PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 03 May 1934 vol 91 cc1025-87

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

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY)

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, I think it may be convenient if I say something now on a matter which affects certainly three clauses of this Bill, which was not discussed on the Second Reading, and which it would be difficult to raise properly on any one Amendment. I refer to the procedure under the Bill; I may say I do not expect any answer from the Government at the moment, but I think perhaps it is well that a feeling which is certainly shared by others as to the whole of the procedure of this Bill should be expressed at the earliest possible moment. The procedure under this Bill is rather obscure to follow. It is based on no fewer than three Acts, and there is a good deal of reference to those Acts. To understand it properly it will be necessary not only to master the three previous Acts but also the rules and regulations made under, certainly, one of them.

As I see it, the contemplated procedure, in default of explanation, is open to very serious objection. Under Clause 2 the licensing authority are to be the Board of Trade, and they are, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to grant licences on such terms as they please. So far as Clause 2 goes, they are the only authority. They are not bound to hold any public inquiry; they are not bound to hear objections; they are not bound to give the ground on which they give the licence to any particular person; they are not bound to consider the claims of competing applicants for licences. An absolute discretion is vested in them and, so far as Clause 2 goes, it might conceivably happen—though I am sure that is not the intention—that a licence might be given, and nothing would be known of it by possible competitors until the licence had been given; and, once the licence has been given, only that licensee, and nobody else, can proceed to the other steps necessary under the Bill.

Now I cannot help thinking that this is a very grave evil, and because I have no doubt that the Board of Trade will wish to act rightly, I do not for a moment say that they will not. But they are apparently to act quite arbitrarily. Suppose they gave a licence to some individual or some corporation, and it turned out afterwards that either there were objections to the individual or the corporation, or that another applicant had an equally good case and had not had it heard: I conceive that there would be very great indignation, and probably a great deal of untrue and uncharitable gossip. And all that would be avoided if an inquiry were held in the first instance.

Then I come to what happens when a licence has been granted. The licensee goes to the Railway and Canal Commissioners under Clause 3. It is not very clear what is to happen there. I confess I was somewhat reassured by an answer given to me on the procedure under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. It does appear therefore that public inquiries are held and that objectors can come forward, but apparently there is no statutory right so far as I see. It all depends on rules, and you would have to burrow very deep to find what these rules are and how exactly they work. But if the procedure set forth in the answer to my Question could be made statutory, and it was certain that objectors would have an opportunity of coming to state their case, and also that there was an opportunity to have a local inquiry, which is a matter of great consequence especially where the amenities of a neighbourhood are concerned, then I think a good many of my doubts under that head would be resolved.

There is no provision, so far as I can see, for compensation and replacement if works are abandoned, as I think is made in other cases where compulsory powers are given. There are regulations under Clause 6 as to the applications for licences, and I suggest that they should be laid in draft before they take effect. As I read Clause 6 at present the regulations are to be made, and then there may be an opportunity of getting them disallowed afterwards. I suggest that the proper proceeding would be that they should be laid in draft and should not come into effect unless approved by the Houses of Parliament.

Lastly, I do not think Parliament ought to part with its power of supervising these schemes even after a public inquiry. I suggest therefore, that when a licence is granted by the Board of Trade and confirmed by the Commissioners, if that be so, a Provisional Order Bill should be necessary. Anyhow, I do submit there should not be two inquiries, one as to whether the licence should be granted and the second as to the terms on which it should be granted. Surely it would be much better to have one inquiry in all these cases I have put down certain Amendments to give point to my objections. I am not in the least wedded to them, but I submit there should be only one inquiry as to the licence and the conditions; that that inquiry should be an open one; that there should be statutory opportunity for all opponents to be heard; and that Parliament should reserve its power to revise or reject schemes made under this Bill. Of course, we are very much in the dark as to what schemes of development are possible under this Bill. It is a very different thing to develop oil and to open up rights of search for coal which is already proved. The whole aspect of a countryside may be changed and many people's property may be blasted by the erection of noxious refineries which come under the definition of works in this Bill. I have thought it well to raise all these points as soon as possible, and I trust that when we come to the Amendments the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill will give them sympathetic consideration.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Vesting of property in petroleum in His Majesty.

1.—(1) The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty, and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to petroleum which at the commencement of this Act may lawfully be gotten under a licence in force under the Petroleum (Production) Act, 1918, being a licence specified in the Schedule to this Act, so long as that licence remains in force.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the main Amendment upon which the first Amendment of Earl Peel on Clause 1 depends is that on Clause 2. Your Lordships will find it on page three of the Marshalled List in the names of Earl Peel and Lord Rankeillour—"Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (2)." I believe also that the Amendment—Page 2, line 4, to insert after "persons" the words "and upon such terms and conditions"—in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, also depends upon it; so perhaps, with your Lordships' permission, we might follow the usual practice and take the discussion on this first Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I submit to your Lordships that I have points on Clause 2 which are not quite the same as that of my noble friend. They refer not so much to the conditions of the licence as to who should grant the licence in the first instance, and they also bring in the question of the Provisional Order. If we take the discussion on Lord Peel's Amendment it might be difficult to raise my points in effective form.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

We might take the general discussion on this point. I think we have done that previously.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The first Amendment is really consequential. It really follows on the other Amendments the noble Earl has on the Paper, and I should have thought, as I see it is your opinion, my Lord Chairman, it would be better if we took the whole discussion, which really raises the main point in the Bill, on the first Amendment by the noble Earl. Then, when the Committee has decided that point, it seems to me it would mean that the other Amendments would stand or would go on the result. The Amendments which are raised by Lord Rankeillour I must leave entirely to you, my Lord Chairman, but I think they could quite well come into this discussion.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That is certainly what occurred to me. All the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, wishes to raise could be raised in the general discussion.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

They could be raised in the general discussion, but I could not move the particular points in the general discussion, and my ammunition would be blank. I submit to your Lordships that Lord Peel's Amendment on Clause 2 being to leave out the whole of subsection (2), it would be a little hard if I were not able to raise the particular points I am putting forward.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am quite sure that your Lordships will find there is no real difficulty in this matter. It is possible for the Lord Chairman so to put the question as to safeguard the subsequent Amendments. It is all a matter of how the question is put.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think that if Lord Peel moves his Amendment this will not really interfere with the Amendments of Lord Rankeillour. It is true the discussion will take place with the latitude that can be enjoyed in your Lordships' House, which goes beyond the actual words of the Amendments put down by the noble Earl. Whether that Amendment stands or does not stand, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will be in order.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Of course the Amendment will be put when it comes, and if the noble Lord has anything to say he can say it. I think that was what was suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I will move it now.

NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I am in the hands of your Lordships. I think it is not usual to move a later Amendment out of its turn. The Amendments must be taken in order, but I do net think the noble Lord will be in any way inconvenienced. The point he wishes to put can be put to your Lordships if we take the discussion in the manner suggested. All three Amendments will be put. I think we have had eases of this kind many times.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I may have misunderstood what is suggested. I understand that there is to be a general discussion on the question whether subsection (2) of Clause 2 stand part.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

No, the noble Lord is mistaken. The discussion should be on the whole effect of the three Amendments, and then, when your Lordships decide to follow the course which has been advised by the noble Earl, you would decide whether you accept the Amendments or not. That being the course of procedure suggested, I do not see that it will prejudice the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, from putting his point and getting your Lordships to accept it. We can discuss it on the first Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The matter appears to me quite simple. The discussion may take place upon the introductory words of my noble friend the noble Earl behind me (Earl Peel), but whether those words are inserted or not, an opportunity will still be open to my noble friend Lord Rankeillour to move his own Amendment when the time arrives. No doubt when my noble friend Lord Peel discusses his preliminary words he will, in the course of his speech, deal with a subsequent Amendment, but that will not as a matter of order preclude my noble friend Lord Rankeillour from moving his own words when we come to them, whether Lord Peel's preliminary words are inserted or not.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I want to come in at an earlier point.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord can come in on the first discussion.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

If the question put is the one I have suggested I shall be shut out.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)

Really I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour cannot have noticed what is to be discussed. The Amendment, as I understand it, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is an Amendment to insert the words "subject to the provisions of this Act." That comes in Clause 1, page 1, line 7, and whether those words are put in or not that will not in the least preclude my noble friend Lord Rankeillour from moving any Amendment on subsequent parts of the Bill when we get to them.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Now I am quite satisfied. I am assured that Amendment could not be moved and that the later one can.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I think the noble Lord is mistaken. What is going to happen, as I understand, is this. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is to move his Amendment. We will then discuss it. One of the reasons, or perhaps the only reason for all I know, why he wants to move his Amendment is in order to pave the way for some later Amendments which he has down on the Paper. If his first Amendment is defeated, that may affect his mind as to whether he will move the later Amendments or not, but he will be perfectly in order in doing so whether he is defeated or not. In any case it cannot affect the right of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, to move his Amendment when we come to it.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I am quite satisfied.

EARL PEEL

moved, in subsection 1, after "is," to insert "subject to the provisions of this Act." The noble Earl said: I hope your Lordships will give me the credit for having observed a perfectly peaceful neutrality during the discussion that has raged among the experts. I do not want to press the humble claims of my Amendment at all on your Lordships. May I give a general description of my Amendment? Your Lordships will see, as the Lord Chairman has already observed, that a large portion of the substance appears on page 6, Clause 3, line 23. The noble Marquess, referring just now to my Amendment, said it was the most important point in the Bill. I respectfully desire to differ from that proposition. I do not put it forward as the most important point in the Bill. I think it is an ancillary, though an important point.

When your Lordships gave the Bill a Second Reading a few days ago no doubt you were moved by different considerations. There was the question whether the oil should be vested in the Government or the Crown. There was the question of working the oil. There was the question of altering the licence and things of that kind. We had a strong appeal made to us on the ground that for purposes of defence it was necessary this oil should be found and exploited, and that that could not be done under the existing Act. All those matters are left unaffected by the Amendment that I propose. I am not dealing with those matters at all. All I am suggesting is that the owner of the surface, when this oil is recovered, should have, anyhow, a claim to royalty, or some payment for it, and the State or the Crown, in taking over the oil, should give some recognition to the rights of the surface owner, and that there should not be, to use the pregnant words of the noble Marquess, that complete divorce between the surface and the substances below the surface. It will not have escaped the notice of your Lordships that when all these disturbances have been made on the soil, when oil is recovered royalties are paid to the State, and the only interested person who gets no advantage whatever, but some considerable disadvantage, is the owner of the soil himself.

We know that during the last few years the owners of the soil have gone through a very severe time. They have suffered very heavily from Death Duties and other taxes and charges. It does seem to me to be a little hard that this precise moment should be selected for inflicting upon them another disability and preventing them from getting any advantage whatever from a substance that hitherto has been in their full possession. This Bill itself, by its very texture, recognises that there is property in the oil below the soil, and indeed that point is further recognised by the fact that cases are exempted from the Bill where the oil has already been worked. My noble friend, the noble Marquess who introduced the Bill, told us that there were precedents for this. I do not know how much your Lordships are interested in precedents, but he told us that the State owned the silver and the gold and that that was a precedent for acquiring the oil. I do not think he will press any further his claim that coal under the sea is a breach in that arrangement, because I think the noble Marquess accepted the fact that coal so possessed by the Crown is possessed by the Crown as the owner and not in respect merely of ordinary Crown rights.

