HL Deb 15 May 1934 vol 92 cc388-421

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read.

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

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, during the discussion of a good many Amendments of mine, which I was moving on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association and also of the Mineral Owners' Joint Committee, I received assurances from the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that they would go into the questions with me if I would go, as I did, to the Mines Department; and I may say I am fairly well satisfied with what took place. But, in order that we may get some definite public statement, I venture to ask the noble Marquess one or two questions on this matter. The Amendments that I moved in Committee were directed to three principal points, and I am anxious to be assured that those points are in fact already safeguarded by the Bill, so that my Amendments are not necessary.

The object of one of the Amendments was to ensure that the Crown should be put in no better position under the Bill than a person who obtained a licence under Clause 2, and who is obliged, if he wishes to enter upon or interfere with land, to obtain an ancillary right under Clause 3. It is a question whether under the Bill the Crown is in no such better position, but on the contrary would be at a disadvantage as compared with an ordinary individual. I should like to know what is the reason for this. I understand that it is that the Crown would not be able to apply for an ancillary right" under Clause 3, but that is a question which those whom I represent here are anxious to have answered very definitely.

Further, am I to understand that while the Crown could, in cases where it owns the surface, bore for petroleum, it could not enter upon or interfere with any other land or any minerals which it does not own otherwise than by negotiating terms with the persons interested in that land or minerals? Then again, am I to understand, this being so, that the question of whether it would be more in the national interests that petroleum or minerals other than petroleum should be gotten would be one of the points to which the Railway and Canal Commission would have to pay regard under Clause 6 (1) of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, which clause is, inter alia, applied by Clause 3 for the purposes of this Bill? There are a great many cross references in this particular Bill, and therefore it is very difficult for the ordinary layman to understand it. Another point which was dealt with in the debates on the Committee stage was directed to ensuring that where a licensee bored for petroleum, and thereby injuriously affected underlying minerals, there should be a procedure whereby in a proper case compensation should be paid for such injurious affection. This point a good many coal-owners consider very important indeed, because there may be considerable risk of flooding or something of the kind. Another of my Amendments was that the question whether it was more in the national interests that petroleum should be got, or that minerals other than petroleum should be got, should receive consideration.

I also want to ask the question whether "land" in Clause 2 (3) of the Bill clearly includes minerals. If that is so, would an individual who obtained a licence under Clause 2 and wished to bore on any land, except in a case where he owned both the surface and the underlying minerals, which would be interfered with by such boring, have to obtain an ancillary right under Clause 3? Would this include a case where a surface owner, who did not own the underlying minerals, wished to bore in a manner interfering with such underlying minerals? Am I to understand that for the same reasons the applicant for the ancillary right would have to pay such compensation as would be awarded by the Railway and Canal Commission under Clause 6 (2) and Clause 9 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, while conditions designed to give protection (otherwise than by means of compensation) could also be imposed by the Commission under Clause 6 (1) of that Act?

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the noble Lord has taken the opportunity of this Motion to ask me certain questions and I feel your Lordships will desire me to answer them. The replies are not of a very lengthy character, and I think I am in a position to satisfy the noble Lord in regard to the points he has raised. The questions which the noble Lord asked me are directed to three principal points. The first is to ensure that the Crown should be put in no better position under the Bill than a person who obtains a licence under Clause 2 and who is obliged, if he wishes to enter upon or interfere with land, to obtain an ancillary right under Clause 3. I have put down an Amendment myself to remove any possible doubt, and this point therefore will be dealt with when we reach the Amendment which appears in relation to Clause 10, page 5, line 24—namely: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as conferring, or as enabling the Board of Trade to confer, on any person, whether acting on behalf of His Majesty or not, any right which he does not enjoy apart from this Act to enter on or interfere with land. The noble Lord asked me a second question to ensure that where a licensee bored for petroleum, and thereby injuriously affected underlying minerals, there should be a procedure whereby in a proper case compensation should be paid for such injurious affection. The answer to that is that the licensee could not drill through minerals without the consent of the mineral owner. If the mineral owner gave a right voluntarily the question of compensation would depend on the terms arranged between the parties. If an ancillary right were secured by an order of the Railway and Canal Commission the question of compensation would be settled by the Commission.

The third question which the noble Lord put is to ensure that in considering applications for the grant of ancillary rights under the new Act consideration would be given to the question whether it was more in the national interest to get petroleum than to develop other minerals. We are advised that the provisions of subsections (1) and (5) of Section 6 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, impose on the Railway and Canal Commission the duty of giving consideration to the point mentioned; and, where minerals may be affected, to consider what is necessary to afford protection for existing mineral workings. Where the Commission award compensation the applicant for the ancillary right would have to pay the compensation awarded. I think that is a reply to all the questions the noble Lord has put.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendment reported accordingly.

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 moved, in subsection (1), after "fit" to insert "provisional." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ought to explain that this Amendment is not the same as I moved in Committee. That was to propose a procedure by Provisional Order. The object of this Amendment merely is that the Board of Trade shall give only a provisional licence and not an absolute licence so as to allow an opportunity for Parliament, if it thinks fit, by Resolution of either House to intervene. On the general principle I cannot understand why oil prospectors should be privileged compared with other undertakers. The old Parliamentary position has been that if undertakers, for their own purposes, no doubt for public purposes too, wish to obtain compulsory powers to enter upon land, and to construct certain works and the like, they have to go and snake their case to Parliament. If it is opposed, or even if it is unopposed, it has to come before a Parliamentary Committee. It is quite true that that principle has been to this extent impinged upon in recent legislation that, instead of a Parliamentary Committee, in the first instance there has been a local inquiry by an official who has reported to his Department, which, if it approves the report, makes a Provisional Order; but that Provisional Order has to go to Parliament and may be opposed in Parliament. That has been in one way or another the constant practice.

