W. R. Wakeham,John
Renton,Tim Waldegrave,HonWilliam
Rhodes James, Robert Walker, B. (Perth)
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Ridley,HonNicholas Wall,SirPatrick
Rippon,RtHonGeoffrey Waller, Gary
Roberts, M. (CardiffNW) Walters,Dennis
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Ward,John
Rossi,Hugh Warren,Kenneth
Rost, Peter Wells,Bowen
Sainsbury,HonTimothy Wells,John(Maidstone)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N. Wheeler,John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Whitelaw,Rt Hon William
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough) Whitney,Raymond
Shelton,William(Streatham) Wickenden,Keith
Shepherd,Colin(Hereford) Wiggin,Jerry
Shepherd,Richard Wilkinson,John
Silvester,Fred Winterton,Nicholas
Sims,Roger Wolfson,Mark
Skeet, T. H. H. Younger, Rt Hon George
Speed,Keith
Speller,Jony Tellers for the Noes:
Spence,John Mr. Anthony Berry and Mr. Carol Mather.
Spicer, Jim (WestDorset)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Douglas

I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I were not to move my amendment No. 13 to clause 20, so that we can have a tidier debate and perhaps, with your permission, refer to it in the debate on the following amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I think that that meets the wishes of the House and, if it will help the House, so be it.

Forward to