That statement did not, I think, convey an absolutely accurate picture of the state of affairs. Silver and gold have belonged no doubt to the Crown from time immemorial. Whether they were an exception to the general Common Law rights of owners to possess what was below the soil I do not know. I suppose silver and gold were presumed to belong to the Crown before any Common Law right existed. This taking without compensation, or taking by the Crown by Statute, of oil, is the first breach that has been made by Statute in the Common Law for all these centuries. There is no precedent for it and I want to impress upon your Lordships that the cases of precedent cited by the noble Marquess do not apply. This is the first case in which a breach has been made in the Common Law, and I think that your Lordships should pay special attention to that fact when setting up a new precedent.

The arguments of the Government in favour of giving no compensation are two-fold. First it is suggested that, owing to the liquidity of the material concerned, if the owner sinks a shaft in his own land he may draw oil from the land of adjoining owners. That is pronounced by the Government to be a very wrong and unfair thing. In that respect they are standing up most vigorously, and I think rightly, for the rights of landowners. They say, in effect: "Draw oil from your own land, but how wicked it is in that process to take oil from somebody else's land." That is a rather remarkable argument, because in another part of the case we are told that really there is no hardship in taking oil from people without giving them compensation, because, firstly, they do not own it, and, secondly, because they will not be a penny the worse. When it comes to a landowner taking the oil that argument is used against him, and we are told it is unfair to suck oil from your neighbour's land.

At an earlier stage I mentioned the point about water, because I could not see why the analogy of water should not have some influence on this case. As your Lordships know, you can sink a well and draw water from your neighbour's land. I need not dwell upon that because your Lordships are no doubt familiar with it. I have suffered myself from a large water company setting up an establishment eight miles away and drying up my wells. No doubt the water company made a very good thing out of it. I do not understand why there should be this indignation on the part of the Government against unprecedented and monstrous conduct in drawing oil from under other people's land when all over the country people are drawing water from under other people's land. So far as I know, there has been no expression of indignation in that case on the part of the Government either here or in another place. Therefore I do not think we need lay great stress on that argument. But surely the inference drawn from the Government argument goes a great deal too far. The Government say it is wrong that you should sink a well and draw oil from somebody else's land. It is rather a large inference from that to say that, because in sinking a well in your own land you may draw oil from somebody else's land, therefore neither you nor anybody else shall have any right in the oil. It seems a piece of—remarkable Whitehall logic, shall I call it?

Then the Government say that it is very difficult to ascertain who are the different owners of the surface on the oilfield, and because it is uncertain what are the limits of the oilfield and, therefore, what is the number of owners who have surface rights, that they should have no rights in the oil at all. Again, it seems to me a long step from saying that it is difficult to ascertain rights to confiscating those rights altogether. There would be a strange smudge on our law if that was the case. Everybody knows that every day in the Law Courts all sorts of difficult questions as to the division of rights are settled. Nobody suggests that because rights are difficult to assign they ought to be confiscated. I regard this argument as not really a very serious argument. Indeed, I do not think the Government rely on it very fully, because, after showing that there are a great number of practical difficulties and objections in the way of assigning exact rights to any owner as to the oil under his land, they proceed to what I may call their more general and main argument. I have provided very simply in my Amendments for dealing with this difficulty—that the matter should go to arbitration. Then the rights of these persons could be settled. There is no real difficulty. If there is a real intention to give people compensation for the oil under their land, the matter can be settled by arbitration, and it has been settled in the United States in many cases very easily by that method.

Not satisfied with that practical argument, the Government say that there really is at this stage no value in the oil under the land, and that therefore to take away from people what is of no value does them no harm. It is perfectly true, of course, that neither oil, nor clay, nor coal, nor any other substance is of value under the soil. It is of no value until it is abstracted and brought to the surface. But it would be a very far-reaching argument to say that because it has no value in the commercial sense, but only value in the potential sense, therefore ownership in it should not be recognised and no value should be paid for it. I think it is not unreasonable to apply that to things like ungotten coal, which, below the surface, has no value.

The other point on which the Government rely is this. It is a very remarkable argument. I do not know whether other noble Lords will go more fully into the matter. I merely indicate it. It is that a man has no property in anything unless he knows he possesses it; so that if you discover at any time that you have a property below the soil you have a claim to it, but if you do not know that a mineral is below the soil then you have no claim to it. I confess that distinction is rather too subtle for me. It involves examination into a man's state of mind on which it is extremely unwise, I think, that his property should depend. Another variant of this argument which has been used is that land has been bought and sold without the question of oil under the surface making any difference to the price. I do not know how that can be stated so positively by the Government, because a great deal of land changes hands with the reservation of minerals, and it seems to me to be extremely hard to say that the reservation of the possibility of the existence of minerals, whatever they are—whether oil in the form of coal, or coal in the form of oil, shall I say?—did not make some difference to the price. In fact, I am confident that in some cases that would affect the price; and taking that test of the Government, it is clear that a property is then established in the oil below the surface. So much, then, for the argument as to whether you know that you have the particular mineral under the surface.

I really am not quite certain upon which of these arguments the Government rest their case, because the arguments really are in the nature of alternatives. First of all the Government say: "You have no right to the oil under the surface; and if you have a right, then it is extremely difficult to assess the money value of that right, and because the apportionment is difficult we cannot assign any value to your oil." We were invited by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to judge everything on its merits, and that no doubt is a very good rule. In fact, he said, I think, that it was almost a test of belonging to the Conservative Party that you should be prepared to discuss things on their merits. Therefore, if I express a slightly contrary opinion, I do so at the risk of being driven out of the Conservative Party, which I should much regret. But surely in certain cases it is just as well to consider whether any principle is involved in the decision on the merits.

I submit to your Lordships that there is a very great principle embedded in this, and that it is not enough to say, in an easy way: "Let us consider it on its merits." The Conservative Party in my opinion has many times made a great mistake because it did consider matters only on their merits, and because it did not go a little more deeply into the principles upon which those merits were based. And I may say that even if we do not go into the principles of the thing, there are other people and other Parties who will do so. I was much interested to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the view which he took of the principles which were settled and determined in this Bill itself.

I submit that in this case there is at least a strong moral claim for giving the owner of the soil whose oil is taken away a royalty, or at any rate some share in the proceeds. Ought it all to go either to the Government or to some wealthy company which exploits the oil on his property? Is he to be the only person whose property may be damaged and who gets no value whatever from it except some sort of payment for the loss of amenities? I submit, my Lords, that that contention is really against natural justice. I think there was some feeling among the members of the Government that there was a claim for compensation, because the Government in the last resort did not rely at all upon all these arguments of practicality and of ignorance or omniscience.

I observe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, in his speech in the debate on the Second Reading, urged your Lordships to pass the Motion for the Second Reading—and I suppose the argument applied to my Amendment as well—on the ground that it would be said that this House, which is accused of being reactionary and selfish, was so blind to the national interest… etcetera, and at the end of his speech he stated that such a "retrograde step" as throwing out the Bill would not only be a step vicious in itself, but would also be a step calculated to do untold harm to your Lordships' House… The humble submission which I put before your Lordships is this, that in any judgment yon give on this matter you should not be actuated by the consideration whether it does or does not do harm to your Lordships' House. I submit that the only thing you can do is to exercise your wise judgment on these matters and to exercise that judgment without fear, favour or affection. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after ("is") insert ("subject to the provisions of this Act").— (Earl Peel.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Earl in his speech, although he differs from me, has raised perhaps the most important point in the Bill. He has told us that there are other points, and that this one is ancillary to the other points, but I think that the principle of which he has spoken at great length and very eloquently is the one which is exercising your Lordships' minds at the present moment. It is true that this Bill has been given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, but I would not venture for one moment to press that point, because I took occasion in the debate on the Motion for Second Reading to invite your Lordships very earnestly to consider this matter very carefully, and when we reached a further stage of this Bill, to give then the decision which in your wisdom you considered was the right one.

The actual Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is coupled with other Amendments to Clause 1 and with Amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, and those Amendments the noble Earl has put down for the purpose of giving expression to the views which he holds. By his proposal to delete subsection (2) of Clause 2 the noble Earl proposes to remove the specific power which is given to the Board of Trade to require the payment of a financial consideration for the right to work oil. Perhaps the noble Earl's intention, by this Amendment and the others to which I have referred, is to preserve the private rights in oil which he claims are in existence at the present moment and at the same time to limit the Crown to securing its financial return by charging fees, as they can under Clause 6, subsection (1), on applications for licences.

I am given to understand by legal opinion that by the noble Earl's proposed Amendment of subsection (1) of Clause 2, which preserves the right of the Board of Trade to grant licences "upon such terms and conditions as they think fit," the Board of Trade may impose a condition requiring the payment of a financial consideration, whether by way of royalty or otherwise. In this case the noble Earl's Amendment to Clause 1, combined with his Amendment to Clause 3, would only preserve the rights of mineral owners where compulsory rights of access were granted under Clause 3. Where-arrangements with third parties could be made voluntarily, the mineral owner would secure no royalty; where compulsion had to be applied to third parties, the mineral owner would be entitled to-royalties; so I venture to say that it is difficult actually to see the merits of the proposal which has been made by the noble Earl.

Of the three main arguments which I put forward in the Second Reading debate in favour of the proposals in the Bill, the first was that it was an almost insoluble problem to devise any equitable scheme for the allocation of royalties as between neighbouring landowners, owing to the relatively small size of estates in this country, and the impossibility of determining from what point in a petroliferous area the supply tapped by any boring is actually drawn. The noble Earl brushes that on one side and says that that could be done—that there is litigation every day in the Courts which decides matters of this kind—and therefore he thinks that in pursuance of of the principles which I understand he very strongly holds, this is a consideration which should in no circumstances come into the minds of the Government.

The second point I ventured to make was that unless we could determine a very clear definition of the ownership of oil, which involves the whole royalty question, the activities of those who are anxious to exploit the oil in this country, and find oil by boring, would be unduly hampered. In fact, one can say that the fact that no undertakings have been embarked upon, except in three cases, for the finding of oil, is due to the difficulties which I put before your Lordships on the Second Reading, and which I think it is obvious to your Lordships do in fact exist. In a moment or two I shall draw your Lordships' attention to what has happened abroad owing to the difficulties entailed in this particular point.

The third point, to which the noble Earl has made some special reference in his speech, is in reference to the fact that no one in this country can actually say that he is being treated unjustly, or is a loser from the point of view that he has been aware of oil existing under his property, and has either bought the property with that fact in view, or has sold it to a buyer with the reservations which are inherent to all properties now sold with minerals existing in those properties. The noble Earl says that this is the first Bill which contains this principle of an infringement of what he looks upon as the rights of private owners.

EARL PEEL

What the Common Law looks upon as the rights of private owners.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I am prepared to say that the departure proposed by the Government is one which to modern generations is a novel one indeed, and whenever these matters are put before Parlaiment they require very careful consideration. I endeavoured to make clear to your Lordships, for what it was worth, what was my own personal opinion, and I have come to the conclusion that this Bill is a proper and just one to all parties in the State, by reason of the necessities imposed upon us for one thing, the difficulties which would be incurred if we adopted any other process for the second thing, and thirdly because in no circumstances can we say that any injustice is being perpetrated on any individual in existence at the present moment. I am inclined to think that the noble Earl is not aware that gold and silver were acquired by the State by Act of Parliament, and so there has been a precedent for the acquiring of minerals, but I am not anxious to press that point. I do not think it, is a very important point, and it certainly does not weigh very much in your Lordships' minds, because I hardly suppose there is anyone in this House who imagines that now or in the future there will be a great find of gold or silver. But the fact is that they have been acquired by the State; and if gold and silver were found in profusion in this country we should have a debate in this House on the Statute which was enacted some hundreds of years ago. That is a point, however, on which I do not wish to lay any undue stress.