We have seen quite recent instances of it. We have had for example the instances of great hydro-electric schemes such as the Grampian scheme in Scotland. These promoters in all cases had to make their case and satisfy Parliament; but under this provision the consent of Parliament is being dispensed with. Parliament cannot come in before the licences are granted. The Board of Trade are the sole body who in the first instance are to give licences and, the licences having been given, there is no Parliamentary review, neither is there any publicity of any kind before the licences are given. No case has to be made in public and you may not know who are applying to the Board for licences. You may not know whether there have been rival applications and you do not know on what grounds the Board of Trade may have decided. It is perfectly possible under this provision for the Board of Trade to give what I may call a monopoly concession to particular promoters, and I submit that that is entirely wrong I heard the Lord Chancellor say not twenty minutes ago that publicity is the soul of justice and submit that in cases like this, where you have perhaps large competing interests, before they decide on any one of them they should publish their intention to grant a licence and have a public inquiry in the subject.

It is perfectly true that the licence is not all. The licensee has to go before the Railway and Canal Commissioners to prove that he can, and will, undertake the work contemplated to the satisfaction of the Commissioners, and there will be a good deal to be said on Clause 3 about the procedure and the rules which govern the Commissioners. But this appears quite certain from the Bill as it now stands, that the Commissioners will not be able to hear rival applicants; they will only hear those persons to whom the Board of Trade have already granted a licence. As I read it, the grounds on which they can resist that licence will be not grounds of policy. The Board of Trade will determine the policy; the Railway and Canal Commissioners only have a say in the execution. I submit that Parliament ought not to part with its normal powers in this matter, and ought to retain some control. I would prefer that it should be by the ordinary procedure of a Private Bill, or of a Provisional Order, but at any rate let the licence be a provisional one and not an absolute one.

There is a reason of general policy why I would urge this. There are a number of educated people in this country who have somehow or other got it into their heads that public life in this country is corrupt. They are largely to be found in the academic classes—University dons, schoolmasters and the like—but they do honestly believe this, and if you inaugurate a secret procedure that is the very way to encourage them in these ideas. If you have a public inquiry where the case is stated and where everyone can know, that is the way to do away with all these unfounded suspicions. I do seriously say that a departure from publicity is harmful to the public life of this country. What I now propose is that the licence shall be provisional and shall not be confirmed until it has been before the knowledge of Parliament for three months. I um not wedded to this particular procedure, but I am wedded to the principle of public notice and public inquiry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, after ("fit") insert ("provisional").—(Lord Rankeillour.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed on this occasion is very similar to the Amendment which he proposed at a previous stage of this Bill, which was rejected on a Division by fifty-two to nineteen. The noble Lord now proposes that the Board of Trade, instead of making a Provisional Order, should issue a provisional licence. The terms and conditions of the licence are to be published in the London Gazette and the licence is to have effect three months after its publication unless an Address to His Majesty for annulment be presented. With the general remarks which the noble Lord has made I do not want to disagree very much. It is of the highest importance that all these matters should be fully understood, and that the suspicion of anything surreptitious or mysterious should be removed from the minds of the general public.

There are two points which I had intended to mention on the Motion that this Report be now received, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to deal with those two points now. I regret to say that on the Second Reading I could not have made myself clear to the majority of your Lordships. The first of those two points is this: I should like to emphasise once more that the issue of a licence confers no sort of right on the licensee to enter upon anybody's property. That is a matter which, I think, your Lordships have hardly appreciated as yet. We believe, and we are legally advised, that the Bill, as drafted, makes this quite clear, but in order to make doubly certain the Government have put down an Amendment which I shall move shortly. The right of access to land has to be acquired quite independently of the licence. The other point is one to which the noble Lord has referred—that is, as to whether the issue of the licence can properly be left to the Board of Trade, or whether there ought to be direct control of this matter by Parliament. On this I am quite satisfied, after a very full consideration of the criticisms raised in the debates on the Bill, that the procedure which we are proposing is the right procedure. The licence is merely a contract between the Government and the licensee.

It is the duty of the Board of Trade to arrange the commercial and technical details of the licence, and to secure, within the provisions of the regulations which are to be made and laid under the Bill, regulations which Parliament has the right of annulling if it is not satisfied with them, that licences are only granted to properly qualified persons. For the acts of the Board of Trade the President of that Board is responsible and he must answer to Parliament if criticism is raised. The Board of Trade Vote can be discussed in the House of Commons as often as a Motion is brought up and, therefore, it is quite obvious that the action which is taken by the Board of Trade can be discussed in the House as often as any member raises the particular point. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a strong safeguard against any improper action by the Board, if such action can be contemplated. In the powers which Parliament now has there is, I submit, a proper safeguard. If there is to be an inquiry before a licence is issued or the possibility of a licence, once issued, being annulled, then I am confident we shall fail to secure the interest of those who are qualified and willing to undertake the work of searching and developing oil and without whose cooperation this Bill will be no more effective than the existing Act of 1918. I think your Lordships are aware that there has been an Act in operation, but virtually no one has thought it worth while to bore for oil because of the difficulties with which they were faced.

Some criticism has been made that no one will know when a licence has been issued. There is, I am well aware, in some of your Lordships' minds a suspicion of concealment about the licensing provisions of the Bill. I think I can say it amounts to a positive apprehension that there will be something mysterious or what I may call hole-and-corner business, that surreptitious dealings will be negotiated, and that Parliament and the country will know nothing about them. Let me assure your Lordships these apprehensions, these fears, are quite groundless. There will be nothing whatever hidden, and in order to meet this point and to make the position quite clear and open, I am proposing to move an Amendment to secure that a notice will be published in the London Gazette immediately on the issue of a licence, giving the name of the licensee and the area covered by the licence. Your Lordships will realise that the moment a licence has been given, and the licensee has been chosen by the Board of Trade—for reasons which the Board of Trade are in a better position to judge than anyone else, and reasons which I am sure Parliament will not at any time wish to criticise—there will be publication of the fact in the Gazette.

