PUBLIC UTILITIES STREET WORKS BILL (Hansard, 29 June 1950)

HL Deb 29 June 1950 vol 167 cc1266-99 1266

§ 5.31 p.m.

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

§ Clause 2:

§ Parties to proceedings under the street works code

§ (5) In this Act the expression "street managers" (used in relation to a street that is not a maintainable highway) means—

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, to add to subsection (5): (c) In Scotland the district council in respect of rights of way maintained by them.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is quite a simple point—namely, the definition of what is a street manager. There are two definitions already in the clause: one where an authority has an obligation to the public, and the other where they are defined as "having the management or control of the street." District authorities in Scotland who are responsible for maintaining rights of way are not under an obligation to the public to do it, nor strictly have they the management or control of the streets: they merely select those rights of way which they think are worth maintaining in their district. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am advised that it is unnecessary to make this alteration, because district councils are street managers. Those councils in Scotland are not highway authorities and have no roads vested in them, but they have certain responsibilities for the repair and maintenance of roads carrying a right of way but which are not maintainable highways and are not vested in the Scottish highway authorities, such as the county councils. The Scottish District Councils Association raised this point and we discussed it with them. They recognise that under existing legislation they are entitled to notice of plans of undertakers' proposed works, because for the purpose of such legislation they are the persons having control or management of district roads in Scotland. Having regard to this, we pointed out that they will be in no worse position under the Bill, because 1267 Clause 2 (5) (b) lays down that where there is no one liable for the repair or maintenance of a road, the street manager is the authority, body or person having the management and control of such a road. This means that if district councils are, as they say they are, persons having the control or management of a district road, they would usually be the street managers of such a road under the Bill as at present drawn. That position has been explained to the Scottish District Councils Association, and they are satisfied. Therefore I feel sure the noble Earl will agree that this Amendment is unnecessary.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong in stating that the district councils are responsible. That may have been a slip on the part of the noble Lord. I am unaware of any definition of "street managers" except the one I have quoted. However, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 3:

§ Settlement of a plan and section to be a condition of execution of major works

§ (2) This section applies to all code-regulated works except— (b) placing, altering, renewing, changing the position of or removing a service pipe or service line or an overhead telegraphic line in or from a place not in a trunk road or a classified road, or in or from a place in such a road in so far as the works are to be executed elsewhere than in the carriageway of the road and so as not substantially to affect the traffic on the carriageway thereof;

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "service line" to insert: which does not run further than one hundred yards along a highway. The noble Earl said: My Lords, on this point there seems to me to be in principle an omission from the Bill, but I have dealt with only one side of it. There are two methods of dealing with street works. One is what I call the full scale—that is, a plan which has to be agreed after twenty-nine days if, let us say, you are putting a ten foot sewer through the middle of Piccadilly. The other is the one in which three days' notice to start work is required, and 1268 this applies in the case where you merely take a service pipe along the edge of the road. There is no alternative or intermediate position between the two. I should like to ask the noble Lord what it is proposed to do in the case where a service pipe runs for a considerable distance along a road or highway. Are the local authorities to have no say whatever in regard to the position in which that pipe is laid? In other words, are the undertakers to he left free by Statute to run their drainage right up the middle of an unclassified-road? In a Bill of this kind regulations of this nature should be laid down. It appears to me that the division I have drawn here—namely, service pipes running one hundred yards along, a highway—is a fairly reasonable one. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, after ("line") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, the noble Earl has a good point here, and I should like to examine it further. I am prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, but I do cot want to be committed to 100 yards. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment and will give me the benefit of his advice, I will have the matter looked into and put something down on the next stage of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I am obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 5:

§ Procedure as to plans and sections, etc.: provisions as to works in controlled land

§ 5.—(1) Where a plan and section submitted under subsection (1) of section three of this Act are of works proposed to be executed in a street which is a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway, the street authority (but not any other authority or managers concerned) may disapprove the plan and section on the ground that the works ought to be executed in controlled land abutting on the street, or they may approve the plan and section subject to modifications excluding some of the works on the ground that they ought to be executed in such land: Provided that the street authority shall not so disapprove or require modifications unless they are satisfied that they will be in a position, by exercising powers in that behalf vested in them by virtue of the First Schedule to this Act or otherwise, to confer on the under- 1269 takers the right to execute the works in question in the controlled land and all the like rights in relation to apparatus the placing whereof is to be comprised in the works as the undertakers would have if it were placed in the street, and to render those rights exercisable from not later than the expiration of the period of twenty-two days mentioned in subsection (4) of this section.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) to leave out "twenty-two" and insert "thirty-one." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a small point. I agree in principle that, as the noble Lord will probably say, this Amendment is unnecessary. However, I should like to remind your Lordships that this Bill is supposed to be a civil code for corporations. I submit that in a code of this character there should not be a case of illogical arrangement. I am not saying that it will happen often, but in this case I feel that the noble Lord will have to agree that there is, in fact, a lack of logic. Clause 5 deals with controlled land and the circumstances in which local authorities can persuade undertakers to do their work in controlled land instead of in the street itself. The first thing to notice is that under the First Schedule the local authorities must give one month's notice to people in controlled land before they can move on to it themselves—in other words, before they can make it available for undertakers to work it. Before they can claim compensation they must be in a position to say that the undertakers will have a right to work in controlled land within twenty-two days. In point of fact it is clear that in a hard case, for which the adjustment takes twenty-nine days and is allowed by Statute, if at the end of those twenty-nine days the local authority say: "We think you should do this in controlled land," the undertakers, as the Bill is at present drafted, can snap their fingers in the face of the local authority and say: "You may be right, but you are not legally in a position to give right of access to that land within twenty-two days, as you are bound to do by Statute." The least they can do, having decided at the end of twenty-nine days, is to give a month's notice. To make it logical I think it should be a month, and I have chosen the longest month of thirty-one days. I beg to move.