The noble Earl has suggested that the problem in this country is a relatively simple one compared with that in the United States of America. He informed us on the Second Reading that the nature of the oilfields in this country through the geological survey are pretty well known. It would, however, be unwise to assume that this is so. The development of geological science and the accumulation of data from operations in various parts of the world have caused attention to be given to areas which were previously regarded as of little or no value as oil-bearing lands. In many instances, while the surface geology is well known, the sub-surface conditions and the extent of possible oil structures which might be revealed by drilling are largely a matter of surmise. The geologist may certainly reach certain conclusions, but only the drill can prove whether or not he is right. There are cases on record in established oil-producing countries where, with what appeared to be precisely similar geological structures, one has proved to be oil bearing and the other not.

The noble Earl next suggested that after every sort of experiment and every sort of mistake, many of the States in the United States of America have really arrived at a system by which they can apportion such royalties as there may be between the owners of the surface. If this were so, I would venture to ask why should there have occurred as recently as the last two or three years in a new field in East Texas one of the worst instances of competitive drilling which has taken place? This field was first brought into production in September, 1930, and by the end of December, 1931, 3,280 wells had been drilled. By February, 1933, the number had reached over 9,000 in a proved area of about the same size as the County of Rutland. So I think the density to be contemplated with the competitive system which the noble Earl seems to favour—

EARL PEEL

I don't.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

—would fill the whole population of this country with alarm. On the Second Beading I stated to your Lordships, and I think the Leader of the House did the same, that we had definitely come to the conclusion, after a very careful study of the question, that the policy we were adopting, whilst we agreed it was a novel one, was the only one which could be carried out in an industry which we hope may bear a great part in the future of this country. It may be speculative, and our prognostications may come to nothing, but we do feel that it is only by the provisions in this Bill that we can make a success of this undertaking. I ventured, at probably undue length, to state the misgivings which I myself felt in relation to the principle involved in this Bill; but I certainly came to the conclusion, after long thought and study, that the only way, in a progressive spirit, of dealing with this difficult and intricate matter was by the provisions included in this Bill. Therefore I hope your Lordships will not accept the noble Earl's Amendment.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

As I understand the Amendment of Lord Peel, what he desires to do is to put in words which will ensure that some Parliamentary powers will be imposed before a man's property can be taken away from him. As the Bill stands the clause reads: The property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty,… and nothing else. What that amounts to is that the Government can come down and say: "Because we think some person has some valuable property in land which he has either inherited or bought, without any safeguard by an inquiry by Parliament or by any body set up by Parliament, we, the Government, can come and take that property because we think it is valuable. "But what a precedent for use by noble Lords opposite! I can understand their coming and saying: "The banks of this country are a valuable property. In order to make people prosperous the banks should be nationalised." They are a valuable property, and they point to this clause, which says that because this is a valuable property the Government have a right to take it. It seems to me a most extraordinary proposition which may lead to any sort of revolutionary proposal which I am afraid the Socialist Party threaten to bring forward if they come in, which is not unlikely within two or three years.

The noble Lard says that there are precedents—gold and silver. I am not sure that I am correct, but unless I am mistaken I believe the taking of gold and silver occurred something like three hundred years ago, when morals were not what they are now, when there were plenty of highwaymen about and people who were only too anxious to take somebody else's property and make an excuse for doing so. I do not see very many representatives of the Liberal Party present, but I remember Sir Charles Dilke, who was a well known Liberal, saying in another place that because there have been bad precedents that was no reason why we should have another. That is an excellent principle, which I hope your Lordships will maintain.

EARL PEEL

I am very sorry indeed that the noble Marquess representing the Government is apparently completely adamant on the question of giving any advantage to the owner of the land for the oil underneath it, and that he has not moved at all from the position he took up on the Second Reading. There were one or two points of detail in his speech with which I should like to deal because, as he was turned away from me, I did not quite catch the full bearing of his argument that my Amendment would not deal with voluntary arrangements. If that is his view I am of course prepared to make any alteration to meet that point. If he is right on the question of the statutory right to silver and gold, I certainly was advised on this point by a very high legal authority, and I am rather surprised to find that the noble Marquess has a precedent, as he tells us. But he really did very grievously—though quite unintentionally—misrepresent my argument in one respect.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think it would be as well if I repeated what I did say, and that was that I was legally advised that where arrangements with third parties can be made voluntarily the mineral owner would secure no royalty, but where compulsion had to be applied to third parties the mineral owner would be entitled to royalties.

EARL PEEL

There is no difficulty whatever in putting down an Amendment to set that right. But where I do challenge my noble friend is on this. He said: "Look at what has happened in the United States, in Texas, where there has been free drilling and so many wells put down on a very small area." I dare say these things go on in Texas. My observation had nothing whatever to do with that. All I said was that in certain of the American States—and I was not thinking of Texas at that time, because I believe conditions there are rather disturbed—it was a question of arbitration and the assigning to the different owners of a share of the oil that was drawn away from their land.

He said, further: "What a chaos you would have if you had all these wells—one man drawing oil from one well and another from another." I never made any suggestion which could be interpreted into anything of the kind. I dwelt on this point on Second Reading, and I did not want to repeat my observations, but I said that the unitary development of these oilfields is one of the things that all geologists were agreed upon. There is no difference of view about that. I did say in the few observations I then made that I did not want to disturb in any way the system of exploiting the oil or to upset any arrangement that would be useful. I never suggested, and would not suggest, that it should be allowed to anybody in any oilfield to sink wells as he likes. I am all for unitary development. I am only suggesting that, subject to the principle of unitary development, oil should not be taken away without some sort of compensation, however small, to the owners of the surface.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Perhaps it is only right that I should tell the noble Earl that I have had given to me the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Industry, where it deals with royalties, and it says: The decision of the Judges in this so-called 'great case of mines' (Queen v. Northumberland) was in effect that only the so-called royal mines (i.e., those of gold or silver) belonged to the Crown, and that all the baser minerals belonged to the individual land owners. It was the decision of Judges.

EARL PEEL

I am much obliged. My information, then, was right.

On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.
Rutland, D.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
Somerset, D.	Exmouth, V.	Forester, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Greville, L.
Sailsbury, M.	Hereford, V.	Hastings, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Abingdon, E.	Ullswater, V.	Lamington, L.
Denbigh, E.		O, Hagan, L.
Dudley, E. [Teller.]	Auckland, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Redesdale, L.
Peel, E.	Carrington, L.	Remnant, L.
Radnor, E. [Teller.]	Cranworth, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Selborne, E.	Dynevor, L.	Strachie, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Mersey, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
		Joicey, L.
Ancaster, E.	Amulree, L.	Marks, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Iveagh, E.	Barnard, L.	Rennell, L.
Jellicoe, E.	Bayford, L.	Rochester, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Carnock, L.	Rockley, L.
Midleton, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)	Sanderson, L.
Munster, E.		Snell, L.
Plymouth, E.	Clwyd, L.	Stanmore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cottesloe, L.	Stonehaven, L.
	Danesfort, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
BridgeMan, V.	Denman, L.
Hailsham, V.	Elton, L.	Templemore, L.
Halifax, V.	Ernle, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum." The noble Lord said: This Bill vests the property in petroleum existing in its natural condition in His Majesty, and it seems to a good many of us that that is going quite far enough. The only reason why I am not questioning subsection (1) is that I consider that on the Second Reading the principle was accepted that: The property In petroleum existing in its natural condition in strata in Great Britain is hereby vested in His Majesty. But the Bill goes a little further, because it says: and His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum. That is a very drastic provision indeed. During the War there were suggestions much on the same lines, and an Act was passed in 1918 which was also very drastic, yet on the other hand it recognised the right of owners to bore on their own land and recognised their right to royalties.

This Bill does nothing of the kind. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, what this Bill comes to practically is that it is confiscation, if this clause stands exactly as it is now. A subsequent Government would have a perfect right to come forward and say: "The only part of this Act we are going to put into force is Clause 1, subsection (1). We are going to deal with mineral oil and we are going to deal with it ourselves." No doubt the Government will say that they have no idea of confiscation, and that they have no intention themselves of boring for oil, selling oil, and distributing oil. That is all very well, but my long experience of Parliament in one House or the other has convinced me that Governments always go upon the supposition that they are going to last for ever. It is quite likely that within a short time we may have a very different Government indeed.

No doubt this Government has all Parties represented in it, but the next Government may be a Government entirely composed of the Labour Party. What are the principles of the Labour Party? They have always contended themselves that, as regards production and distribution, these things should be done entirely by the State and not by private individuals. Therefore, it is not surprising if the Labour Party support the Government on this Bill. It seems to me you may be making a very dangerous precedent, because the same provision may easily be made in future as regards coal. It would be very easy for a future Government to bring in a Bill on the same principle as this to deal with coal in particular areas where it has not been so far found, and to say that the State shall have exclusive right to that coal. A Bill was brought in by a previous Government which provided that coal not proved should be confiscated right away and become the property of the Crown. If you are going to pass the Bill in this form, and allow no Amendments, it practically means that when the Labour Party come in they will be able to do practically whatever they like in this matter, not only in regard to oil but in regard to coal.

You have also got to consider the effect of the Bill on local authorities. It will prevent local authorites from being able to increase their income and lower their rates. Take for instance a county like my own where there is a coalfield. The county council has over 20,000 acres. Under this Bill, if there is any oil there, the advantage is to be taken away from the local ratepayers and given entirely to the Crown. And again I wish to point out that there is no limitation at all as regards the Crown. Clause 2 and Clause 2 do not apply to the Crown in any way. In the case of an ordinary licence there is some slight protection, but under this Bill there is no protection at all if the Crown —that is, the Government—should decide. and probably it would do so, to bore for oil and afterwards distribute it and sell it. It is really helping State trading, which I think the majority in this House are against. It would give the Government power to take the whole matter into their own hands. They would knock out private individuals and probably do a great deal of harm. The whole pith of my Amendment is that, although recognising that the Second Reading has, rightly or wrongly, agreed to the principle of oil being vested in the Crown, yet there ought to be some restriction even upon the Crown to bore for oil and distribute it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out from the first ("Majesty") to the end of line 10.— (Lord Strachie.)