I should like also to emphasise that if the provisions which the noble Lord is so anxious to include as an Amendment of this Bill are brought into effect, we shall find ourselves in exactly the same position as we were in before, that no one will undertake to embark on a venture of this description. It means that the licensee on coming forward would have to disclose what he proposed to do, and would have to tell the whole world where he thought it was possible to find oil. This would immediately arouse in others the idea that they could do exactly the same thing. I would suggest to your Lordships that if provisions of this kind are to be embodied in this Bill we shall find no one who will undertake the arduous duty of boring for oil in this country, and I hope the Amendment will not receive your Lordships' support.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, as two Amendments which stand in my name at a later stage are very similar to the Amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, it would save time if I spoke in support of this Amendment in place of those I have put upon the Paper which ask for practically the same thing. We are, it is true, to a certain extent met by the Amendment which the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill proposes to move at a later stage on page 2, line 11, but the great difference between the Amendment which we desire and the Amendment which the noble Marquess proposes to move is that his publicity will come after the licence has been granted and we ask for publicity before the licence has been granted by the Board of Trade.

The noble Marquess has told us that if provision is made in the Bill for a local inquiry and the necessary publicity before the licence is granted, it will do away with the incentive to apply for licences and to bore. I understand that in reply to a question put in another place a short time ago, the Secretary for the Mines Department stated that no fewer than ten applications—I think it was ten, I have not got the exact answer here, but at any rate a large number of applications—had been made already for permission to bore and that they were put off by the Government owing to the intention to introduce this Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships will agree with me, but I cannot see why there should be a lack of incentive if the publicity is to take place before the licence is granted and no lack of incentive if the publicity comes after it has been granted. After all, by the time the licence is granted the mischief will be very largely done. The licensee will then be in a very strong position.

At present—I am sure the noble Marquess will not deny this fact—negotiations can take place in secret between the President of the Board of Trade and an applicant for a licence. The first thing that any locality or any estate owner in any locality will know about it is when the company comes with an application for a right to bore in that district. The locality will have had no chance whatever of putting forward any objections—and there may be very serious objections—to that particular licensee.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

If the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt for a moment, I would like to say that I was strongly advised to make a long, disquisition on the Motion that the Report should be received, but I thought I ought not to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence. It is after a licence has been granted that proceedings begin. There is no access to the land until negotiations have been gone into with the owner of the land. If the licensee cannot agree with the owner of the land the matter comes before the Railway and Canal Commission. But there is no access to the land whatsoever, so that the noble Earl's remarks as to some company arriving on the land are quite wide of the mark.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

I quite understand that there is no access to the land before a licence is granted, but I repeat that when the licence has been granted the damage has been very largely done. The licensee is in a very strong position because the licence can only be taken away if you find him an unsuitable person to bore. Having been granted a licence, the licensee then goes to make the necessary arrangements with the surface owner in the area where he intends to bore. He may or may not make arrangements agreeable to himself and the surface owner and proceed to bore. Personally, I should think that in nine cases out of ten he will not make proper arrangements because the surface owner will object. Then the whole case is put before the Railway and Canal Commission and they make an arbitrary order for compensation and so on, against. which the surface owner has no redress and no appeal whatsoever—nor has anybody else in the locality who may be directly interested. That is the procedure.

I quite admit that there is no access to the land before the licence is granted. That, I think, does away with a certain amount of the implication which was mentioned by the noble Marquess in Committee that it would be unfair that any geological discovery which the applicant had made in regard to petroleum and on which he had spent money should he made public in a public inquiry before the licence was granted. I think that was one of his points. But in reference to that I would ask: If he has had no access to the land before a licence was granted, how can he have made any geological discovery? He could not have put down experimental bores which he would probably do before the licence was granted.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

He cannot do it.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

He obviously cannot until he gets the licence, but my point is that that does away with the argument of the noble Marquess that he will be in possession of certain information which it would be unfair to ask him to disclose in a public inquiry before the licence was granted. If he has not got to the land before he gets his licence he would not have that knowledge at all. I hope your Lordships will see the importance of having publicity, and a public inquiry if necessary, before the licence is granted. If the noble Marquess would agree to alter his Amendment to take out the words "as soon as may be after granting a licence" and to insert the words "before granting the licence hold a public inquiry", then our case would be met. I hope your Lordships will see our point and will support us.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, I feel bound to say that I am not convinced by the statement of the noble Marquess. His proposal is that after the Board of Trade have acted there shall be notice given. Only that licensee can go to the Commissioners, and he is in a privileged position. As to subsequent Parliament-

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved to add to subsection (1), "within areas to be specified in such licences." The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I moved an Amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill endeavouring to give a priority to the estate owner where there were several applicants for a licence including the estate owner, some of your Lordships indicated that you were in sympathy with the principle of the Amendment although the form and wording of the actual Amendment were not suitable. I have endeavoured to draft another Amendment, but the difficulty is that we do not know what the regulations are to be. I understand that when an applicant goes to the board of Trade for a licence to bore, one of the regulations will be that he must specify the area in which he proposes to bore. Therefore I presume the Government will have no objection to the first of the Amend-

ary action, everyone knows that in a case like this, although you may raise the matter in the House of Commons you have no chance whatever of prevailing against the Minister for his past act. I feel that the noble Marquess has not met the point and I shall be obliged to ask your Lordships to divide.

On Question, Whether the word "provisional" shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.
Exeter, M. Bertie of Thame, V. Howard of Glossop, L.
Salisbury, M. Hereford, V. Hutchision of Montrose, L.
Jessel, L.
Ancaster, E. Carrington, L. O'Hagan, L.
Dudley, E. Daryngton, L. Rankeillour, L. [Teller.]
Grey, E. Erskine, L. Rhayader, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Midleton, E. Gainford, L. Somers, L.
Radnor, E. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) Hailsham, V. Marley, L.
Halifax, V. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Willington, D. Redesdale, L
Balfour of Burleigh, L. Rennell, L.
De La Warr, E. Bayford, L. sanderson, L.
Feversham, E. Biddulph, L. Seaton, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Clwyd, L. Somerleyton, L.
Munster, E. Danesfort, L. Stonehaven, L.
Plymouth, E. Denman, L. Strachie, L.
Stanhope, E. Eltisley, L Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Gage, L.(V. Gage.) [Teller.]
Hawke, L. Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

ments which I propose to move, which merely provides that the licence shall specify the area where it is proposed to bore. The other Amendment follows on and gives a prior right to an estate owner, or an association of estate owners, to be granted a licence by the Board of Trade where there are several applicants one or more of whom is the estate owner or are estate owners, of course provided that they are willing and able to bore for petroleum as effectively as the other applicants, who may have no local interest whatsoever.