1270

§ Amendment move— Page 9, line 12, leave out ("twenty-two") and insert ("thirty-one").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I do not know how far the noble Earl agrees that logic and common sense are the same thing. I approach this matter from the angle of common sense. This Amendment has a somewhat familiar sound about it. It is like one which we argued in essence on the Committee stage, and my argument this afternoon is going to be exactly the same as it was then. They have in effect fifty-one days' notice, because a highway authority do not have to wait until it is settled that the, apparatus shall be laid in controlled land before they give notice of their intention to issue an authorisation under the First Schedule. They can do this at any time during the twenty-nine days during which they have to consider an undertaker's plans and sections, or during the period following this when, as a rule, they will be negotiating with undertakers about modifications to such plans and sections. As I have said, they have in fact a minimum of twenty-nine days plus twenty-two days—fifty-one days altogether, in which to notify interested parties of their intention to authorise undertakers to place apparatus in controlled land. That is the common sense way of looking at it. But I am quite willing to help the noble Earl in this way When we prepare—as I have given an undertaking we will—an explanatory memorandum, I will have included in that memorandum suggestions as to procedure and indeed I will see that highway authorities are counselled to give notice of their intentions to authorise undertakers to use controlled land as early as possible during the period in which they are considering undertakers' plans and sections. We made this offer to the Scottish County Councils Association, and they expressed themselves reasonably satisfied with it. I do not know whether it meets the noble Earl's point.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Your Lordships will observe that he did not defend the fact that it was illogical. I regard it as a pity that in a code of this character there should be positive lack of logic. I accept what the noble Lord has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1271

§ Clause 6 [Works not to be begun until after notice to authorities and managers concerned]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, may I have your Lordships' permission to take together the next Amendment and those on page 10, line 36, page 11, line 27, page 11, line 28, and page 11, line 40? They all hang together, and I think this course may save your Lordships' time and patience. It is a very simple point. Clause 6 (1) obliges undertakers to notify interested parties of their intention to start their street works. Certain minor works which do not involve interference with the fabric of the street are, however, excepted and undertakers can do these without giving notice to interested parties. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that it will mean that undertakers will not have to give notice to railway undertakings, even if they want to do something on a level crossing. The railway authorities say: "We must have notice of their intention to do this, because the safety of life and limb and the safety of the railways is at stake." These Amendments put that into effect. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 34, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsections (4) and (5) of this section (as to certain surface works and)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, so far as we are concerned, these Amendments are acceptable. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and I agree that it is convenient to take them together.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 36, leave out from the first ("works") to ("shall") in line 40.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, this next Amendment concerns a small and self-explanatory point. This clause provides that if the undertakers do not start their works within one month after the date they notify highway authorities, the notice becomes invalid and they have to serve notices again. The County Councils 1272 Association think it is reasonable to extend this period to two months. It is a concession on their part. Nevertheless, they think it is a reasonable concession, and I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 22, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Viscount Gage.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am very pleased to accept this Amendment. As the noble Viscount has said, this is a concession offered by the highway authorities to the undertakers, and if it is agreeable to them we have no preference in the matter.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 11, line 27, at end insert— ("(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to works which fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (2) of section three of this Act and which do not involve either breaking up or opening the street or any public sewer therein or tunnelling or boring under the street: Provided that, as respects any such works which are to be executed at a crossing of a railway on the level, subsection (1) of this section shall apply so far as regards notice to the authority concerned who have the management of the railway undertaking.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("of") to ("being") in line 29 and insert ("works to which subsection (1).of this section applies").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("if") to ("or") in line 42 and insert ("notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section had been given before they were begun, by reference to that notice").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 7 [Requirements as to mode of excuting major works, and as to reinstatement]:

1273

§ 5.48 p.m.

§ THE EARL or SELKIRK moved, in subsection (6) to leave out "six" and insert "twelve" The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a clause upon which we disagree, and it concerns a mattter on which local authorities feel very strongly indeed. I will state quite shortly their point of view. The question is: How long should an undertaker who repairs a road be held liable for subsidence? The Bill as drafted says six months. The Scottish local authorities want twelve months. The reason for that is that, in the majority of cases, subsidence does not become apparent until after six months have elapsed. It is quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has a particular interest in what I would describe as the undertakers, many of which are in fact the "babies" of the present Government. Similarly, anybody who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, defending the National Coal Board in the discussions on the last Bill would recognise that he had a special interest in that particular national service. I know that the noble Lord opposite has a special interest in the big public utility corporations.

§ It is admitted that to limit subsidence to six months is a considerable concession; in fact, it is more than the Scottish authorities think is fair. The only answer is that there are balancing advantages which they get out of it. I say frankly that, so far as they are concerned, they would scrap the whole lot in order to have an assurance that the work was done by public undertakers. If they had that assurance they would be responsible for subsidence for twelve months. The summer time does not provide a satisfactory test as to whether the ground will stand up to the demands made on it. Why do the Government regard six months as so important? The answer is simply that subsidence always takes place after six months. I do not think anyone experienced in public contracts of that character would deny that fact. The Scottish authorities have never agreed to six months. After all, it is a code which is supposed to last; whether it will last as long as the codes of Justinian and of Gaius I do not know. If it is not founded on justice Us life will be short. I beg to move.