LORD HASTINGS

One feels that the omission which the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is endeavouring to rectify was an unintentional one on the part of His Majesty's Government. Is it realised that as the Bill now stands the authority sought to be given by Clause 1 to His Majesty is absolute, and that, in the case of the licensee, he has to go through a number of preliminaries in the first place before a licence can be obtained? Having obtained the licence he then has to make good not his right to work his claim, but to work in a particular area, before the Railway and Canal Commission. As my noble friend said, there is considerable protection for the owner of the site upon which boring is to be carried on under the terms of the Bill, but let us suppose that a Government desired to embark upon State trading on a large scale. There is nothing in this Bill whatever which in the first place compels the Government to seek a licence, nor is there Anything in the Bill which compels such a Government to pay any compensation whatsoever for surface damage. There is nothing in the Bill to compel the Government to go before the Railway and Canal Commission. The power proposed to be vested in His Majesty is absolute. Unless some such Amendment as that moved by my noble friend Lord Strachie is made in the Bill, there would be no protection whatever for any of His Majesty's subjects against a Government which proposed to embark upon State trading without regard to the interests of such subjects. I desire therefore very strongly to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The words which were included in the Bill were placed there to make it clear that in addition to vesting the property in petroleum in the Crown, the Crown have the power, subject to certain other provisions which are mentioned in the Bill, to make possible the search for and to develop any oil which may exist, and in addition, that only those who are properly authorised shall have the right of searching or boring for oil. I am legally advised that it is very desirable to retain these words in the Bill. The Bill does not in any way bind the Crown, and, consequently, the deletion of these words would not prevent the Crown, or a Government Department which owned lands, from drilling themselves. There is, however, no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to undertake drilling. But if it were considered desirable to prevent the Crown from searching on its own lands a specific provision would have to be made in this Bill. If the Amendment were accepted—and I ask your Lordships not to accept it—a further Amendment would be necessary to make it clear that no one who does not hold a licence can search or bore for oil. I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

LORD JOICEY

I think this Amendment is a very important one, and before your Lordships take any action upon it there should be further consideration. It is a very easy thing to find coal, and under the present law there is no power whatever enabling the Government to take possession of coal. I think it is absolutely necessary that landowners should be protected in case other minerals are found when boring is taking place for oil. The point with regard to the payment of rates, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Strachie, is also an important one. There is a strong feeling throughout the country in regard to the Government not paying rates upon industries with which they are associated. I hope before we pass from this matter we shall have some assurance stronger than we have yet received from the Government that some provision will be made to make this perfectly clear.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

The words of this clause appear to be absolute and unrestricted: "shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum." Is there any principle of Common Law which would prevent the Crown from using these words as conferring a right to bore upon lands in private ownership?

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

Before the noble Viscount replies I would ask him whether these words could be applied to a company guaranteed by the Government—whether, for instance, a company guaranteed by the Government could have the privileges which are given to the Government in this Bill? I should like to support what was said by the last speaker. I hope your Lordships will realise this is a very important point and will insist that the Government themselves shall have to apply for a licence on exactly the same terms as private individuals. I hope we shall get a satisfactory reply from the Government or challenge them on this matter.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I rise only because a question has been asked that I desire to answer. I do not want to repeat the arguments against the merits of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Munster has put before your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, asked: Is there any principle of the Common Law or otherwise which would prevent the Crown from, entering into private property to search for oil? Of course there is. The answer is, the Crown has no right, and this gives it no right, to enter into any one else's land at all. I can give the noble Lord an absolute assurance on that. The Crown will neither have a greater or a less right; its right is absolutely governed and except for provisions in the case of an invasion, the Crown has no right to go on private property whether these words are in or out. My noble friend Lord Dudley asked whether this provision would affect a company whose capital was guaranteed by the Government. No, this provision would not affect it. I gather the question meant: "Would such a company have the right to search for oil?" No, it would not.

The real explanation of this is simple enough and not quite so serious as some noble lords seem to imagine. Under the words which we have already passed over, the property is vested in His Majesty. It is thought eminently undesirable that anybody who likes should search for oil. There ought not to be large inducements to it. But suppose they think fit to search for oil and find it, they might expect to gain a greater probability of getting the right to extract, and in order to give a limitation of the rights of drilling and searching for oil, which of course are not affected by the vesting of the property in the oil, it is provided here that His Majesty, which means, of course, the Government, shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum. These words are not required to enable the Crown, if it ever wanted to do it, to make a hole in its own property. Whether these words are in or out, if His Majesty desired to sink a well under Buckingham Palace there is nothing to prevent him doing so, or if the War Office desired to sink a well on Salisbury Plain there is nothing to prevent them doing so. These words are required to enable the scheme which is followed in the later clauses, in which power is given to grant licences, to become effective. Clause 2, as your Lordships can see, gives power to grant licences "to search and bore for and get petroleum." Before you give power to the Board of Trade on behalf of His Majesty to grant. licences, Clause 1, with these words in, is necessary. It does not affect one way or the other the right of the Crown to sink wells in its own land if it were ever so foolish as to desire to do it.

LORD JOICEY

There is one point in connection with the Amendment to which I should like to draw attention. You may bore where coal mining is going on and affect that industry by flooding the mines. There is no provision whatever, unless this Amendment is passed, for preventing that. Surely it is very important in the County of Durham, where we have coal mines all over the place, that we should have some power to prevent boring if it is likely to damage the mines and bring in flood water. If you begin to flood one mine in the County of Durham, or in any other coalfield, you may flood a dozen. I think some provision ought to be made for that.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Perhaps I am very stupid, but I am not sure that I understand what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has just said. As I understand—I may he quite wrong—what he said was that the Crown, that is, the Government, may bore for oil under Buckingham Palace or on Salisbury Plain, but that they could not bore for oil on my property. I look at the Bill and I see in Clause 1: His Majesty shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting such petroleum. There is nothing about Buckingham Palace or Salisbury Plain. There are certain words which have, as far as I can see, a clear interpretation, stating that His Majesty, that is, the Government, shall have the exclusive right of searching and boring for and getting petroleum. If that is the case, and somebody authorised by the Government, a member of the Government or an official, comes upon my land to bore for oil, it will be no protection if I say: "Oh, but in the House of Lords the Leader of the House said that these words did not mean anything."

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I did not say that.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

That is what I understood.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

May I correct the noble Lord? He says that I said these words do not mean anything. I made no such statement. What I said was that they did not mean what the noble Lord thinks they mean. I most certainly can assure the House—I cannot persuade my noble friend—

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I am always open to persuasion.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

—that in fact these words vest the exclusive right in the Crown so that the Bill may go on to make the Crown the only person who may give a licence. It gives no right to enter upon the property of any other person. That would have to be given by particular clauses and there are, in fact, other clauses which lay down the terms on which the Crown may grant licences.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

If that is so, why not accept the Amendment? I think I am right this time. The Crown cannot go upon anybody's property, but, having granted a licence to a certain person, that person can go on the land. That, as I understand, is all that the noble Lord opposite wants. Why not accept the Amendment or at any rate put in words to make it clear?

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection: () Where in any particular case the exercise of the exclusive right conferred upon His Majesty by this section is not delegated to a licensee under Section two of this Act the exercise of such right (in so far as it involves the entry upon or interference with land) shall be subject to all and the like obligations and conditions as would in the circumstances of that case have been imposed under this Act upon such exercise by a licensee.

The noble Lord said: I will move this Amendment very briefly. It is really very simple. It applies in a case where the Crown—that is, the Government—decide that they will have no licensee at all, and in that particular case it will protect the landowners. It provides that where there is no licensee the exercise of such right (in so far as it involves the entry upon or interference with land) shall be subject to all and the like obligations and conditions as would in the circumstances of that case have been imposed under this Act upon such exercise by a licensee. That is to say, that in a case where the Crown exercises its right under this Bill and issues no licence, there will be the same protection to the individual landowners as if the Crown were bound like any other licensee. I could not hear what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said; he was addressing only his supporters, and he had his back entirely to me. I rather gathered, though, that he said that there was no intention on the part of the Crown to bore for and to work oil itself, and that it would as a rule grant licences. If that is so, I cannot see why the noble Viscount should not be inclined to accept my Amendment, because it only applies where the Crown itself—that is to say, the Government of the day—decides itself to bore for oil, and to raise oil and to distribute the oil.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Straeltie.)

LORD HASTINGS

I wonder whether the noble Viscount who leads the House would be good enough to tell us whether in fact the Crown will be enabled to enter upon land and bore for oil otherwise than after the receipt of a licence which can be obtained only in the manner prescribed later on by the Bill? The fear of those who have been speaking in favour of these Amendments is that the Crown is exempt from the ordinary conditions which apply to ordinary licensees. That is really all that there is in it: there is the fear that the Crown will be exempt, and there is a great desire that the Crown shall not be exempt. If the noble Viscount can tell us that our fears are unreal, that will very largely clarify the situation.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am always reluctant to state my own personal opinion about these things, because any lawyer may possibly be mistaken; but may I state what my understanding is and then add what I hope my noble friend will think is riot an unreasonable suggestion? My understanding of these provisions is that by the first subsection His Majesty has all the property in petroleum in the country vested in him, with the three exceptions set out in the Schedule. By the next part of that subsection, only His Majesty can search for petroleum. By Clause 2, to which we will come in a moment, His Majesty, acting through the Board of Trade, can grant licences to people to search for, bore for, and get petroleum. If His Majesty wishes to sink wells on his own property—that is to say, if the Government desire to sink wells on their own land—there is nothing in this Bill to prevent it, but if the Government wish to go on to the land of somebody else, then inasmuch as whoever went would go only by virtue of a licence, they would be subject to the conditions which are contained in this clause and would have to get a licence from the Board of Trade. I have stated what I believe this Bill provides, and inasmuch as I am stating my own opinion in answer to a direct request, if my noble friend and your Lordships' House think fit I will get that view confirmed, and if there is any doubt about it then we will, on the Report stage, put in words which will make it plain. I have no doubt that that is what is intended, and I am quite prepared to give an assurance that we will satisfy ourselves by consulting the proper authorities that that is the effect, as I believe it to be.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I ask one question: Is it quite clear therefore that only in the case of an individual wishing to bore on his own property can that boring be done without a licence from the Board of Trade?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

Except the King.

LORD STRACHIE

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Licences to search for and get petroleum.

2.—(1) The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum.

(2) Any such licence shall be granted for such consideration (whether by way of royalty or otherwise) as the Board of Trade with the consent of the Treasury may determine, and upon such other terms and conditions as the Board of Trade think fit.

(3) The grant of a licence under this Act shall not be taken as conferring on any person any right to enter on or interfere with land.

LORD RANKEILLOUR had given Notice that he would move, in subsection (1), to leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners granting." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I had some fear would have been cut out. It is entirely due to a misunderstanding and I must apologise to your Lordships for the delay in the proceedings which that misunderstanding caused. If I may, I will move this Amendment in two parts, because two different points are involved, one point about the Provisional Order and another point about the position of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. I wish to move at the moment as follows: leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order granting."

The object of this Amendment is to secure that Parliament shall not part with its power in this matter. As the Bill is at present drawn I see no opportunity for a revision by Parliament of a licence once granted. I submit that if there is going to be any great development, the procedure should be such that at any rate Parliament shall know what is going on and shall have a right to express an opinion. I will come later on to the question of the nature of the inquiry and whether that is sufficient, but even assuming that there is an inquiry and that as the result of that inquiry the Board of Trade grant a licence, I submit that that licence ought to be brought before Parliament in the form of a Provisional Order. Operations under this Bill may be on a very large scale. You may have a great length of pipeline; you may have refineries, to which many people strongly object, and the whole question of public policy may be involved. I submit that it should not be left, with or without an inquiry, in the sole discretion of the Board of Trade. I beg to move.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the noble Lord moves the Amendment in a form different from the way in which it is printed. Do I understand him rightly to move in this form: Page 2, line 4, leave out "grant" and insert "make a Provisional Order granting" and does he wish to delete the other words?

LORD RANKEILLOUR

That is all I move now. The other words are omitted. I will decide whether to move the other words afterwards, when I know whether or not the word "grant" stands part of the clause.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out ("grant") and insert ("make a Provisional Order granting").—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The Amendment my noble friend has moved is followed by other similar Amendments to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, and a further Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, to insert a new subsection in Clause 2. The effect of the Amendment which has been moved now is that the Board of Trade would not be able to grant a licence under the Act to search for and bore for oil until the Railway and Canal Commissioners had made a recommendation that a licence might properly be issued.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I correct the noble Earl? I have now omitted that part of the Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

By altering his Amendment the noble Lord has made no provision for the grant of a permanent licence, so I understand that the noble Lord intends that the Provisional Order is to be confirmed by Parliament, virtually making the grant of each licence subject to Parliamentary approval. Am I right in that?