I know that one of the aims of the Government is to ensure unity of development, and in that they have my sympathy, but I think that in this Bill they go too far, and they are in fact socialising—there is no other word for it—the whole of the production of petroleum, which may be a very lucrative operation, at the expense of the surface owners. After all, the estate owners are greatly interested in that production, because whoever gets the petroleum has to bore through their surface to get it, and they might have been just as effective, both financially and technically, in getting it themselves. I know that it is most undesirable that, we should arrive at a state of overdevelopment such as I understand obtains in Texas, but that could surely be avoided by the control of the licences by the Board of Trade. Surely it would be possible to frame regulations under which one licence could be granted to an estate owner if there were only one estate owner applying for the licence, that is to say giving him preference over the other applicants, provided again, of course, that he was able effectively to bore for the petroleum, and in cases where there were several estate owners applying for licences, to grant one licence only to an amalgamated association of such estate owners.

I hope that the Government will most seriously consider this aspect of the estate owner's case before the Bill is passed into law, and will, either in the Bill itself or in regulations, give some interest to the surface owners in the getting of petroleum on their own estates and in neighbouring estates; that is to say, give them some interest where petroleum is to be bored for on their own property or is to be gotten from under their own property, where they are able effectively to do it themselves. Otherwise, I am sure your Lordships will agree, this Bill is pure Socialism, and the localities and the surface owners will have no interest or say whatsoever in the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page, 2, line 6, at end insert ("within areas to be specified in such licences").—(The Earl of Dudley.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord has moved this Amendment and has referred to another Amendment which he proposes to move later on. I think, perhaps, I had better wait until he moves that second Amendment before dealing with it, because there is also an Amendment in the name of Lord Iddesleigh which comes before it. In answer to the Amendment which has now been moved, I am given to understand that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary, as the licences would obviously have to specify the areas in respect of which they were granted, but if there is any doubt in the noble Earl's mind I think, if he will consider the Amendment which I am myself moving, relating to the notice in the London Gazette, he will see that it will be there definitely stated what are the areas in respect of which the licence has been granted. I think my Amendment covers the point.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

It covers the point of the present Amendment, but my further Amendment is consequential upon this one.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that a licence shall not be granted to or held by any person other than a British subject nor in the case of a body corporate unless membership and control thereof is limited to British subjects.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am certain that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that it is desirable that our national resources should be exploited by men of our own nation, and that if they are exploited by companies it should be by British companies. After all, we are not lacking either in initiative or engineering skill, or capital. We are not in the position of those less-developed countries which are compelled to grant concessions to foreigners to exploit their resources, and we know from experience that trouble very frequently arises from the granting of such concessions.

I can conceive of one objection being taken to the form in which I have moved this very necessary Amendment, and that is that it does not provide for the case of what I may call the man of straw. It may be possible, even within the terms of my Amendment, for a foreign company to take out a licence in the name of a British subject, who may lend himself for that purpose. That practice might be guarded against by requiring the licensee to give an affidavit that he is not acting on behalf of any foreign interests. It is also possible that the Government will criticise the drafting of my Amendment. Of course I am only too anxious to satisfy them on any point of that kind, on which they are necessarily better informed than I am. Finally, I am a little inclined to fear that we shall be told that we may safely leave this matter, of the granting of licences to British subjects, in the hands of the officials of the Board of Trade or the Government, or that provision will be made to meet this matter under Clause 6, by which the Board of Trade may make regulations prescribing the persons by Whom applications for licences may be made.

I would venture to say this to the Government. They, of course, have a perfect right to ask this House to repose confidence in them and their successors, but it is nevertheless the constitutional duty of your Lordships to regard these requests with the utmost suspicion. If we are not here to put a check upon the Government, and to regard their actions with some degree of suspicion, then I am at a loss to understand why we are here. Therefore, as a stern constitutionalist, I express the hope that the Government will refrain from saying, as they have said on former debates on this Bill, that this House must take it for granted that they will not do anything flagrantly wrong in this matter.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I am certainly not quarrelling with the noble Earl for his vigilant attention to the activities of Governments, and I hope he will continue to pay such attention so long as he is a member of this House. He has furnished the answer, more or less, to the Amendment which he has moved. It is true that we are relying, to a very large extent, on the regulations which can be made under Clause 6 of this Bill. An opportunity will then arise to discuss the matter, and if Parliament considers that the regulations are not satisfactory they can be annulled. The noble Earl, I think, desires a more drastic treatment of these provisions by the Amendment which he proposes to incorporate in the Bill. I think the noble Earl should not overlook the fact that if his Amendment were adopted we could hardly complain if other countries in different parts of the world, who own petroleum resources, followed the same course and shut British enterprise out of territories where they are now operating to the advantage of this country and the Empire. Such a result could only make us more dependent than we are now on supplies from foreign countries. I think the noble Earl will see that his object is probably best achieved by means of regulations under Clause 6, and that instead of incorporating such a drastic suggestion as is contained in his Amendment, the matter would best be dealt with by the means which we are proposing to adopt.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask whether the noble Marquess will give us a draft of the proposed rules before the Bill leaves this House on Third Reading?

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I do not want to press the Government on this Amendment, as I understand I have received some assurance that this matter of British nationality will receive some consideration in the draft regulations. There is one point I might put to the noble Marquess. I believe it is inevitable that other countries who can afford to finance their own development, and have the competence and skill to carry it out, will increasingly tend to do so. Therefore I think it is a pity that we should rely too much upon being able to develop the resources of other countries, and that it would be unfortunate if it prevented us from developing our own resources by our own people. Having received some answer from the Government, however, I will not press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that where two or more separate applications are made for a licence or licences under this Act to search and bore for and get petroleum within an area or areas in which there is situate any land of which one or more of the applicants is or are the estate owner of estate owners the Board of Trade if satisfied that such estate owner or such estate owners or any of them is or are able and willing to operate effectively the licence or licences for which he or they have applied shall not grant a licence to any person other than such estate owner or one of such estate owners or two or more of them jointly. For the purposes of this section and of the proviso to section (Appeals) of this Act 'estate owner' means the owner of the legal estate in the fee simple of the land in relation to which the expression is used.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move. I have already explained what I hope your Lordships will agree is the necessity for this Amendment, which I moved on a previous occasion.