1274

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 10, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, for the first time during the passage of the Bill through this House the noble Earl opposite has employed an unfair argument. The Government have not the slightest interest in this at all. To accuse me of protecting this vested interest of a nationalised undertaking is unfair; and, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, it does him less than justice. We have not the slightest interest whether this is six months or twelve months. This was a bargain between the highway authorities, on the one side, and the undertakers on the other. I will allow the noble Earl this: that the Scottish representatives would not agree to anything—following a traditional trait, I suppose. As I said during the previous stage of this Bill, I could assume only that they were placing more reliance upon the advocacy of the noble Earl than on their own powers of persuasion. But this was a bargain between the highway authorities and the undertakers, who have done a good deal of giving and taking. I said on that previous occasion that if I were to give way to the noble Lord on this point I should he pestered by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, to take back the complementary concession on both sides. I am not prepared to step in and upset a carefully-balanced bargain between the highway authorities and the undertakers. I am sorry if the noble Earl thinks that in doing that I am protecting the vested interests of a nationalised industry. I hope that on reflection he will withdraw that, and I hope he will also withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLN
My Lords, whether or not this was intended to give an advantage to the undertakers it is certainly not a bargain for the highway authorities, because they have to make good any damage that appears after the six months in order to keep the highway reasonably efficient for the passage of traffic. Of course, the noble Lord and those who sit with him have laid themselves open to the kind of suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, by not being, as was once the case with Ministries, quite impartial, and known to be impartial, between the local authorities, 1275 on the one hand, and the gas and electric corporations on the other. Let us realise the alteration of the position in view of the fact that, as we know, sometimes the losses made by some of these undertakings have had to be made good by the taxpayers, and it is therefore in the interest of His Majesty's Government that these losses should not be made. After all, everybody who has to find the money—and certainly the Treasury—is naturally anxious to see that losses are not made.
But having said that, I must add that I think the noble Lord opposite was somewhat thin-skinned about the accusation made. Such accusations, made in certain circumstances, have some foundation. On this point I would say only that the majority of the road undertakers and highway authorities have agreed to this lesser term and that under this Bill, in any event, the highway authority can insist on doing the work themselves—which, I understand, is a thing they could not previously do. Now they can do that; and if there are any cases where one of these undertakers, nationalised or not, have not filled up the holes in the proper manner, next time, no doubt, the highway authority will take the matter over themselves and make certain that there is no subsidence, either within the six months or even beyond that period. I should have thought that that was the noble Lord's best argument against the point put forward by Lord Selkirk. At any rate, it is one that convinced me. However, perhaps we had better stick to the agreement made between the majority of the highway authorities.

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, I feel that I am placed in a rather difficult position by what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said. It is obvious that this was a bargain arrived at by the English authorities. The Scottish authorities' fear is that it was a bad bargain. I should be very unwilling to argue that point now. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has said, it was a bargain, and I have nothing further to add.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I should like to point out that I am not thin-skinned. Anybody who sits on these Benches and has to withstand the hurling of "bricks and stones" from the Benches opposite would never sur- 1276 vive long if he were thin-skinned. I ought to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and other noble Lords, if they are not aware of it already, that the Ministry of Transport is one of the largest highway authorities in the country. There is a saying that when a certain class of individuals fall out honest men come into their own. I appear to be the honest man coming into his own by difference of opinion: of three noble Lords opposite, one represents the interests of one side and one the interests of the other; and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, acts as mediator between them. I shall be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, if he will withdraw his Amendment.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
May I suggest one thing? If the noble Lord wishes to make another speech on Report stage he might just ask the leave of the House.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, my purpose in moving this Amendment was to rouse the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on this issue, I think your Lordships will agree that I have been successful. But your Lordships will notice that he made no effort to reply to my submission that any arbiter would consider this an unduly favourable arrangement—at least, taking it as an isolated case. There is no counter-argument to that proposition. We in Scotland are driven or forced by a bargain into which we never entered, and with which we do not agree now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 8 [Requirements as to safety, obstruction, etc., to be observed in execution of works]:

§ LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (c) to insert: (d) that in order to give visible warning to drivers of vehicles approaching the works traffic signs of a size colour and type prescribed by regulations made under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act 1930 shall be placed and maintained at the works and at suitable sites not less than twenty-five yards therefrom measured along the roads, and that in cases where in addition it is necessary, for the safe use of the roads or for preventing traffic congestion, to control the movement of traffic along the roads, traffic signals prescribed as aforesaid and operated by hand or mechanically and lighted during the hours of darkness shall be placed and maintained at each end of the controlled length of road to give warning to the drivers of vehicles as aforesaid;

1277

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can only express the hope that in rousing the noble Lord opposite, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has not roused him to such an extent that in moving my Amendment I am going to lose my head as well. I should point out that there is a reason for it which does not make itself apparent in the Amendment itself. The Minister has power, as is shown by his regulations issued on June 13, to control the size, type and colour of traffic signs if and where an authority decide to erect them. I can find nothing anywhere that gives him the power to order the signs to be erected. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Street Works Code which is to be enacted by the Bill will require the authorities who break up the roads to set up and maintain proper signs of warning for vehicle drivers that they are approaching road obstructions. Clause 8 of the Bill provides in subsection (1) (a) that the works shall be fenced and guarded and lighted—during the hours of darkness", but it makes no provision for warning road signs to be placed at a distance and to be lighted at night to tell the driver of a vehicle to look out for obstructions.

§ The familiar sign, which your Lordships have no doubt seen in this area so often, "Road Works Ahead", is shown in the Report of the Minister of Transport's Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs, 1944. It has now become an authorised sign of the pattern and dimensions prescribed by regulations which were laid before Parliament on June 13, 1950. The "Stop and Go" (Traffic Signs No. 53 and No. 78 in the same regulations) are also now recognised and prescribed signs. These are required especially where road works, such as the laying of pipes or sewers along the road, involve closing one side of the road. It is submitted that the Street Works Code cannot be complete unless it includes a reference to the appropriate road signs which the undertakers and their contractors are required to provide and maintain when breaking up the streets. The highway authority will no doubt see to it that the appropriate road signs are set up. I have said "will," but I think I should say "may" I think it is necessary in the Street Works Code, if it is to be of any value, that the signs should be laid down and that they should be compulsory. It is not a case of "may 1278 put signs up" but a case of "must put signs up." I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 14, after ("necessary") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Sandhurst.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, first of all, may I apologise to your Lordships' House for my slip in not asking for leave to speak on the last Amendment when I accepted the advice of the noble Lord? I have given careful thought to this Amendment and I must confess that I think the noble Lord has a good point here, but I cannot yet make up my mind whether this Bill is the right Bill in which to effect its purpose. As it stands on the Marshalled List, the noble Lord's Amendment has one or two technical faults, but, if he will withdraw it, I will undertake to have it thoroughly examined to see whether 'between now and the next stage of the Bill I can do something to meet him in this matter. It arouses a great deal of sympathy in me because I believe the noble Lord is on the right lines. I think we have to regulate properly these street works at night. Sometimes there is chaos on the roads to-day. We find all kinds of "Stop and Go" signs, and even in the daytime we find some people of low intelligence who have a red flag and a green flag, and they wave the wrong flag at the right time and the right flag at the wrong time. Then there are the "Stop and Go" signals at night. The men in charge repair to their huts and go to sleep, and they have to be wakened in order to get the red light changed to green. I will look into this. I am coupling the present Amendment with the one to be moved by the noble Lord after Clause 8, because they hang together. If he will withdraw both Amendments, I will undertake to examine them thoroughly and perhaps have consultations with him between now and the next stage.