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I think not, because a number of licences could be comprised in one Provisional Order Bill.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

If that were done, a special Bill would be required each time a Provisional Order was to he made. But I would go further. An oil company of standing which might desire to secure a licence would very properly object, before it had secured any rights, to disclose for the benefit of those who had never suspected the existence of oil its belief that a certain area was likely to be oil-bearing. Such a belief would be based on the expert and technical knowledge which an oil company acquires as a result of its special experience, which it could not be expected to disclose for the benefit of all and sundry. The proposal is equivalent to saying that an inventor is to make public the details of his invention before he has secured his patent rights. The Bill at the moment places on the Board of Trade the duty of acting for the Crown as manager of its property in petroleum. The Board, which has acquired specialised knowledge in regard to petroleum questions and the grant of oil concessions, will have to satisfy itself as to the suitability of the applicant and his ability to develop any oil resources to the best advantage. Having obtained a licence the licensee has done no more than secure an interest in the petroleum. He cannot proceed to work the oil until he has secured the necessary rights of entry on the land. That is the stage at which the question of contemplated works will arise, and at this stage the Bill makes provision for the intervention of the Railway and Canal Commission if the necessary rights cannot be secured by voluntary arrangement.

The Amendment appears to contemplate that before the issue of a licence it will be possible for an applicant to indicate the places where he proposes to work. But it was made clear by Lord Londonderry during the debate on the Second Reading that one of the principal objects of the Bill is to enable licences to be granted in respect of very large areas. An applicant for a licence over an area such as may be contemplated would not be able to say in advance at what points he might wish to carry on operations. Accordingly, if the Amendment were accepted all those who are given rights of opposition in the whole of the area would have to be heard if they gave notice. There might be a dozen local authorities, and hundreds, and possibly thousands of owners and occupiers of land wishing to be heard. It is difficult to see what function the Railway and Canal Commission could perform when that stage was reached. Under the Bill the persons and bodies who are given the right of opposition have no rights in the oil, the property in which is vested in the Crown under Clause 1 of the Bill. When the stage is reached at which the licensee wishes to carry on the work of searching for and developing any oil which may be found, then, if he fails to secure the rights he requires by voluntary means, he can go to the Railway and Canal Commission, and the Commission has full powers under the Mines (Working Facilities)Act,1923.

As regards the proposal to apply Provisional Order procedure to the grant of licences, I suggest that for the reasons already given this procedure is not appropriate to this matter. There is the further reason that the adoption of such a procedure would involve very considerable delay in the issue of licences. It can safely he said that if the Amendment is adopted, it will defeat the purpose for which the Bill has been introduced—namely, to secure a proper and thorough search for oil by substantial people having at their disposal the best expert knowledge and advice. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment, which the noble Lord has moved in another form than that which appears on the Amendment Paper.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

The speech of the noble Earl in answer to this Amendment throws a new and rather sinister light on the procedure under this Bill, because it would appear that only to officials of the Board of Trade, and perhaps to the President, are the purposes of the exploiters of oil to be divulged. The Board of Trade will settle with the licensee in private. The licensee will divulge his plans to them only, and there will be no opportunity to others, necessarily, to state their case. I venture to say that whatever the disadvantages of delay may be the disadvantages of this procedure will be much greater. I confess I do not think that the delays will be so great. Provisional Orders on all sorts of subjects are made by the Departments, and as a rule they are not opposed, but in a new departure of this kind I say that Parliament should be in a position to supervise and if necessary revise the proceedings now to be started on foot. If I receive any measure of support in this matter I shall feel bound to divide the House.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think, perhaps, the noble Lord is somewhat unduly alarmed. The Board of Trade are by this Bill placed in the position of granting licences, and I think the noble Lord will see that the responsibility placed on their shoulders is one which it is quite impossible for them to discharge without duly considering all the surroundingcircumstances. That the Board of Trade should have the right to grant a licence is a very important point in the Bill, and it is quite impossible for the Board of Trade to grant a licence to any one who is not duly qualified to bore for and develop oil in the best circumstances. There is another matter which the noble Lord, in spite of his long experience, fails to recognise. The Board of Trade are subject to Parliament, and if they have shown by granting a licence that they are not carrying out their duty properly, the Board of Trade for their misdeeds will have to answer to Parliament. I think the noble Lord must agree with what has been already said, that if there is to be delay, and the matter of considering who is to have a licence is to be a question about which there is to be wide and prolonged discussion, all those difficulties which have prevented the development of oil in this country hitherto will be re-developed, and we shall find that this venture, which we hope will be a success, will again be a failure as it has been in the past. I hope the noble Lord will not feel so suspicious of the Board of Trade as to the manner in which they are going to grant licences, and that he will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I should like to support the Government, if the Government were not taking such very wide powers under this clause to grant licences to anybody they wished. There is no limitation, and I hope they will meet us later on and propose some limitation. For instance, there is no limitation to British subjects, and I feel sure that Parliament would wish to discuss that matter. They can also grant licences on any terms they choose. We are giving the Government very wide powers indeed to grant very valuable concessions, and in view of these wide terms I feel that Parliament can hardly abrogate its responsibility in this matter.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

The question of the Provisional Order having been decided, I wish to move to insert the words If the Government cannot give us some assurance on these points that they will take them into consideration, I am afraid i shall be bound to support Lord Rankeillour's Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Perhaps I omitted to tell your Lordships, because I was under the impression you had heard what I said on the Second Reading, and also had studied the Bill, that the granting of licences is one thing and access to the land another. Before oil can be exploited there have to be all those negotiations with the owners of the land, and if those negotiations are not successful then it is for the licensee to go to the Railway and Canal Commission. Therefore the suggestion that a foreign company might surreptitiously arrive on the land is entirely beside the point.

On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Elton, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Ernle, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Halifax, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Hereford, V.	Gainford, L.
	Mersey, V.	Greville, L.
Ancaster, E.		Joicey, L.
De La Warr, E.	Aberdare, L.	Luke, L.
Feversham, E.	Arnold, L.	Marks, L.
Iveagh, E.	Balfour of Burleigh, L.	Marley, L.
Leven and Melville, E.	Barnard, L.	Portsea, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Bayford, L.	Redesdale, L.
Midleton, E.	Carnock, L.	Rennell, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Rochester, L.
Munster, E.		Sanderson, L.
Plymouth, E.	Clwyd, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Stanhope, E.	Cottesloe, L.	Stanmore, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Danesfort, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal. L.
	Denman, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Dynevor, L.	Templemore, L.
Exmouth, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Somerset, D.	Bertie of Thame, V.	Forester, L.
		Hastings, L. [Teller.]
Dudley, E. [Teller.]	Auckland, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.	Lamington, L.
Peel, E.	Carrington, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Selborne, E.	Cranworth, L.	Rankeillour, L.
	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Remnant, L.
		Strachie, L.

"on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners." The point of this is that in the inquiry before the Railway and Canal Commissioners they should have the power to consider other applications and to consider the fitness of those applying and other relevant considerations. It is to give them a full inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and, if their recommendation is not to be confirmed by a Provisional Order, it seems to me to make this provision of the more importance.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("grant") insert ("on the recommendation of the Railway and Canal Commissioners")—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I do not think I can add anything further to the remarks which I made when the noble Lord moved his earlier Amendment. The effect of the proposed Amendment, as I said at the beginning, is that the Board of Trade would not be able to grant a licence to search or bore for oil until the Railway and Canal Commissioners had made a recommendation that the licence should be issued.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

moved, in subsection (1), to insert the following proviso: Provided that where separate applications are made by two or more persons for a licence to bore for petroleum on land of which one of those persons is the estate owner the Board of Trade shall not grant the licence to any person other than such estate owner. The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment is very largely self-explanatory. I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House at any rate will so far recognise and. uphold the rights of private landowners as to give them under the conditions of this Bill some preference where other persons besides themselves apply for licences to bore on their own property. I am sure that your Lordships will think that that is only a reasonable right for them to have, and I hope the Amendment will be accepted. The words "estate owner" may be considered too wide. In that case, of course, I should be ready to accept any variation of the term, such as "estate owner in fee simple," or any other variation which would more distinctly specify the estate owner as apart from a lessee.

It may be that the Government will say that you cannot obtain a unified development and at the same time grant the estate owner this privilege, and of course I do not mean that the estate owner should be granted a licence for any dog-in-the-manger reason. If the estate owner is competent to bore himself and has the necessary capital at his disposal—and, after all, these are matters which the Board of Trade would have to go into in the case of any applicant for a licence—if they are satisfied that he fulfils these conditions, then I am sure your Lordships will agree he should have a preference to obtain that licence over any other applicant, no matter how large that applicant might be.

After all, if, say, a very large company who are already boring in other parts were disappointed at not being able to obtain a licence to bore on a certain property where the private property owner had been granted the licence, they could always come, to some arrangement with the private property owner to do the boring, if he so wished; but I do feel, and I am sure your Lordships will also feel, that where the private owner is competent to do the boring on his own property ho should be granted that privilege. The noble Marquess talked about persons who were incompetent to do this boring. I do riot know whether the noble Marquess considers himself personally competent to bore for his own coal. I do not know whether he considers I am competent to bore for my coal. But we both do it, and we do it in a competent and adequate manner, and if petroleum is found on our property why should we not have the right to bore for it in preference to other applicants? I hope your Lordships will support this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("petroleum") insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

As I understand the Amendment the noble Earl has placed on the Paper, it is one which will in reality give the estate owner the right every time of having the licence before any other individual for that particular district. Under the terms of this Amendment the Board of Trade would not even have the right of ascertaining whether the estate owner was financially and technically qualified to do the work.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I do not suggest that for one moment. I thought I said in my opening arguments that the Board of Trade would have to make exactly the same inquiry in respect of the estate owner as in the case of any other applicant for a licence.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

That is not in the Amendment which the noble Lord has on the Paper.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

The estate owner will apply for a, licence, and in applying will be subject to the same questionnaire as any other applicant; but having satisfied the Board of Trade that lie is a competent person to bore, I submit he should have a preference over other applicants.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

That is not the Amendment as I read it. However, I shall deal with the points raised. Firstly, it is putting the Government and the Board of Trade in the most difficult position. If you accept this Amendment it will be defeating one of the main objects of the Bill, which is to enable the Board of Trade to grant licences to properly qualified persons and firms and, where necessary, to give exclusive rights over a very substantial area. If that area covered a district of 200 or 300 square miles you would have an owner coming along and saying: "I was first"; and, whether he was first or not, according to the Amendment which the noble Earl has put down, he would be bound to have that licence before a firm or other individuals who may be more competent to work the oil.

I will read one passage to your Lordships from the Report which was made in 1927–28 by Sir Thomas Holland, the very eminent geologist, who undertook a survey of the Trinidad oil industry at the request of that Government. He says: That it is necessary for Government to have the power to exploit Crown oil through its approved licensee or lessee is essential, and its decisions therefore should not be controlled by regard for independent private understandings previously made between surface owners and applicants for concessions. There might be scores of applications for licences from estate owners each one of whom might conscientiously believe that he was capable of undertaking the search for oil. But a large percentage would soon discover that searching for oil is a highly speculative and expensive business. The licences having been granted would have a nuisance value, and if a bona fide oil company were induced to take any interest under such conditions it would have to buy out those rights at some stage of the proceedings. But the carrying out of operations by concerns inadequately equipped and financed can, and would, be very harmful, and I would even go so far as to say that if this Amendment is accepted it will stop any real likelihood there may be of a search for oil in this country being carried out on a substantial scale by competent individuals. I would therefore ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.