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

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, this mater was raised on the Committee stage by the noble Earl, who asked for a preference to be given to the owner of the land. I pointed out to the noble Earl on that occasion that we may have confidence in the action which the Board of Trade would take, but I am afraid that that did not satisfy the noble Earl. The area over which a licence is given may be an area of a certain number of square miles, and there may be a large number of estate owners who might desire to have a preference given to them in the boring for oil, and I hardly think that it would be possible to accept the Amendment. I should like to ask the noble Earl to consider the case from all its aspects. He seems to have in his mind the idea that a licensee will be an individual entirely hostile to all the local interests. I hardly think, knowing human nature as I do, that that is the attitude which the licensee will take up. I think he will be only too anxious to ingratiate himself with all those owners of the soil with whom he will have to negotiate; and it is obvious therefore that, if there is someone in that area who is capable of carrying out these operations on a scale which would be useful and profitable, that person cannot be left out, nor is he likely to be left out.

If he is so certain that he is in a good positon to develop these resources surely he will be the first in the field. The idea that somebody will, if I may so put it, catch him napping and come before him and get the licence, is so unlikely that I do not think that is a proposition which we need consider. But, even if that were the ease, we should then understand that there was an owner of the land who was quite capable of developing these resources over a wide area—which I hardly think is going to happen in this country. I think that over such a wide area, where there is a licensee who is capable of boring for oil, you will find that there will be a number of owners of the land in that area. And if there does happen to be one owner who is capable of developing on those lines, or if there is a syndicate which is capable of finding oil on those lines, that is a matter which must be taken into consideration by the Board of Trade. After the licence has been granted, the licensee has to negotiate with the owner of the land, and the owner of the land, If should say, under his arrangements with the licensee will be able to come to some understanding which will be satisfactory to both.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, the noble Marquess's speech is hardly a reply to the Amendment at all. This measure is largely confiscatory. The noble Marquess has been given several opportunities of bringing it more into line with the views of several members of your Lordships' House and to save it from being an entirely Socialist measure. If he would accept this Amendment it does at least give the landowner or landowners concerned the first chance to develop their own property, which they have not got under the Bill as it stands. The noble Marquess suggests that the Board of Trade would bear it in mind and that the licensee would of necessity go in with the local landowners. If that is so, why not put it into the Bill and let them have the chance of knowing that they can do so? l hope the noble Marquess will reconsider his decision, or, alternatively, that the noble Earl will force a Division.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, at an earlier stage of this Bill I also appealed to the noble Marquess to try to meet this point. After all, I know something about boring for oil. I have visited Peru and Ecuador, and I know where the rival interests come in. Here in this country we have not had the experience of some of the South American or Mexican areas, but at any rate what I feel about this is that the people in a locality who have some knowledge of the requirements of an industry ought to have a better right, or at any rate as good a right, to the licence as an outside company. An outside company has not got any interest in the amenities of the district. The people in the district have, and they will take great interest in the question where the plant is to be put up, where the borehole is to go down, and where the works are to be erected. None of those things will come within the purview of an outside company, which may have developed oil in one place and thinks itself entitled therefore to have the first claim to a licence in another.

It is all very well for the noble Marquess to say that the Board of Trade will take all those things into consideration. It is quite possible that the President of the Board of Trade, in whom I have every confidence, if there are two parties applying for a licence, would consider all the circumstances relevant to the development of an industry in a particular locality by strangers or by those who are interested in that locality. But we may in the future have a President of the Board of Trade who does not take into consideration those things, and I think it is desirable that some such words as these should be inserted.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I must say it seems reasonable that if there is boring for oil on a man's property, which involves a good deal of interference with the amenities of the property and disturbance of the land, and the owner is capable of undertaking it, he should be given priority. The noble Marquess says that the Board of Trade will consider these points, but it does not follow that a future Board of Trade would act on that principle, and if it is right that the Board of Trade should consider it why not put it into the Bill? I cannot see any real objection. It will not interfere with the working of the measure. It will only make it clear who is to get the licence. I hope that the noble Marquess, unless he sees any real objection of principle, will accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, this is a question which really should be considered from all its aspects. Boring for oil has been undertaken only on a- very limited scale, in fact only three licences are now in force, so that the owners of the land have not up to the present time taken advantage of the facilities. The boring for oil which will take place, as we hope it will, and the development of resources which may or may not be hidden under the soil of this country, will, I presume, be undertaken by people who are fully cognisant of these matters and, in their judgment of geological conditions, are hopeful of finding oil. So it does not seem to me that this is going to cut across any right of an individual who, the noble Lord seems to suggest, is likely to come forward. He has not come forward yet, and why, because a licensee is advertised in the Gazette as having received a licence, that should stimulate an owner, I do not quite follow. The noble Lord referred to foreign companies boring for oil, and said they would be regardless of the amenities of the district, but that is a matter which is provided for in the Bill.

LORD GAINFORD

I quite understand what the powers of the Railway Commissioners are. That is merely a question of compensation. The Railway Commissions will not have any real regard to the amenities except so far as the payment of compensation is concerned.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I do not think the noble Lord is quite correct, but I would again appeal to him to consider it from this point of view, that the licensee is not coming on to the land with the idea of antagonising everybody. He will know that if he pushes his borehole down in some place where the amenities are injured he will have to pay compensation. It may be he will be called upon by the Commission, instead of paying compensation, to buy the whole property. Therefore I think the noble Lord should recognise that the licensee is not a sort of wild savage individual who is coming for the purpose of riding rough-shod over the whole countryside, but will do his very best not to alienate all those people on whose co-operation he so largely depends.