LORD SANDHURST
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure he will not have expected me to be a Parliamentary draftsman, but I hope most sincerely that he will decide that this is the right Bill in which to insert this provision because I think it is a most essential part of this measure. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1279

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lord, this Amendment is put down to give effect to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when in Committee he raised the question of rubbish. In that he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who did not want good soil and useful material not to be conserved. Be did not think that "rubbish" was really the right term. We have drafted this Amendment leaving out the word "rubbish" entirely and inserting any spoil or other material not required for. My legal advisers tell me that "spoil" is the correct term to cover it. I therefore hope that this Amendment meets the point not only of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but also of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line l5, leave out ("rubbish arising in.") and insert ("any spoil or other material not required for").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I beg to thank the noble Lord. This Amendment seems to me to meet the point entirely.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD SANDHURST moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:

§ Regulations for lighting of road signs

§ ".The Minister of Transport may make regulations for the purposes of this Act specifying the system of lighting to be used for tilt purposes of signs giving warning to the public when approaching street works and obstructions."

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I should like to draw attention to the fact that a paragraph in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs suggests very strongly that the Minister's powers under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act were not enough with regard to the making and lighting of road excavations. If the noble Lord will address himself to paragraph 29 of the Report he will find that the Committee make a recommendation that he should take such powers. I think that might help the noble Lord to come to a decision. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Sandhurst.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lord, the noble Lord is right. There 1280 is no difficulty about the signs. My difficulty is: who shall have the authority? That is the difficulty, and that is what we have to make up our minds about. Whether or not this is the right Bill in which to do it, I do not know. Our legal advisers are carefully considering that point at the present time.

LORD SANDHURST
I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 10 [Protection for transport authorities]:

§ 6.10 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion we discussed the Bill, on the Motion that the House should resolve itself into Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, made some very pertinent remarks regarding what he called the ambiguity of this Bill. He asked whether I would receive representations from those on whose behalf he was speaking to clear up the ambiguity and to make the Bill clear. I gave the noble Viscount an undertaking that if he sent me all the points which his interests felt were not clear I would not only look into them but I would consult him and his interests and I would have the points cleared up. My Lords, that has been carried out, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his help. The next Amendments that I shall move are the result, through what the noble Viscount said, of my having had a toothcomb put through this Bill. From now on I shall be continually moving Amendments with the object of seeing that the Bill is crystal clear, which I undertook to do. And I hope that it will now be crystal clear to the noble Viscount. I am grateful to him for his help and I hope that, having now carried out my side of the bargain, he will be satisfied. If I may have your Lordships' permission, I will move all three Amendments to Clause 10, which are to improve the drafting of the Bill and nothing else. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 16, line 40, at end insert ("not later than");

§ Page 16, line 44, leave out;("within") and insert ("the expiration of");

§ Page 17, line 2, leave out ("within") and insert ("the expiration of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

1281

VISCOUNT GAGE
My Lords, I rise only to say that I am glad that this affair has had such a happy outcome. I am quite sure that owing to the noble Lord's intervention the people who have to work this Bill will find it very much more acceptable than it was before. I think that is a very good result. I am glad that on this occasion I can break the threat of brickbats which the noble Lord has said so frequently beset a Labour Minister, and can pay a heartfelt tribute to his good offices.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 14 [Storage by street authority of equipment at side of street]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is another Amendment which makes it clear that the clause applies to apparatus laid before the passing of the Act, as well as to apparatus laid after the passing of the Act. It makes that point clear beyond any shadow of doubt. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 37, after ("placed") insert ("(whether before or after the passing of this Act)").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 16 [Provisions as to agreements concerning matters dealt with by the street works code]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I will move the Amendments to Clause 16 separately, hut I hope that I may again have your Lordships' permission to deal with this group of Amendments on page 23 together, because this is where we have made a great attempt to clarify this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that we had great difficulty in dealing with the 5,000 Special Acts which we knew existed somewhere, and in appreciating where they cut across the principles and the code laid down in this Bill. Your Lordships will doubtless remember that I also said we intended to give the same treatment to all agreements that any past agreements entered into by two authorities, such as an undertaker or highway authority, which in any way contravened the principles of this Bill, would be null and void in such respects, and could not be made in the future.
When we came to put what I have called the toothcomb through this clause, 1282 we came up against some real difficulties and we found that it was not clear beyond any argument as to what our intention was. We had brought in my right honourable friend as a contract judge, a position of course that would be quite wrong. What we have done by this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which I shall move to the Sixth Schedule, is to make it abundantly clear that these agreements are null and void, and we have taken out of it entirely all such references to the Minister. So the position now is that no agreement between two authorities which contravenes this code is valid, and if there are any agreements on which any two authorities, either the highway authority or an undertaker, can have the slightest doubt, their position is clear—they tear it up and they make another. If they want to know how to make another agreement which does not contravene this Bill, they must take the usual course of going to their legal advisers. That is the position, and it is made crystal clear by this Amendment and the consequential Amendments to the Sixth Schedule. With that explanation as to why and how it has been done, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 23, line 9, leave out ("made before") and insert (",whether made before or after").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, I have no objection whatever to the general tenor of these Amendments, but I do not know whether I follow them aright. I do not think the Amendments do make it crystal clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will follow me, as Clause 16 is altered, so far as I can read it, it now reads: An agreement, whether made before or after the passing of this Act, which makes provision for regulating in any respect the exercise of a power to which section one of this Act applies as regards the relations between the undertakers and any authority, body, or person, concerned as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of this Act. There, according to Amendment 2, we stop. Then we start up again: (2) Any such agreement made, and so on. My Lords, the part of subsection (1) that I have just read does not seem to me really to come to anything at all, the operative words having been taken out. Perhaps I have read the Amend- 1283 ment wrongly, but by the noble Lord's second Amendment we are asked to delete all the last part of subsection (1) of Clause 16, after the word "Act."