LORD BAYFORD

Although technically the noble Earl, Lord Munster, is perfectly right in suggesting that the Amendment as it stands cannot be accepted, my noble friend behind 111C has raised a point with Which a great many of us are in sympathy. We do think that, other things being equal, the owner of the land ought to have the first choice. I think that is the point my noble friend wishes to raise. It is true that, as the Amendment stands, the Government cannot accept it, but they realise what is in my noble friend's mind, and I think they should give us some assurance that between now and the Report stage they will consider this matter and see if there is not some means by which they can meet the point, which I think is a good point, and one with which a good many noble Lords, on this side of the House at any rate, are in fullest sympathy.

LORD GAINFORD

I hope this matter will be considered by the Government. I admit that the Amendment as drafted is not at all complete, but it seems to me that if there are two applicants for a licence, and one is the owner, then, provided the owner is in a proper financial position and has the ability to carry out his undertakings, the owner's application ought to have prior consideration by the Board of Trade. Take for instance an individual who wants to bore for petroleum in somebody's park, and the individual who owns the surface in the Park also knows there is coal lying under the surface of the soil. He has not only got an interest in working the coal through the boring operation and ascertaining what coal there is, but he may be quite prepared to bore also for petroleum which may be below the coal.

As we all know, there is very little difference in the origin of petroleum and coal. It is vegetation which has been either compressed or turned into liquid fuel through the ages, and it does seem to me that an individual who is prepared on his own property to sink for petroleum ought to have at least as much right to do so as some company which may come along. Furthermore it seems that an individual who is prepared to do all the necessary work to get petroleum on his estate has a real interest in the buildings which may be erected in connection with it, and he is obviously interested in the people who come to reside there and to work. He also has an interest in the character of the plant which may be erected and the place where it may be erected. If, in all the circumstances, it seems to the Board of Trade that the applicants are on equal terms, fair consideration ought to be given to the owner of the property and the Board of Trade should not give preference to an outsider.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

If the Government would accept the principle which the Amendment implies, and which the noble Lord has just adumbrated—that is to say, all things being equal the property owner should have a preference over other applicants—I would naturally accept any words that would fit in with that principle. I have no wish to give a preference to a dog-in-the-manger property owner who wishes to obtain a licence and has no real desire or intention of boring; but it appeared to me that the Board of Trade, under this Amendment, would still have the right of questioning the applicant, even though he was the property owner, and, if the Board of Trade were satisfied he had not sufficient capital or sufficient organisation to bore and only meant to get his licence in order to trade it to an outside company, then, of course, I do not ask for any preference in that case. If the Government would assure me that between now and the Report stage they will give a preference on the lines the noble Lord has just adumbrated, I would be willing to withdraw this Amendment.

So far as the arguments of the noble Earl who replied with regard to the expense and in regard to inadequacy are concerned, I do not think they are telling arguments. After all, I can only refer to the fact that the noble Marquess who is in charge of this Bill and myself, under present conditions, get our own coal, and it is not said by anybody on this side of the House that we should not get that, coal on the grounds of expense. We may be foolish enough to attempt to get it; at any rate, we do get it; and I cannot see any reason why the argument of expense and inadequacy should apply to us in getting petroleum when it does not apply to us in getting coal.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I hardly think there is very much difference between us on this matter. The discussion has wandered very far from the Amendment which, in no circumstances, expresses the views the noble Earl has in his mind. I think it must be obvious to your Lordships that the Board of Trade, when they consider these matters, will endeavour to find the individual who is best qualified and best equipped to make a success of the venture of finding oil. One can rightly imagine that the person, if he is properly equipped financially and otherwise, would be the person who is owner of the soil. I cannot understand why the noble Earl is so apprehensive that the owner of the soil will be pushed on one side if he is properly and efficiently equipped to carry out the duty which, in the interests of the State, should be carried out not only efficiently and well but also harmoniously in consideration of the people who live in the district. I am bound to say I am not so apprehensive as the noble Earl on that point. I can assure him that this matter, like other matters which your Lordships have raised, will be very carefully considered between this stage and the Report stage, but I hardly think that words could be found which would really carry out the views that are in the noble Earl's mind.

The noble Earl made another point with reference to a licence having a "nuisance value." It was suggested to Lordships that the Amendment which is on the Paper should be incorporated in the Bill. That would mean that an owner would be able to establish a claim and place himself on his property, and if a licensee later on was able to make a success of boring for oil, he would have to come to some terms with the owner before he could successfully go on with the object he had in view. I am sure the noble Earl has no intention of that kind in his mind. I certainly have no apprehension that the Board of Trade or any other Government Department would depart from what is obviously the best way of carrying out the objects desired.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

On the assurance given me by the noble Marquess I am afraid I cannot withdraw the Amendment altogether. I would wish, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw the Amendment as it now stands and re-draft it for submission on Report stage, embodying the principle with which I think your Lordships are in sympathy.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections: (2) The Board of Trade shall cause notice of any application made to them for a licence under this section to be published in accordance with regulations to be made under this Act in some newspaper or newspapers circulating in the locality to which the application relates and in the London Gazette, and such notices shall specify the time within which and the manner in which objections to or representations with respect to the application can be made. (3) If no objection or representation is duly made to the Board of Trade or if all objections and representations so made are withdrawn the Board. of Trade upon being satisfied that the proper notices have been published may if they think fit grant the licence, but in any other case they shall before granting the licence cause a local inquiry to be held and shall consider any objection or representation not withdrawn and the report of the person who held the inquiry: Provided that the Board of Trade may require any person who has made an objection or representation to state in writing the grounds thereof and may grant the licence without causing a local inquiry to be held if satisfied that every objection or representation duly made and not withdrawn relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the Railway and Canal Commission under Section three of this Act.

The noble Earl said: The Bill as at present drafted provides, as your Lordships will be aware, no machinery whatsoever for notifying estate owners of negotiations which may be going on between the Board of Trade and applicants for a licence. It affords no opportunity to private estate owners to lodge objections to those negotiations, which several noble Lords have pointed out will in fact be going on in secret at the Board of Trade. It provides no machinery for notifying neighbouring estate owners of the intention to bore in the neighbourhood of their property, and it provides no opportunity for those neighbouring estate owners to lodge objections if they should think it reasonable to do so. There is also no provision for any local inquiry to deal with any special local conditions which may arise in a certain district before boring is carried out, or in fact before a licence is granted. It is true that the Railway and Canal Commission under subsection (2) (a) of Clause 3 shall have regard, amongst other considerations, to the effect on the amenities of the locality by the proposed use and occupation of the land in respect of which the right is applied for. I think your Lordships will agree that in many cases it will be necessary for an inquiry to go much further than the inquiries which the Bill imposes on the Railway and Canal Commission at present. To begin with, I am not at all sure that the Railway and Canal Commission have the necessary machinery for setting up a local inquiry. I understand they are a body of gentlemen who sit in London and who have no power to appoint a local commission to enquire into local conditions.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting him? I think, in replying to Lord Rankeillour's Amendment on line 4, I dealt with the points which the noble Earl now mentions, and I said beforehand that I would endeavour to deal with them on that Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I do not think the noble Earl dealt with the particular points I am raising, which are (a) whether there should be a local inquiry at all, and (b) whether the Railway and Canal Commission or the Board of Trade are the right people to hold that local inquiry. I am submitting by my Amendment that the Board of Trade are the people who should hold the local inquiry, but if the Government are able to assure me that the Railway and Canal Commission have the power to hold that local inquiry and will be empowered to do so by this Bill by the insertion of some such words as "having held a local inquiry" at the end of Clause 3 (2)(a), then I would be perfectly satisfied. I think that your Lordships will agree that there are many cases where it would be necessary that a local inquiry should be held.

My Amendment ensures that the necessary and proper publicity would be given locally three months before a licence is granted to an individual to bore in that district. That is to say, three months before the licence is granted notice will be given in the local newspapers and in the London Gazette. That will give a chance to the estate owners to lodge reasonable objections. It will give them a chance to make arrangements to bore themselves if they should desire to do so and to put in their application. It will give a chance to neighbouring property-owners to lodge their objections, and it will also ensure against undesirable persons being granted licences by the Board of Trade without due notice having been given locally. The noble Marquess said just now that it was unreasonable to suppose that such licences would he granted by the Board of Trade to undesirable persons. If the present Government, or a Conservative Government, were always going to provide the President of the Board of Trade, I should have no such feelings of fear, but I do not think the noble Marquess can vouch for the action of a Board of Trade appointed by a Socialist Government that may hold office in the future. I hope your Lordships will give your earnest consideration to this Amendment and that I shall get an assurance from the Government that the principle of it will be embodied in the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think there is a little confusion in the mind of the noble Earl, if he will not mind my saying so. There is a great distinction between obtaining a licence and what happens after that licence has been obtained. The person making the application goes to the Board of Trade. If he is a proper person to carry out the work and is capable of doing so, the Board of Trade will grant him a, licence. I think the noble Earl will see that that is not a matter for public inquiry. The individual must receive the licence because

in the opinion of the Board of Trade he is a fit person and capable of carrying out the work. If a public inquiry were to precede that, and the individuals in competition had to go before a tribunal to argue the case, it would entail delay and create difficulties which would be most unfortunate.

Once the individual has obtained a licence he then has to obtain access to the land and then comes the time for inquiry. An owner can refuse a licensee access to the land. He may have good and adequate reasons for doing so, in which case there would be no further steps taken, but if the licensee considers that permission is withheld capriciously he can go before the Railway and Canal Commission, who will then go into the matter and say whether it is proper to prevent the licensee exercising the right conferred on him in the licence. It is a matter which has been raised before in this debate. The noble Lord behind me desired that it should be done by Provisional Order, but your Lordships accepted the view that the best way to work the Bill is that the Board of Trade should have exclusive power to grant licences.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask whether in case of an inquiry before the Railway and Canal Commission they would be able to entertain objections that the licensees were not fit and proper persons, or to consider representations that other persons would be more fit to undertake the work, or would they under their terms of reference be unable to go into the question at all and have to take the licensee and only decide the way in which the licence should be carried out on the land?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is that they would have to satisfy the Railway and Canal Commission, when these proceedings have arrived at that stage, that they were fit and proper persons to have the right applied for.

On Question, Whether the proposed new subsections shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS.
Dudley, E. [Teller.]	Bertie of Thame, V.	Aberdare, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Exmouth, V.	Banbury of Southam, L.
Carrington, L.	Forester, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Cranworth, L.	Hastings, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Dynevor, L.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Remnant, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Lamington, L.	Strachie, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Bridgeman, V.	Denman, L.
	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Elton, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Dufferin and Ava, M.	Hailsham, V.	Gainford, L.
	Halifax, V.	Greville, L.
Ancaster, E.	Hereford, V.	Luke, L.
De La Warr, E.	Mersey, V.	Marks, L.
Feversham, E.		Marley, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Balfour of Burleigh,	Rennell, L.
Midleton, E	Bayford, L.	Rochester, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Carnock, L.	Somerleyton, L.
Munster, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan William.)	Stanmore, L.
Plymouth, E.		Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Stanhope, E.	Clwyd, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Cottesloe, L.	Templemore, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD STRACHIE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsections: () In determining whether any licence shall be granted or the terms and conditions upon which any such licence shall be granted the Board of Trade shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and in particular to—

1. (i)whether it is more in the national interest that any minerals other than petroleum the getting or working of which would be prevented or prejudicially affected by the exercise of the powers of the licence should be got or worked than that the licence should he granted; and
2. (ii) the extent to which the searching or boring or getting of petroleum under the licence will or may prevent the getting or working of minerals other than petroleum or prejudicially affect such getting or working by causing the flooding of mines or in any other manner.