EARL GREY

My Lords, the noble Marquess opposes this Amendment by saying that because very few landlords have asked for licences in the past, that is a good reason why we should not get this Amendment. Surely the point is not to discuss whether landlords have applied for licences in the past but whether, if there is a probability of oil on their property and they do apply for a licence, their application will receive favourable consideration. It is a question of principle. It is not a question of whether people have applied in the past or not. If it comes to that, the big syndicates that the noble Marquess expects to apply have not applied in the past either. I would ask the noble Marquess to remember that in line 4 of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, at the top of page 2 of the Marshalled List of Amendments, it is still the Board of Trade who have to be satisfied that these owners are able to work the licences effectively if they are given to them. Therefore the Board of Trade, by my noble friend's Amendment, are not asked to give a licence to someone who cannot work it effectively. I do not think my noble friend is asking for anything unreasonable in suggesting that the landlord should be given some priority if he is able to bore effectively and search for oil on his own land.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

My Lords, I am afraid I have not had a sufficiently sympathetic answer from the noble Marquess to lead me to withdraw my Amendment, and unless I can get something more sympathetic I shall have to force it to a Division. The noble Marquess says that the large companies to whom he refers, who will probably be granted these licences by the Board of Trade, will probably not antagonise surface owners and people in the locality and will have due regard to the amenities of the locality. That may be so but, on the other hand, it may not be so. After all, their first consideration is to make money for their shareholders or themselves, and, beyond this bare reference to the amenities to which the Railway and Canal Commission shall have regard, there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent them doing all sorts of damage and running counter to local interests and surface owners' interests in every sort and kind of way, which the local surface-owner, if he wore boring for petroleum, or an association of local surface owners, would not do.

The noble Marquess raised the point that surface owners have not so far come forward to apply for licences. That point was met by my noble friend who has just sat down, but I would like to point out, the fact that three surface owners have been granted licences, and ten licences have been applied for, some of which are probably on behalf of surface owners, and these have been turned down by the Board of Trade pending this Bill. The noble Marquess says that an applicant for a licence who is a surface owner will probably have due consideration by the Board of Trade. If that is so, why not embody it in the Bill so that he will have that consideration, and prior consideration, over the Trinidad Oil Company, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, or any other outside concern which cannot have the same regard for local amenities or the same knowledge of local affairs, or indeed of local geology, which local people themselves have? I do not pretend that my Amendment is a perfect one, but I hope your Lordships will recognise the principle and importance of it, and give it your support.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I really think there is a little misunderstanding—at least I hope there is—between the noble Earl and ourselves. If you proceed on the basis that the Bill is confiscatory and bad in principle, and ought to be knocked out, we have nothing to say. I think we are at cross purposes. The Government succeeded on the Second Reading in convincing the House that that view is ill-founded, and I hope your Lordships' House will support that. But if you proceed, not on the principle that the Bill is a bad one and that you wish to destroy it, but that the Bill has been accepted in principle by your Lordships' House and you want to make it reasonable, then I would point out to the noble Earl that I do not think he has quite appreciated what we have said over and over again.

The noble Marquess has said it a good deal better than I can do, that from our experience and in our deliberate opinion, and in the opinion of all those we have consulted, if we are to make the search for oil a success—and we deliberately desire to do that from reasons of economic interest and also from reasons of defence interest, which I need not elaborate too much—it is essential we should at any rate attract those very few people (largely, I am glad to say, though not exclusively, British) who have the geological knowledge and skill sufficient to enable them to form an opinion as to where the most likely place is in which to look for oil, and get them to take an interest. They have the whole world to range over. They are certainly not going to come to Britain to try and find oil if they are told that anywhere else in the world they can, by their skill and knowledge, if they apply it, ascertain far themselves the likelihood of obtaining oil, and then proceed to get licences which will enable them to get it without first inviting the rest of the world to come and compete—they are not going to do so if, should they come and try to do the same thing in England, they are required, as soon as they have acquired the information by the exercise of the skill of their geologists arid a staff of experience, to advertise to the world the place where it is likely to find oil, and give to the world the knowledge which enables them, anywhere else, to get a preference over the rest of the world. It is essential, if we are to get any chance of having oil found in Britain, that we shall allow people to get licences without first announcing to all humanity that they think a particular spot is likely, and being put into competition with everyone else with regard to that spot. That is vital.

"But," says the noble Earl, "I am afraid of the effect on the amenities." I do not want to spend time in discussing a matter of detail, but your Lordships will appreciate that it is a mistake to think that, if you had to go to the Railway and Canal Commission, it is only a question of compensation. If your Lordships look at Clause 3, subsection (2) (a), you will find the first thing the Commission has to decide is whether the right shall be granted at all, and in doing that it shall have regard, among other considerations, to the effect on the amenities of the locality of the proposed use and occupation of the land. It is a mistake to think it is only a question of amount. It is a question of whether or not the right shall be granted.

The noble Earl—this is a big point—wants to be sure the estate owner has the prior right, other things being equal. I should not object, and I do not think any of my colleagues in the Government would object, in fact we should approve of that principle, and we should be prepared, if we could, to help the noble Earl to secure the principle. The trouble about his Amendment, and that which makes it impossible to accept it, and which makes it so difficult to meet his point, is that, in order to secure his principle, he not only puts in the Amendment which we are now discussing but follows it with one which was defeated on the Committee stage, the one which immediately follows on the print, in which he sets out the requirement that whenever an application is to be made for a licence it has to be advertised. Then there are to be notices published, and there is to be an inquiry and matters of that kind. Those are matters it is impossible to accept. You might just as well destroy the whole object we had when we entered upon this legislation. It is impossible to meet that, and if the noble Lord thinks, as I rather gather he did, that his two Amendments hang together then it is not possible to meet him.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

The point is that the surface owner or association of surface owners cannot know of any secret arrangements which may be going on between the Board of Trade and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company or some outside company unless it is made public. If the noble Viscount is willing to embody the principle of my Amendment pure and simple in the Bill, without the question of publicity or the opportunity of inquiry, then the ordinary procedure would be that every surface owner in the country would immediately apply for a licence as soon as this Bill came into operation so as to safeguard himself. How is the Government to deal with this?