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The whole lot.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
From the word "Act" we take out right down to the words "to this Act." Therefore there is no clarifying word; there is no verb left in subsection (1) at all, as I see it. I am only drawing the noble Lord's attention to the fact that he may have been moving to leave out too much.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, if by leave of the House I may speak again, I think I can explain. From the words "Section one of this Act," down to the first line of subsection (2) is omitted; that comes out. It goes on: …of section one of this Act shall be of no effect in relation to code-regulated works. The noble Lord has my sympathy about that. The Amendment reads: Page 23, line 14, leave out from 'Act' to the end of line 23. I think the noble Lord will see that we cut out everything from line 14 to the end of line 23.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
We leave out "subsection" and put in "section."

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
I believe there is an Amendment missing here. Subsection (2) now reads Any such agreement made after the passing of this Act… and so on.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, the Amendment now before the House and the one to which the House should be addressing itself is the Amendment at page 23, line 9, that we should leave out the words: "made before" and insert: "whether made before or after."

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 23, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 23.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1284

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will now see that I was right. Line 23 is the first line of subsection (2). This makes it sense.

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I see it now.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next four Amendments.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 23, line 25, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").

§ Page 23, line 26, leave out from ("code") to the end of line 27.

§ Page 23, line 28, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").

§ Page 23, line 28, leave out ("validity of") and insert ("operation of— (a) any agreement in so far as it relates to reinstatement or making good, or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 17:

§ Exclusion or restriction of requirements of consent as to certain code-regulated works

§ 17.—(1) Undertakers may, without obtaining any consent to which this subsection applies, execute in a maintainable highway any code-regulated works which they would be entitled to execute therein with that consent, other than— This subsection applies to any consent of any of the following authorities, bodies and persons which apart from this subsection they or he would have been entitled in the following capacity to require the undertakers to obtain, that is to say any consent—

(i) of the highway authority as such,
(ii) of any other authority or managers concerned within the meaning of the street works code in the capacity which renders them an authority or managers so concerned, or

§ (3) Where an authority, body or person mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are or is entitled in the capacity therein mentioned to require undertakers to obtain their or his consent for the execution of code-regulated works, or any other street authority as such or any street managers as such are so entitled, a condition imposed on the giving of the consent shall be void in so far as the condition relates to a matter as to which provision is made by the street works code or a matter of a like nature: Provided that, as regards a consent as to which an order under paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act has effect, this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of the order.

1285

§ (4) The giving by the street authority of their consent to the execution by undertakers of code-regulated works in a street shall be without prejudice to the right of the authority to require modifications in a plan and section, or to disapprove them, on the ground that the works ought to be executed in controlled land.

§ 6.24 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
had given notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), the first of which was to add to sub-paragraph (i) the word "or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and tie following three are again intended to make clear what we mean in Clause 17. Clause 17 (1) relieves undertakers from any obligations they may have under existing legislation to obtain the consent in principle of any highway authority, transport authority or bridge authority before they can lay underground apparatus in a maintainable highway within their limits of supply. This means that we sweep away in the clause what I have termed the "paramount consents," but we now find that perhaps we have gone a little too far, because the Lone on County Council point out to us that subsection (1) would rob them of existing powers (under the Public Health (London) Act, 1936) to control interference by undertakers with London sewers.
At present, I understand, undertakers cannot break into sewers in London without first getting the consent of the London County Council. The London County Council have pointed out to us that their responsibilities are very great. They maintain that in view of the highly intricate sewer system in London and the serious effects which may result from uncontrolled interference by undertakers, it is of great importance that they should not be robbed of their paramount consent rights. So we have carried this right the way through. The case made by the London County Council may be equally strong in respect of other large cities. Moreover, the process after sweeping these paramount consents away of coming to the Minister for authority every time to secure a particular consent would, we think, be a little cumbersome. In the case of sewer authorities which have paramount consents, we desire that they should be maintained. That is what this group of Amendment seeks to do, and I beg to move the first of them.

1286

§ Amendment moved— Page 24, line 6, at end insert ("or").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 24, line 7, leave out ("other") and insert ("transport authority, or any bridge authority or managers who are an").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD LLEWELLIEN
My Lords, I am a little doubtful whether this reads correctly. The clause will read of any transport authority, or any bridle authority or managers who are an authority or managers concerned… I am wondering whether that is quite as it should be. Perhaps the noble Lord will just look into that point.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I think it is all right. Perhaps, by leave of the Committee, I may just explain this. As amended the paragraph would read of any, transport authority, or any bridge authority or managers who are an authority or managers concerned within the meaning of the street works code in the capacity which renders them an authority or managers so concerned…

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I understand.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("concerned") to end of line 14.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 6.29 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4), and insert—

§ "(3) Subject to any order under paragraph 5 of the Sixth Schedule to this Act, a provision made by way of condition imposed on the giving of a consent for the execution of code-regulated works shall be of no effect in so far as it would have been so by virtue of the last preceding section or of section twenty-five of this Act if it had been mace by an agreement.