() The terms and conditions upon which a licence shall he granted shall include an obligation upon the licensee to pay compensation to all persons interested in any lands and to all mineowners whose lands or mines are injuriously affected by the acts or operations of the licensee under the licence not being acts or operations in exercise of an ancillary right obtained by the licensee under Section three of this Act. Such compensation shall be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission in the same manner as compensation is determined under Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and that Part as amended by any subsequent enactment shall (mutatis mutandis) apply for the purposes of this subsection and have effect accordingly. () In this section 'minerals' means all minerals and substances in or under land obtainable whether by underground or surface working.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment, like the Amendment which we have just discussed, is to protect as far as possible the owners of land and also to protect other industries working under the land. This clause seems to me to be in some ways rather contradictory. Subsection (1) provides: The Board of Trade, on behalf of His Majesty, shall have power to grant to such persons as they think fit licences to search and bore for and get petroleum. That looks as if the Board of Trade have the right to grant a licence to any one to go upon other people's land whether they like it or not, to destroy the amenities of their mansion house or their park, and in fact to do what they like Subsection (3) provides: The grant of a licence under this Act shall not be taken as conferring ou any person any right to enter on or interfere with land. Those two provisions seem to be contradictory. The object of my Amendment is, as far as possible, to protect the interests of the landowner. I hope the Government may be inclined to accept some Amendments. So far they have rejected every Amendment, although they evidently contemplate a Report stage, because the Leader of the House has said that on Report various questions will be reconsidered and something may be done in the matter. But if they refuse to accept any Amendments there will be no Report stage, so that I can only hope that on some occasion the Government may be inclined to accept an Amendment.

The object of my Amendment is to provide that in determining whether any licence shall be granted various considerations shall be taken into account, and that the Board of Trade shall be satisfied that the granting of the licence will not prejudice any existing or future coal working. I am told by those who are interested in this matter that the question is very serious indeed. In places where you have borings for coal, as has been said, you will sometimes have borings at lower depths underneath the coal measures. We all know that sometimes there is great danger when making these borings of flooding a particular area, and the Bill as drawn does not seem to protect against that danger either existing workings or future workings of coal. If borings were made to great depths in land in which it was known that coal existed, people might he very unwilling to go to the expense of putting down a costly shaft because they would realise that there would be a risk of the shaft being flooded out owing to the borings which had been made.

It is quite evident that this question has been before the Ministry, and not so very long ago. I understand that what happened was this, that as regards making boreholes or sinking wells for water the Ministry of Health actually asked the Mine Owners' Joint Committee to discuss this matter with them, showing that at any rate the Ministry of Health did not think that it was out of the question that boring for water or sinking wells might seriously affect workings of coal which might be rather near the surface. I think the Committee might consider very carefully whether there is any right to destroy old industries in order to start new ones, because there are certain cases in which that has occurred. It has happened, I know, in my own part of the country, where there is only a very small coalfield, in which, owing to flooding, one colliery has let water into another and has entirely prevented the working of that colliery and destroyed it. Under this clause of the Bill it seems to me that the same thing might happen.

There seems to be no provision to guard adjoining landowners from damage done by an owner who under licence is boring for petroleum, and the object of this rather long Amendment of mine is to give him some protection. It seems to me that taking the Bill as a whole there is precious little protection for landowners against the risk either that their coal mine may be flooded out or that the amenities of their estate may be entirely destroyed, or to ensure that there shall be any real or adequate compensation. No compensation is provided by Clause 2 for damage done by operating under a licence, as distinct from the compulsory acquisition of rights under Clause 3. I hope that if the noble Marquess will not accept this Amendment of mine, he may, on the other hand, be ready to say that upon Report he will further consider this matter, in order to ensure that owners shall be properly protected. I venture to think that the general feeling amongst coal owners, and indeed owners generally, is that under these licences to be granted there is no protection for them and that they must he very prejudicially affected. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There appears to be still a certain amount of misconception of the position in regard to the issue of licences. Let me once again repeat what the method is and what actually has to be done. The grant of a licence does no more than assign to a licensee the rights which under the Bill the Crown will possess of searching and boring for and getting oil. The Bill makes it quite clear that the grant of a licence gives no rights to enter upon or interfere with land. These rights the licensee must acquire either by voluntary arrangements with landowners or by an order of the Railway and Canal-Commission. If an arrangement is made with a landowner he will obviously consider the effect of the grant of rights on the working of minerals of which he is the owner.

If the licensee goes to the Railway and Canal Commission, a specific duty is laid on the Commission under the Act of 1923 to consider whether it is in the national interest that a right should be granted. A licence to search for and get petroleum may be granted over a large area, and it would be impracticable for the Board Of Trade to consider the question of all other minerals which may exist in the area; but for the reasons already given it is suggested that there is no necessity for such a provision in the Bill. The question only becomes a practical one when a licensee wishes to start operations at a particular place, and I suggest that when this happens the situation is covered by the provisions of the Bill.

As regards the second part of the Amendment, assuming that third parties are not to be granted compensation there would appear to be no need to make any special provision, because the person granting the rights will presumably include in his terms something on this account. If third parties, on the other hand, are to be included in such cases, it seems illogical to exclude them where rights are granted by the Court. The question of third parties was carefully considered by the Government when the. Bill was being drafted, and it was decided that these must be left to their rights at Common Law in the event of damage or nuisance arising. I do not think there is any necessity for the noble Lord's Amendment, and I would ask your Lordships not to accept it.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 2 agreed to.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY had on the Paper an Amendment to insert the following new clause after Clause 2:

Appeals.

". Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Board of Trade otherwise than pursuant to the proviso to subsection (1) of Section two of this Act to grant a licence under that section or by any term or condition as to consideration or otherwise upon which a licence is granted under that section may at any time within three months after the intimation to him of such refusal or of such term or condition by notice in writing addressed to the Board of Trade appeal against such refusal or such term or condition (as the case may be) and thereupon the Board of Trade shall refer the matter to the Railway and Canal Commission who after considering any representations made to them by the Board of Trade and hearing any other parties appearing to the Commission to be interested in the matter may either allow or disallow the appeal or (in the case of an appeal against any such term or condition as aforesaid) may allow the term or conditions with modifications or substitute a new term or condition and the decision of the Commission on any matter referred to them under this section shall be final and binding. Provided that where separate appeals are made by two or more persons against the refusal of the Board of Trade to grant a licence to bore for petroleum on land of which one of those persons is the estate owner the Commission shall not allow the appeal in favour of any person other than such estate owner."

The noble Earl said: I think your Lordships will agree that the powers of the Board of Trade under the Bill as drafted, with regard to the granting of licences, are altogether too arbitrary, and my Amendment provides a right of appeal.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

On a point of order, is riot this Amendment consequential to a previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl on Clause 2, page 2, line 6: "Provided that where separate applications are made by two or more persons" down to "any person other than such estate owner"?

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

Not at all. The point here is entirely different. This Amendment provides a right of appeal for any applicant for a licence who has been unsuccessful in obtaining a licence from the Board of Trade. At present any applicant who is turned down by the Board of Trade has no method by which he may appeal against the decision of the Board of Trade. In fact, the Bill gives the President of the Board of Trade a complete monopoly over the granting of licences. My Amendment would allow any applicant Whose application has not been successful to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission, whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding. I might point out that the last six lines of my Amendment as it appears on the Paper, containing the proviso, are now out of order, because they refer to those persons who have failed to get their application granted owing to the fact that the estate owner was by my previous Amendment to have a preference. I now propose that any applicant who has failed to get a licence shall have a right of apeal and a right to have his case re-opened by the Railway and Canal Commission. I hope the Government will realise that the present powers of the Board of Trade are too strong and will accept this Amendment and give applicants a right of appeal.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Earl omits the proviso at the end of his Amendment?

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

Yes. The last six lines.

Amendment moved—

After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

The Amendment is designed to give any individual a right of appeal. Under the Amendment there are two grounds on which an appeal may be made. The first is against the refusal by the Board of Trade to grant a licence, except where a licence is granted to an estate owner, and the second is against any term or condition upon which a licence is granted. In regard to the first point I can assume that the noble Earl's intention is that an appeal shall only be allowable when the Board of Trade refuses to grant a licence to anyone in respect of a particular area, and not in those cases where the Board of Trade has selected one applicant in preference to another. If an appeal is to be allowed in the latter cases, with a right on the part of the Railway and Canal Commission to decide against a decision of the Board of Trade to grant a licence, I think the arguments already used on the Amendment to Clause 2 standing in the name of Lord Rankeillour will apply, as no substantial concern would disclose its plans with the possibility of having a right given to it by the Board of Trade withdrawn.

There are perhaps various reasons why the Board of Trade might refuse to grant licences. There might be unsuitability on the part of the applicant, or he might not have the necessary financial and technical assistance to enable him to carry out oil development work. There might be a third reason—namely, that negotiations were proceeding with another applicant who was better fitted to undertake the work, but who may only be prepared to proceed if allowed to take up a larger area, including that in respect of which another application had been made. As regards an appeal against any term or condition upon which a licence is granted, I would suggest that there is no substantial ground on which an appeal procedure such as is outlined in the Amendment can be justified.

So far as any financial consideration is concerned, the Board of Trade can only act with the consent of the Treasury. It is difficult, I think, to see how a distinction can properly be drawn between a licence issued by the Board of Trade acting for the Crown under this Act, and licences or leases granted by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I submit that the acceptance of this Amendment would create a dangerous precedent. The issue of licences will in each case be made on the authority of a Minister, who will, of course, be ultimately responsible to Parliament should any suggestion be made of unfair administration in the granting of these licences. In those circumstances I would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I think that is a very unsympathetic answer from the Government. I do not say that the Railway and Canal Commission are necessarily the right people, though they appear to be the obvious body. But some provision should be made for appeal by those applicants who have been turned down by the Board of Trade. Otherwise we might find the Board of Trade giving licences to unsuitable people, when rejected applicants were more suitable to do the boring, and they have no power of appeal under the Bill. Unless I can get some assurance from the Government that they will look into the question of appeal between now and the Report stage, I shall press my Amendment.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I can certainly look into the question the noble Earl has raised, but I can give him no definite promise that anything will be done.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

Is there going to be a Report stage

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Yes.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 3:

Provisions as to compulsory acquisition of rights to enter on land, & c.

3.〔(1) Part I of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, as amended by any subsequent enactment, shall apply for the purpose of enabling a person holding a licence under this Act to acquire such ancillary rights as may be required for the exercise (if the rights granted by the licence, and shall have effect accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

1. (a) references to a person having a right to work minerals shall include references to a person holding a licence under this Act, references to minerals shall include references to petroleum, and references to the working of minerals shall include references to the getting, carrying away, storing, treating and converting of petroleum;
1079
2. (b) without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of Section three of the said Act, the ancillary rights therein mentioned shall include (in addition to the rights specified in subsection (2) of that section) a right to enter upon land and to sink bore holes therein for the purpose of searching for and getting petroleum, and a right to use and occupy land for the erection of such buildings, the laying and maintenance of such pipes, and the construction of such other works as may be required for the purpose of searching and boring for and getting, carrying away, storing, treating and converting petroleum:

Provided that where a right to lay and maintain pipes under a highway is granted by virtue of this subsection, Sections nineteen to twenty-eight and thirty to thirty-four of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, shall be incorporated in the order granting the right, subject to any modifications or adaptations specified in the order.