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I can only ask a question by leave of the House. Would the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House consider before the Third Reading whether he could introduce words which would meet the point? I see there is substance in the complaint which he has just made that all the words of the noble Earl's Amendments may not be acceptable to the Government, but he has indicated that he does see substance in the noble Earl's Amendment, and if he would be prepared to consider this matter with the view of introducing an Amendment on the Third Reading it may not he necessary to go to a Division.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I am much obliged for the suggestion. The difficulty which I was trying to explain to the House was this. In fact my noble friend Lord Londonderry says that the Board of Trade always would, other things being equal, prefer the owner on an application for a licence. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, says that may be so, but he wants to be satisfied not only that the Board of Trade would do it, but that the Board of Trade must do it. That is, put shortly, his point. I quite realise that, and I would like to meet him, but what I cannot do is to offer a concession which involves that before a licence is granted the fact that it has been applied for might be made public. If we had to do that it would destroy any possibility of the Bill being useful.

If the noble Earl is satisfied by having—I am not pinning him or myself to exact language—his first Amendment and not his second one, that is to say, a provision that the Board of Trade should grant the licence to the estate owner if he applies in preference to other people, I think that would be an Amendment which, subject to any necessary alteration in words, could be accepted. But if he goes on to say, as I am afraid he might that is no use to him unless he also has a provision that every estate owner in any area in which an application for a licence is made shall be given previous notice, then that is an impossible concession for the Government to make. The noble Earl says that if he had his first Amendment without his second one every estate owner would apply for a licence. That is a risk which we should be quite prepared to take, because I am certain that very, very few estate owners would imagine that it was worth while going into serious negotiations with the Government as to the terms on which they could bore for oil when they had no more reason than I have, or any other of your Lordships, for imagining there is any oil there at all.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY

That depends on the regulations, which we do not know.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I do not know them either. They would be laid before Parliament, and the noble Earl could criticise them. What I want to make clear is that we are not merely being obstinate in refusing to accept an Amendment which is reasonable because we cannot give way. That is not the position. We believe that the noble Earl's views would be met by the Board of Trade, and we would be satisfied to incorporate, if we could, words to the effect that the precaution must be taken by the Board of Trade. That is in fact obtained in the noble Earl's first Amendment. We are all very anxious to secure the chance of oil being found in commercial quantities in this country—that is vital—and we cannot give way on this point, which we have voted on two or three times to-night and in the Committee stage, the point that the fact of a licence having been applied for is to be made public and time then given for other people to come in and make cross applica- tions. If the noble Earl is satisfied with the concession which I should be willing to give, that if any estate owner chooses to put in an application for a licence his application shall be preferred to that of anyone else, other things being equal, I should be satisfied. If he goes further and says: "I must insist that every application for a licence shall be advertised and made public before it is granted," then that is a thing I cannot give him. I hope I have at least made my position clear.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I ask my noble friend this? I can quite see the difficulty, but, on the other hand, until the licence is granted and published the neighbouring landowners will not know what opportunity they have. What I want to ask the noble Viscount is this. When the licence has been granted and the licensee goes before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, will the Railway and Canal Commissioners, among other things they have to consider, consider not only whether the licence holder is a fit and proper person to carry out the work but whether there are other persons who are more fit and proper? The noble Marquess said on the Committee stage that they could consider Whether the licensee was a fit and proper person. He did not say whether the Commissioners could consider whether there were alternative persons. If the noble Viscount could give that assurance I think that would go some way to meet the point.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I think your Lordships will give me leave. May I say to my noble friend Lord Rankeillour that the question he has just put shows once more the mistake which we cannot eradicate from the minds of some of your Lordships, including my noble friend The mistake is to mix up two different stages—the stage in which application is made for a licence to bore and the stage in which application is made for leave to go on anybody's land for that purpose. What we are dealing with in subsection (2) and in the present Amendment is the stage of applying for a licence to bore for oil. If, and when, that licence is given it gives no one any right to go on to anyone else's land. I think that is clear in the Bill, but we have an Amendment to make it certain.

The Railway and Canal Commission does not come in at all at that stage.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

May I say that I was asking that they should be allowed to come in?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

That we cannot do at that stage. The Railway and Canal Commission comes in at the stage when a licensee desires to go on to someone else's land. When the licensee desires to do that and the owner will not let him go except on terms that appear to be unreasonable, the matter comes before the Railway and Canal Commission and the Commission then has to grant or refuse a right and settle the terms on which the licensee is to go on the land—terms which are already laid down in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, plus the terms in subsection (2). Your Lordships will see therefore that I cannot give my noble friend the assurance that he would like, because the Railway and Canal Commissioners do not consider the position between different licensees. They only come in to adjudicate in a case where an existing licensee desires to go on to some property, and is unable to get leave to go and has to come and satisfy the Commissioners that his application is reasonable.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I ask if the effect of granting a licence is to give the licensee the right to go on land provided he is prepared to pay whatever compensation is demanded of him?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

The only right a licence gives to the person who gets it is to bore for oil if he has land. If he happens to be a landowner, having got a licence he has all that is necessary. If he is not a landowner he has to persuade some landowner within the area covered by his licence to allow him to go on his land on such terms as are reasonable. It is only in the event of his being unable to do that that he goes to the Railway and Canal Commission and asks the Commission to give him the right to go on the land on whatever are reasonable terms. I hope I have at any rate answered the question.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, after subsection (2), to insert: (3) The Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after granting a licence under this section, publish notice of the fact in the London Gazette stating the name of the licensee and the situation of the area in respect of which the licence has been granted, and, if the said area or any part thereof is in Scotland, the Board shall also publish the said notice in the Edinburgh Gazette."