§ (4) The fact that a street authority have given, as to works proposed to be executed in a street, a consent requisite on the basis of their being executed in the street shall not prejudice the right conferred on the authority by 1287 subsection (1) of section five of this Act (as to disapproving or modifying a plan and section on the ground that works ought to be executed in controlled land)."

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is another of what I called the "Gage Amendments"; it is one of the Amendments which we made at the instigation of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The intention of subsection (3) is to provide that conditions shall not be attached to the giving of a paramount consent which would be inconsistent with the provisions of the street works code or the code in Part II of the Bill. I do not think I need go any further into this. The Amendment simply says that if you are now entitled to have a paramount consent you cannot attach conditions to the granting of it which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 24, line 24, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 21 [Cases in which the code in this Part is to have effect]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment which the toothcomb has picked up. It simply says that this clause applies to undertakers' apparatus laid before as well as after the passing of the Act. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 29, line 31, after ("placed") insert (" (whether before or after the passing of this Act) ").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 22 [Undertakers' right to payment for works made necessary by, and obligation to facilitate, road etc. works]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, with your permission I will discuss this next Amendment and the following one together. Clause 22 lays down the principle, which your Lordships accepted, that when undertakers' apparatus is interfered with and has to be moved at the instigation of a highway authority carrying out road works, the highway authority should pay. It came to our notice that in the case of water undertakers there may be apparatus other than the undertakers' apparatus that may have to be moved. For instance, if a road alteration makes it necessary to shift or lower 1288 a water main in a road it may also be necessary to make consequential alteration to service pipes running through private land to premises along the side of the road. Such apparatus is not owned by the water undertakers. It is the private property of the consumer, but it will be the duty of the water undertakers to alter it. When this has to be done in consequence of road or bridge alterations, in our view it is only right that the cost should be included as part of the cost of altering undertakers' apparatus for which the undertakers concerned are to be paid by the promoting authority. I think the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will agree this is a correct principle.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 20, leave out ("their").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 21, leave out ("their").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is another point which we think should be clarified. Clause 22 lays down that undertakers shall be paid by the promoting authority for any alterations to apparatus to prevent interruption to their supply by road or bridge alterations. It has been pointed out to us that it is unreasonable that highway authorities should be liable to pay for measures to prevent "any" interruption of the undertakers' supply whatsoever. In the nature of things some interruption is inevitable and can be avoided only by considerable works which would not be justified if the interruption were of very short duration. The undertaker should not be liable to pay for a temporary supply system to avoid a short break of an hour or so in an undertakers' supply while a main is being removed as a result of a road alteration. The Amendment qualities the term "interruption" to make it clear that very temporary interruptions will not give undertakers the right to claim expensive measures to avoid this.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 21, after ("any") insert ("undue").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

1289

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, I think this Amendment is right. There are bound to be some interruptions. What we want to guard against is any unnecessary or undue interruption.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment removes the word "temporary" We think this word is unnecessary and produces a wrong effect, because undertakers should be reimbursed for any measures to prevent undue restriction of the supply while road works are being done, whether such undue restriction is temporary or permanent. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 30, line 22, leave out "temporary").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 23 [Limitations on undertakers' right to payment for works made necessary, and county contribution towards such a payment]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment corrects a printers' error "Authorities" should have been plural and was printed in the singular. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 32, line 42, leave out ("authority's works") and insert ("such works as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, it seems to take a lot of words to convert a singular into a plural, but so long as it meets the point we agree to it.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 24 [Time for taking effect of the code in this Part, and exclusion of other statutory provisions]:

§ 6.38 p.m.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord is going to accuse me of doing the same thing in this Amendment, which tries to make clear the definition of "corresponding enactment" for the purposes of Clause 24. Clause 24 deals with the amendment and repeal of existing enactments dealing with natters for which the code in Part II of the Bill provides. These existing enactments are referred to as "corresponding enactments" and this Amendment makes it clear that only 1290 those particular provisions of corresponding enactments which provide for matters dealt with by the code in Part II of the Bill are affected by Clause 24. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 34, line 36, leave out ("which") and insert ("in so far as it").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
I think this is a great improvement. It is obvious that this is what was meant originally.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 25 [Provisions as to agreements concerning matters dealt with by the code in this Part]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "made before" and insert ",whether made before or after". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I can save your Lordships' time by telling you that this Amendment and the next four on the Order Paper do to Clause 25 exactly the same as my previous Amendments did to Clause 16. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 35, line leave out ("made before") and insert (",whether made before or after").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, the following Amendments are all consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 35, line 37, leave out from r ("under takers") to the end of line 1, page 36.

§ Page 36, line 4, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section"), line 6, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section"), line 6, leave out ("validity") and insert ("operation").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 28 [Restriction on breaking up by undertakers of maintainable highways recently closed for road works]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:

§ "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,.a statutory power of undertakers to break up or open a maintainable highway which comprises a carriageway, being a power conferred for any purpose other than road purposes or purposes of a railway undertaking or a tramway undertaking, shall not be exercisable in the highway during the twelve months following either— 1291

(a) the end of any period during which the use by vehicles of the carriageway has been prohibited, or the width thereof available for vehicular traffic has been reduced to less than two-thirds of its width, for the purposes of the execution of works for road purposes or of such works and other works, or
(b) the completion of a re-surfacing extending to one-third or more of the width of the carriageway,

if the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say,—

(i) that the highway authority had given to the undertakers, after the passing of this Act and more than three months before the date on which the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be, were substantially begun, a notice stating that works for road purposes, or resurfacing works, relevant for the purposes of this section were in prospect and specifying a date intended for beginning them; and
(ii) that the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be, were substantially begun on, or within one month from, the date so specified or, if any undertakers' works were begun in the highway before that date, within one month from the completion of those undertakers' works or, in either case, within some extended period agreed between the highway authority and the undertakers for the purposes of the operation of this subsection in relation to the works for road purposes, or the re-surfacing works, as the case may be."

