HL Deb 09 May 1950 vol 167 cc203-23

4.17 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH)

My Lords, in spite of the fact that the Bill to which I am asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading contains thirty-seven clauses and seven Schedules, and is highly technical and complex in its details, it seeks to serve a simple purpose. It sets out to lay down a uniform code of procedure to regulate the breaking up of streets by those authorities who have the statutory responsibility for so doing. It seeks to regulate the relationships between the authorities responsible for the maintenance of our highways and those responsible for supplying the community with such essential services as gas, elec tricity, water, telephones, telegraphs and drainage, when the supply of such services involves the breaking up of streets and the roads of the country. It further attempts to define the respective responsibilities on the one hand of the highway and street authorities, sewer authorities, bridge authorities and transport authorities—such as railways and canals—and, upon the other, of the undertakers with regard to the laying of apparatus in streets where their respective interests clash. It seeks also to reconcile the differences between undertakers who lay different apparatus in the same streets. Those are the simple purposes of the Bill.

The first effort to bring some order into this admittedly complex problem was made about 150 years ago with the birth of Private Acts to regulate statutory undertakers laying their pipes underground. General legislation had its birth in the Gas Works Clauses Act and the Waterworks Clauses Act of 1847, and they form the basis of subsequent legislation. But great progress has been made since those days. It might be as well to remind your Lordships that from that date till now the population of the country has more than doubled, with consequent demands for public health and public utility services. Meanwhile, the technique of road engineering has progressed, the legislative octopus grew and grew, until the legislation which this Bill seeks to compress into one enactment regulating the simple process of the breaking up of streets, is to-day covered by about twenty-five General Acts and approximately 5,000 Local and Private Acts. If those were not enough, there is a multitude of agreements between undertakers and authorities. As I have said, all this mass of legislation has its basis in the Acts of 1847. Although in 1945 there was a Water Act, and in 1948 a Gas Act, this legislation left unaltered all the existing legislation as regards the breaking up of streets. That is why we have thought fit to produce this Bill.

Such was the position in the whole country in 1939 that His Majesty's Government set up a Committee of both Houses of Parliament to consider the whole problem of breaking up of streets. The Committee reported about June, 1939, but within a few months of that date other and more serious problems confronted the country, and it is not until to-day that we have been able to act on the Committee's recommendations. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of paying a tribute and acknowledging our gratitude to Lord Carnock who presided over that Committee, and to the members of the Committee for the great amount of work which they did and the helpfulness of their Report upon which this Bill is based. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that any piece of legislation of this nature, affecting so many interests with statutory obligations to fulfil, must entail long and laborious negotiation, as indeed it has. There have been eighteen months of long and laborious negotiation with all interested parties. If agreement is to be reached on such a measure as this, I freely admit that compromise must come in and play a large part. It has. This Bill is an agreed Bill. The major principles have been agreed by all the authorities concerned, and that is the reason why it is so technical in its detail and so difficult in many other ways. This shows that compromise has been reached.

The parties affected by the Bill fall into two categories. First, there are the authorities who are responsible for the upkeep of roads and streets, ranging from the Minister of Transport at one level, who is responsible for the maintenance of our trunk roads, to the street managers who are responsible for the upkeep of unadopted roads and private roads. The "authorities" also include transport authorities, who are responsible for running railways and canals, and bridge authorities, who are responsible for the maintenance of bridges. The other category comprises the statutory undertakers. They are those with statutory rights to break up streets for the purpose of laying their apparatus, which can carry gas, water, electricity, telephones, telegraphs and sewers. They can be local authorities or Government Departments, as well as privately-owned public utility undertakings. These are the rival interests which are affected by this Bill, and the whole purpose of the Bill is to impose a code of behaviour so that their operation may be regulated properly and to the public interest. The Government Departments, whether they are on one side as authorities, or whether they are on the other side as statutory undertakers, or whether they are on both sides, are equally affected by the Bill.