The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is the Amendment which I foreshadowed I would put down to meet some of the objections raised. I think the wording explains itself, so I will not detain your Lordships with any explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (3).—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved to add to the clause: (4) Any such licence shall after five years from the date at which it is granted be revocable by a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment because as far as I can discover there is no provision in the Bill that these licences should be revocable. So far as I understand it is in the power of the President of the Board of Trade to grant a perpetual licence. That is a very dangerous thing to do and I suggest that we should set some term—I have suggested five years in my Amendment but the term might be longer—to the duration of the licence that may be granted by the President of the Board of Trade. We are leaving things too much to his discretion if we set no limit whatever to the period of the licence.

I do not know the exact value to be attached to these licences—that may be to some extent in dispute—but they are very valuable concessions. Not only are they licences to exploit the mineral oil wealth of the country, but they will also have the effect of preventing any other person or company from exploiting that wealth within the defined area. I am afraid that if one of these licences came into the hands of a large company with great international interests you might find that no genuine boring for oil took place at all, but that the licence was used merely to keep rivals out of the field. In those circumstances it certainly ought to be revoked. Although I am not particularly enamoured of the drafting of my Amendment, I suggest to His Majesty's Government that some provision for revocation ought to be made.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, I think the noble Earl on reflection will not desire this Amendment to be incorporated in the Bill. The first objection to this Amendment is that no responsible concern would be prepared to sink money in a search for oil if its licence could be revoked in the manner suggested. Boring for oil, I am given to understand, although I am bound to say that I do not know much about it, is not a, cheap affair. It means sinking a great deal of money by tile company or the individual interested, and if the licence which a person had received might be revoked after five years he would be very unwilling to sink any money in trying to find oil. Another objection which I think may appeal to the noble Earl who is so suspicious of what Governments may do, is that the Government would be in a position to revoke licences and take them away from people who had successfully bored for oil.

There is another point which the noble Earl referred to at the end of his speech and that was that it would be possible for companies to come to this country, get licences and, under pretence of boring for oil, occupy an area for the purpose a keeping out individuals who might be genuinely anxious to bore for oil. I think that lie will recognise that all licences will remain unless the conditions which the Board of Trade impose are not fulfilled, and in that case the Board of Trade would have the right, and would properly have the right, to annul a licence which had been given. In those circumstances I shall be glad if the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

My Lords, if the House were a little better informed about the conditions which the Board of Trade were going to propose, it would not be necessary to move these Amendments which indicate a certain distrust of the action of the Board of Trade. However, I will not press this Amendment, but I do trust that when the regulations under Clause 6 are brought before Parliament some provision will be made to the effect that licences may be revoked even without compensation unless proper steps are taken to make use of them for the development of British oil.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBEEDE

Before we proceed further, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House what his intention is with regard to this Bill and the other Orders on the Paper? I do not know whether he wants the House to continue sitting now?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I rather understood that most of the Amendments which remain on the Paper, which are in the names of two noble Lords, except one to be moved by my noble friend Lord Londonderry, were consequential and were not going to be moved. What I was proposing to do was to see whether we could not get on further, because otherwise we shall probably have to discuss these Amendments on Thursday, and it might be more convenient for your Lordships at any rate to see whether we can get through the Report stage of this Bill to-night, if the Amendments are consequential and are not going to be moved or are non-controversial. If serious controversy should arise on any one of them, then I do not think that it would be reasonable for your Lordships' House to sit any later, but I rather hope that we can get some way further. I rather gathered from my noble friend Lord Dudley that most of his Amendments at any rate were consequential. I do not know how far that may be true of the Amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour.

LORD PONSONBY OF SITULBREDE

The other Orders on the Paper will not be taken?

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

They will not take more than a few moments, I gather.

THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved 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 there upon 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 condition 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 under this Act to search and bore for and get petroleum within an area in which is situate any land of which one or more of those persons is or are the estate owner or estate owners the Commission if satisfied that such estate owner or such estate owners or any of them is or are able and willing to operate such licence effectively shall not allow the appeal in favour of any person other than such estate owner or one of such estate owners or two or more of them jointly."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the same Amendment as I put down on the Committee stage of the Bill dealing with the right of appeal of unsuccessful applicants. I do not know whether the noble Marquess has anything further that he can tell us in regard to this principle, but I do feel that if these arrangements between applicants for a licence and the Board of Trade are to take place, as it appears now that they are to take place, in secret, without any local inquiry or any publicity of any sort, it is only just and fair that unsuccessful applicants for a licence should have some right of appeal from the decision of the President of the Board of Trade. I admit that generally speaking the President of the Board of Trade can be trusted to choose the right person to whom to grant the licence, but it may be that he does not, and then there is no redress whatsoever to unsuccessful applicants, who may feel that they have just as good a claim to the licence as the person to whom it was granted, and in fact may have an even better claim. This Amendment proposes that any unsuccessful applicant may have the right of appeal to the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who may then call for the necessary evidence and go into the whole case, and their decision shall be final and binding. I hope that your Lordships will see my point and will agree that it is a point of substance, and I trust that the Government may be able to meet it. in some way.

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

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

My Lords, in the view of the Government the procedure which we have proposed in the Bill is the proper one, and the procedure which is likely to cause the Bill to work properly. The licence is really a contract between the Government and the licensee. As your Lordships are aware, it is the duty of the Board of Trade to arrange the commercial and technical details of the licence, and they also have to secure, within the provisions of the regulations which have to be made. under the Act, and which Parliament has the right of annulling if it is not satisfied with them, that licences are granted only to properly qualified persons. For the acts of the Board of Trade, as the noble Lord will realise, the President of the Board of Trade is responsible, and it really is impossible to interpose between the Board of Trade and the President an appeal court, because that would, as I think the noble Lord will see, impinge upon the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade as a Minister to Parliament. That is why, when the Board of Trade and the actions of the Minister are open to criticism in Parliament, it is impossible to interpose an appeal between the Board of Trade and the Minister. For that reason the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I understand from my noble friend Lord Rankeillour that he regards the Amendments in his name as not being covered by what we have already discussed and as being points of substance. I think therefore it will probably be for the general convenience if we adjourn the debate. To-morrow I am afraid we have rather a full day, and therefore it will be necessary to continue the Report stage on Thursday. I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the further consideration of the Bill on Report be now adjourned.— (Viscount Hailsham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and further consideration adjourned accordingly.