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the most important Amendment of all. Clause 28 has troubled your Lordships for a long time, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and I have battled to get this as near perfection as we can. On Committee stage the noble Lord put down an Amendment to the clause which had the effect of applying the ban on the breaking up of a road by undertakers for twelve months following any substantial breaking up of the road by undertakers, as well as after the road had been reconstructed or substantially repaired by the highway authority. As the Bill was drafted we thought we had met this by the twelve months' embargo on breaking up a road where the roadway would be closed for one-third of its width for highway purposes, but the noble Lord pointed out to us that so long as the road was broken up and re-surfaced on account of undertakers' purposes the clause was inoperative. I pointed out to him that we would not place any statutory obligations on undertakers to bring the road back to any better condition than that in which it was before they started their works.

1292

§ We have, however, sought to meet him, I hope, successfully. We now say that wherever a road has been resurfaced for more than a third of the carriageway width, whether at the initial instance of the highway authority or by the highway authority doing substantial resurfacing works to finish off a highway after substantial undertakers' excavations, and three months' notice of such work has been given by the highway authority to undertakers, the prohibition in Clause 28 (1) should apply. That is the principle that the noble Lord had in mind, and the one which we have now accepted. It was pointed out to us that with this marvellous Barber-Greene resurfacing machine they can resurface without closing the road at all. So we found the difficulty there that, even for resurfacing the road, if the criterion were the closing of one-third, it would not operate. I hope that we have now introduced a further category of works which impose the ban on breaking up—namely, resurfacing a third or more of the carriageway whether or not traffic on the road is restricted, and that we have now successfully tied this up so that it will be really effective. I do not think I need go into any further explanation, as your Lordships have followed the discussions with great interest right through the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 39, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. We have struggled along with this clause and we improved it to a certain extent on the Committee stage. Now I think we have really arrived at what we all wanted—namely, that where a road with the expensive surfacing which a road now has is taken up by one undertaker, the opportunity should be given at the same time to other undertakers, if their works follow the same line as the first undertaker, to do their works at the same time, or otherwise stand off for a period of twelve months, except, of course, for emergency works. It did not seem to me that it always depended on how much the road was stopped for traffic. I looked at the question more from the point of view of the expense and the unevenness of the surface which results once you interfere 1293 with a newly-laid carriageway. I notice that the noble Lord has met a further point that I made on Committee stage: that it did not matter whether this initial business had been done for road works. I thought the clause as it stands in the Bill at present was too restricted. I see that it now reads "for road purposes or of such works and other works." You must ham; a road work or "other works," once you break up the carriageway. I was afraid, however, that the clause was too restricted, and that it might be thought that it was inoperative because it did not cover one of the purposes of "other works."
I should like to thank the noble Lord and his advisers for the trouble they have taken over this clause. I feel that we now have t much better clause than that with which we started, and that it will be workable. The highway authorities can, of course, dispense with it by agreement in proper cases, but I hope that in the majority of cases they will insist that undertakers do all their works at the same time, if those works have to be done within a period of twelve months. I hope that this new clause will avoid what many of us have often seen—namely, one statutory undertaker coming along and getting his workmen to hack up the road, and when the road has been re-laid another undertaker coming along and hacking it up again, with the result that the highway is closed to traffic for a long time and it has to be resurfaced more than once.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations, and particularly for his acknowledgment of the hard work done by my advisers. As he has said, this has been a difficult problem, but I think we have now succeeded in solving it. I should like to add this. All of those who have been closely connected with this Bill—and I do not except the noble Lord—have rather proceeded on the assumption that the culprits in what we have called this "street-breaking menace" are the undertakers. That is not always so. The highway authorities themselves are occasionally blameworthy. The other day I came across a beautiful stretch of road That had been made and resurfaced—it was a tine example of the roadmaker's art. It was put down by a highway authority. It had not been down for- two months before it was hacked up for half 1294 its width and closed to traffic to put down rubber strips so that the lights could be traffic controlled. I should want a good deal of convincing that the highway authority could not have done that work at the same time. I hope that now the highway authorities throughout the country will give a lead to everybody by being, like Cæsar's wife, beyond reproach.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 35 [Interpretation]:

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 46, line 28, after ("railway") insert ("being one which is of the nature of a tramway, that is to say").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ First Schedule [Definition of "controlled land," and provisions as to authorisation of works therein]:

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1: (d) in Scotland is subject to a servitude right of future use as part of a maintainable highway.

§ The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really a technical point, but I think not without importance. In the beginning of the First Schedule it says: "In this Act the expression 'controlled land' means" —that is to say, it limits the provisions to what is afterwards defined as "controlled land." The question arises whether, in certain circumstances, a servitude road which is not already laid out as a street as defined in Clause 1 (3) is a street or whether it must be tin-eluded as "controlled land." We have had discussions on this matter, and I will not press the point. I am satisfied from the explanation that I have had so far that it does not include a street, and if this Amendment is not put in here I do not know how Clause 5 can be operated. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 51, line 25, at end insert the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, when the noble Earl moved this Amendment on the Committee stage I confess that neither I nor my advisers 1295 knew very much about it. I have a shrewd suspicion that the noble Earl did not know all he would wish to know about it. We have been trying to find out more about the matter. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell me whether I am right. Highway authorities in Scotland often buy the right to use a particular piece of land for the future widening of a road. They do not buy the freehold of the land, but acquire a servitude right over it, so that it can be used by private tenants for agriculture or other purposes, until in fact it is incorporated in a highway. I hope the noble Earl will tell me if I am right.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
Yes. I think so.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
The proposed Amendment seeks to make such land controlled land within the meaning of the First Schedule, so that highway authorities could force undertakers to lay their apparatus in such land instead of in the street. On reconsideration of this question, I think there may be something in what the noble Earl has said. I do not know whether we shall come up against Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, or Section 33 of the Public Health Act. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment at this stage, we will pursue our inquiries. We are trying to possess ourselves of some of these agreements to see just what they are. This was considered in relation to England, but it is rather rare in England and we have ignored it. The noble Earl says that it is a practice in Scotland.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
That is what I am given to understand.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
We want to see some actual agreements, because we do not know whether we shall fall foul of the Town and Country Planning Act. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to pursue inquiries with my legal advisers and put down an Amendment at a later stage.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his consideration, and I am glad to accept his offer. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