(2) In relation to any application made to the Railway and Canal Commission under Part I of the said Act, as applied by this section, the following provisions shall have effect:— (a) the Commission shall, in deciding whether to grant any right applied for or what terms and conditions, if any, should be imposed upon the grant of such a right, have regard, among other considerations, to the effect on the amenities of the locality of the proposed use and occupation of the land in respect of which the right is applied for:

LORD STRACHIE

had on the Paper three Amendments to subsection (1)—at the beginning to insert "So much of"; after "enactment" to insert the words "as relates to the granting of ancillary rights for facilitating the working of minerals"; and after "shall" ["shall apply"] to insert "mutatis mutandis and so far as applicable." The noble Lord said: My object is to secure that the whole of Part I of the Act of 1923 should not be embodied in this Act. It does not seem necessary to bring extraneous mattersinto this Bill. For instance, under this Bill it does not seem necessary to bring in Section 8 of the Act of 1923, which deals only with restrictions on working minerals required for support. This Amendment is not damaging to the Bill; it is simply clarifying it, and applying only that Part of the Act of 1923 where boring for petroleum comes in. It cannot be said that Section 8 of that Act could have anything whatever to do with boring. I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 15, at the beginning insert ("So much of").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I should like to take these three Amendments together. I am advised that in the view of the Parliamentary Counsel they are not necessary, but I am quite prepared to look into the point before the Report stage and see if we can come to some agreement to put down an Amendment at that stage of the Bill.

LORD STRACHIE

I shall be very glad to accept this if there is a Report stage. It seems to me that this is just one of the cases where a small Amendment might be accepted, but the Government seem to me to be accepting nothing.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Oh, yes, I am accepting one of the noble Lord's Amendments later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in paragraph(a) of subsection (2), after "the Commission shall," to insert: advertise their intention of considering the recommendation of any licence applied for in three newspapers circulating in the area affected, and shall hold a local inquiry before recommending the grant of the licence if required by any local authority or owner or occupier of land in the said area who binds himself under a deposit of one hundred pounds to appear in opposition to the recommendation. For the purpose of this section an area affected means an area within three miles of any of the contemplated works. The Commission shall.

The noble Lord said: I am not particularly attached to the actual words of this Amendment, but I want to get a statement from the Government as to what is the procedure under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act and the Railway and Canal Commission Act. I was told in answer to a Question the other day that the applicant under this Act is required to serve notice on the parties directly interested and to advertise by public notice in the local Press and elsewhere, giving full particulars of the application, so as to enable any other party interested to apply for leave to appear at the hearing. That, I understand, depends on summons for directions in each case, and I presume these summonses for directions depend on rules to be made. I should rather like to know by whom these rules are to be made, whether they can be revised by Parliament, and whether there is any objection, in view of the difficulties of this development, in making them statutory. Also I understand that there has been no local inquiry by the Commissioners under the Act of 1923. But I submit that they cannot very often properly discharge their duties as proposed under this Bill unless they do hold a local inquiry and consider, among other things, the effect on the amenities of the district.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 11, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I was unaware that the noble Lord was going to raise the question of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act and to go into the details of the Bill as he has done. but I will certainly make a point of examining that and answering his question at a later stage. As regards this Amendment and the other two standing in his name, which follow it on the Paper, the previous Amendment which the noble Lord moved was not accepted, but, if it had been, the necessary consequential Amendments, including one providing for the confirmation of Provisional Orders, would more appropriately be included in Clause 2 or a new clause. The second and third of these Amendments on the Paper would really make nonsense of Clause 3 (2) (a).

LORD RANKEILLOUR

These two later Amendments were consequential on the earlier Amendment, and I am not moving them. I am only moving the first of the three.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I regret that the Government cannot accept the first Amendment. I understood that all three of the Amendments were consequential on a previous Amendment which the noble Lord moved, but, as he appears to have some doubt in his mind on that point, I will examine it more carefully and give him a reply on the Report stage.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

Would it be possible to circulate something—I will put down a Question, if necessary—as to what are these rules under the Act of 1923, and by whom they are made and whether they can be reviewed by Parliament? That is really my point.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

If the noble Lord will put down a Question on that point it could no doubt be answered more fully.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph(b), to insert the following new paragraph: (c) provision shall be made for all works being carried out with due regard to the amenities of the locality and for reinstatement of the land on the ceasing or abandonment of any work; and if any dispute arises under this paragraph it shall be determined by the Commission:

The noble Lord said: This Amendment speaks for itself. I think a provision like this finds its way into other Acts where compulsory powers are taken, and something of the kind is necessary in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 23, at end insert the said new paragraph —(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

In subsection (2) of Clause 3 the Bill already includes provisions which are supplemental to those contained in the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, which are designed to protect the amenities of a locality in which oil development may take place and to enable additional compensation to be given where rights are acquired compulsorily. Under subsection (2) (a) of Clause 3 the Railway and Canal Commission is required in deciding whether to grant any right applied for, or what terms and conditions should be imposed upon the grant, to have regard to the effect on the amenities of the locality of the proposed use and occupation. It may be that at that stage the Court will lay down certain conditions, which may to a considerable extent meet the points raised in my noble friend's Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted in its present form a licensee carrying on operations might be liable to have his activities continually interfered with because someone in the locality objected to a particular stage of those activities, and complained that he was spoiling the amenities of the district. If no redress were obtainable the dispute would have to go to the Commission for determination, and this would impose an undue liability upon the licensee. It is perhaps not unreasonable to suggest that some provision should be made as to the reinstatement of land on the ceasing or abandonment of any work, and here again the Commission may take this into account in considering the terms of the grant. I am advised there is no need to accept this Amendment, and in that case I should be glad if the noble Lord would withdraw it.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

Under paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) we are told compensation is to be paid, and I think the question is also raised by this Amendment. That is the question of compensation for damage to amenities in the event of refineries being put up which would change the aspect of the country, pipes being laid, and so on. But what happens after three or four years if the licensee is fortunate enough to recover oil and the whole country is ruined by the oil going over it? Is there a fresh chance to get compensation? It appears to me that the clause is drawn on the understanding that the owner of the surface is going to get damages while the prospecting is in progress, but I do not see in the Bill that there is any provision for compensation to owners—not only the large owners, but everyone who owns a cottage in the country—should oil be discovered and the district made very nearly unbearable.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Government are by no means opposed to the spirit which actuates the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, and I think it will be best if the noble Lord and myself consult as to the form of words which will carry out the object he has in view.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I am much obliged to the noble Marquess, and I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power to make regulations.

6.—(l) The Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing—

1. (a) the manner in which and the persons by whom applications for licences under this Act may be made;
2. (b) the fees to be paid on any such application;
3. (c) the conditions as to the size and shape of areas in respect of which licences may be granted;
4. (d) model clauses which shall, unless the Board think fit to modify or exclude 1084 them in any particular case, be incorporated in any such licence;

and different regulations may be made for different kinds of licence.

(2) Any regulations made under this section shall he laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and if either House, within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulations are laid before it, resolves that the regulations shall he annulled, the regulations shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for "may" ["The Board of Trade may"] The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

I accept this Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new subsection: (2) Before any regulations are made under this section a draft thereof shall he laid before each House of Parliament and if either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such draft is laid before it passes a Resolution against the draft or any part thereof no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations.

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment of substance. The object of the Amendment is to provide that regulations made under this clause shall not become operative until they are approved by Parliament. As the Bill now stands it would appear that they may become operative before that. I think this is a matter that Parliament should consider before any effect is given to the regulations. There are plenty of precedents both ways, I imagine, but I submit that in a departure of this kind, especially when such great power is given to a Department, the regulations made by that Department should come up for the scrutiny of Parliament. To get an affirmative Resolution in the Houses of Parliament is a very different thing from opponents getting a negative one, and I think in this case we ought to lean to the side of caution and give Parliament a prior right before regulations come into effect.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 27, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Under the Amendment which my noble friend has moved no regulations can be made until Parliament has considered them in detail. The fact that draft regulations would have to lie an the Table of each House for twenty-eight sitting days might mean very serious delay before the first regulations could be issued, and the same thing would happen to any amendment of regulations which had proved in practice to be unsuitable or unworkable. With the Bill as it is drafted at the moment. I would suggest to the noble Lord that the Board of Trade are given as much latitude as reasonable and effective administration demands, while full Parliamentary supervision is maintained to en. sure that the acts of the Department are kept under proper control. I hope the noble Lord may see his way to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I am afraid I am not very much impressed by the argument of delay. The delay under my form of Amendment would not be very long. but I know that whatever may be said about the general supervision of Parliament, the practical supervision very often makes the whole difference. In view of the great powers which the Bill gives to the Board of Trade I regret I am not content to withdraw.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I venture to ask the noble Lord to reconsider his decision to pursue this Amendment. The Amendment does mean that a great deal of delay would ensue, and in most of these matters I think the noble Lord will agree delay would be undesirable. The Bill provides very clearly that the Board of Trade are really very seriously confined in their actions, and these actions must come within the purview of Parliament at a very early date. While the noble Lord and myself are certainly guardians of the right of the public to sanction all these matters, still I hardly think the Amendment which the noble Lord has put on the Paper is one that is best calculated to carry out the object he has in view. I know it is very difficult to go on suggesting to the noble Lord that every Amendment he proposes involves delay, but I think he will agree at the same time that these Parliamentary usages and controls, to the principle of which we all subscribe, can mean delay which will cause injury to those who are endeavouring to prospect for oil in this country. I hardly think the noble Lord's Amendment really carries out the full object he has in view, and I hope he will see his way to Withdraw it. I can assure him that between now and the next stage of the Bill I will consider all his Amendments from the point of view from which he has moved them.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I am not wholly convinced. This is a matter of considerable importance and it is entered upon at rather a late hour. It raises the whole question of the supervision of Parliament over Departments. If the noble Marquess will not take the Amendments now, might I suggest that the proceedings in Committee be adjourned so that the matter may be fully considered before the Committee stage is resumed at some later date? If necessary I would make a Motion to that effect.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

There is one further point which might be put to the noble Lord. At present Parliament imposes a duty on the Board of Trade, after the passing of this Act, to administer it, and under the Act the Board of Trade has to make regulations. The Bill makes it clear what are the matters in regard to which the Board may make regulations, and after they have been made it may be found in practice that they require to be amended. While giving the Board of Trade power to make regulations, Parliament reserves its right to renew the regulations if it considers it desirable to do so. I can only emphasise what my noble friend has already said, that we will consider the point which the noble Lord has raised in greater detail at the next stage.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

I think in the circumstances it would be best if this matter were further considered in Committee. I, therefore, move that the Committee stage be adjourned. I am not quite sure what the proper terms of the Motion should be. I understand now that the Motion should be that the House do now resume, and I move accordingly.

Moved, That the House be resumed.—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I hope the noble Lord will not persist in the Motion he has moved. We have nearly got through the Committee stage. There will be another stage accorded to this Bill in which many questions that have been brought forward can be revised, if necessary. In view of these cir

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.