1296

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7: For the purposes of this sub-paragraph any payment made or required to be made by the undertakers to the street authority under sub-paragraph (2) of the last preceding paragraph shall be treated as part of the cost reasonably incurred by the undertakers of executing the works in the controlled land.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a rather difficult point. Under paragraph 6 (2) of the First Schedule undertakers have to pay highway authorities for the cost of compensating owners of controlled land made available to undertakers in those cases where the undertakers, at their own instance, seek to place their apparatus in controlled land. Having got so far, I think I had better explain what this really means. It means that controlled land—which is land designated for future road widening—may be used in the meantime by a farmer growing a crop of oats. If the undertaker wants to put his apparatus in that controlled land, and he takes up the land, it may rob the farmer of revenue and he has to be paid compensation. Under paragraph 7 (1) of the First Schedule, undertakers have to pay the highway authority a sum equal to any expenses the undertakers are saved by putting their apparatus in controlled land instead of in the street. The undertakers have pointed out—and I think they are right—that where they reimburse the highway authority for compensation to owners of controlled land under paragraph 6 (2) (which I have mentioned) this expense should be offset against any sum they may have to pay the highway authority under paragraph 7 (1). I think noble Lords will agree that this is eminently fair, and that we should put it in the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 53, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, I do not think anybody could take any objection to this. It is obviously fair, and I am glad that it has been included in this Schedule.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Third Schedule [Reinstatement and making good by street authority or street managers after execution of undertakers' works]:

1297

LORD LUCAS CF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this Amendment is to clarify the position. Under the Third Schedule, highway authorities can elect to restore roads broken up by undertakers. Where they do so elect, undertakers must notify highway authorities when their work has reached the stage where the highway authority can take over and do the restoration. When the undertakers give this notice the responsibility for filling in the hole passes to the highway authority, unless within four or eight days, as the case may be, the highway authority serve a counter-notice on the undertakers claiming that they are not satisfied with the way in which the undertakers have done their part of the job. There is no provision in Paragraph 2 (3) (a) to meet the circumstances where such a counter-notice is withdrawn by the highway authority after being given. This Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 56, tine 30, at end insert ("withdrawn or is").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Fourth Schedule:

§ (2) In the case of a road alteration, if it appears to any such undertakers that a plan and section of the authority's works or any of them ought to he furnished to them, they shall, as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days from the date of giving to Them of the authority's notice under the preceding sub-paragraph give notice to the authority requiring them to furnish a plan and section thereof.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 57, line 26, after ("of") insert ("Part I of").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, this is a small point which I raised in the Committee stage. If I may say so, to say, "as early as practicable" and then say, "twenty-nine days" is a little inconsistent in itself. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 58, line 4, leave out ("twenty-nine") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not 1298 think that, as we are coming to the end, I am making one desperate effort to get into his good graces, but I am going to accept this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, I have to confess that this Amendment corrects a drafting slip. Part I of the Fourth Schedule provides a procedure for undertakers to claim that alterations to their apparatus are necessary in consequence of road or bridge alterations or works of that kind, and for which, under Clause 22, they will be paid by the promoting authority. Paragraph 4 provides that where the undertakers and the promoting authority cannot agree about such alterations the urdertakers can refer the matter to arbitration. There is no provision, however, for the promoting authority to refer the dispute to arbitration, and this is clearly a case where the promoting authority should be able to do so, because disagreement with an undertaker might seriously delay the promoting authority's works. This Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 58, line 34, after ("undertakers") insert ("or the authority").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 58, line 40, lease out ("to") and insert ("by").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ LORD LLEWELLIN
My Lords, this is quite an important drafting Amendment, and I am glad that the point has been noticed. It puts the thing the other way round, as was obviously intended from the start.

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, if I may speak again by leave of the House, I was trying to be polite in saying that it was a drafting Amendment. It was really a printers' error, and it should have been the other way round as the noble Lord has said.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Sixth Schedule [Powers for consequential modification of special enactments and of agreements, and as to certain existing protections]:

1299

§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH
My Lords, may I move all the Amendments to the Sixth Schedule together? They are really no more than consequential Amendments to those which your Lordships have accepted to Clauses 16, 17 and 25. They make operative the agreement as I explained on Clauses 16, 17 and 25; and if your Lordships are content with that explanation I will move them altogether.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 68, line 9, leave out ("or on an agreement")

§ Page 68, line 13, leave out from ("effect") to the end of line 15.

§ Page 68, line 21, leave out from ("effect") to the end of line 24.

§ Page 68, line 28, leave out ("or agreement")

§ Page 68, line 28, leave out from ("question") to the end of line 29.

§ Page 69, line 12, leave out lines 12 to 24.

§ Page 69, line 33, leave out ("authorising") and insert ("rendering valid")

§ Page 69, line 33, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert ("a provision made by way of condition imposed on the giving of a consent in any respect in which it would otherwise be of no effect by virtue of that subsection")

§ Page 70, line 44, leave out ("where the enactment is one")

§ Page 71, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("and")

§ Page 71, line 5, leave out from ("consent") to the end of line 8.

§ Page 71, line 10, leave out ("where the enactment is one")

§ Page 71, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30.

§ Page 71, line 31, leave out ("of this Schedule").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.