I do not intend to weary your Lordships by going through the mass of technical detail, but I think I can discharge my duty to your Lordships by picking out just one or two of the main provisions which depart from existing legislation Plans have to be settled; plans and sections have to be agreed between the authorities and the undertakers. All that is common practice. We come to the first really new provision. At tie present time, the highway authority has no statutory right, in a case where, an undertaker after laying the sewer, gas main or electricity cable does not make the road up as it should be made up, to say: "I will do that work. I am the only one who really understands how to make up this road and I will charge you for so doing." In Clause 7, and in the Third Schedule, we give the highway authority—the authority responsible for the maintenance of the highway—the right to say: "After you have laid your apparatus, we will fill in the hole, and we will do the road works." We hope that in that way we shall ensure that roads are made up more quickly, because at the present time there is often interminable argument between authorities on one side and undertakers on the other, and while this squabble goes on the roads and those who use them suffer.

I have said that statutory undertakers have the right to break up streets to lay their apparatus, and we do not intend in this Bill to alter that right, except in one small particular. That particular is that in the Bill we give the authorities the right to require, in certain approved cases, that the apparatus shall not be laid in the street but in controlled land—that is, in land abutting a street, land that has been designated for the purpose of road widening. We hope that this will ensure that streets are broken up for the laying of apparatus only in cases where that apparatus cannot reasonably be laid anywhere else. In the First Schedule there is provision for compensation to be paid to the owners or occupiers of the controlled land for any loss of use Or convenience when the apparatus is laid there.

There is one other point to which I think it proper to call the attention of your Lordships. Although statutory undertakers have the statutory right to lay their apparatus in streets, there are some cases where they have to obtain the overriding consent of the authorities responsible for the highway. We call those "paramount consents," and it is something entirely different from the obligation upon the undertaker, when he wants to lay his apparatus, to settle his plans and sections with the authority before attempting to carry out the work. The refusal of a paramount consent can be appealed against if it is unreasonably withheld. The parties can go to arbitration, or in certain cases appeal can be made to the Minister who is responsible for the Act or the Statute which created that paramount consent. Unless these paramount consents are limited, it can put the undertaker into the very awkward position of having to go to arbitration at one time about the refusal of the paramount consent, and to arbitration a second time on the same job on the way he should put his apparatus under the street. What we have done in Clause 17, therefore, is this. We have removed paramount consents wherever the street works code in this Bill gives adequate protection to the highway authority. Paramount consents will not remain for the laying of underground apparatus in publicly maintainable highways in the area where the undertaker concerned has statutory powers. There is one exception to that: under Sections 4 and 6 of the Special Roads Act of 1949, undertakers must get consent before they can lay apparatus in special roads. We do not intend to interfere with that provision at all.

All other paramount consents will remain, and it is right they should. I will give an example of what I mean. Take a very big authority, say Birmingham. The water authority, we will suppose, want to lay a trunk water main from the Pennines to Birmingham. This may entail, if it goes into or under a road, breaking up a considerable stretch of road. As that statutory authority has no statutory obligation to supply anybody with water outside their statutory area, that trunk main has not to be tapped for the purpose of supply until it gets, in this case, to Birmingham. Therefore, it is in order and more convenient for that trunk main to be laid under open land. Thus streets will not be unnecessarily broken up. That is why we retain that paramount consent in the Bill.

That, briefly, is the content of Part I of the Bill. Part II deals with what happens to apparatus after it has been laid in the streets, when it has to be moved or altered because of alteration or structural major works being done to the highway concerned. This has caused a great deal of argument and disagreement in the past between the highway authorities on the one side and undertakers on the other. The Carnock Committee went very carefully into this matter and recommended that, with certain exceptions, the cost of alterations to roads or bridges or works of that kind should be borne by those responsible for the works which made the alterations necessary. Alterations may be necessary because, for instance, the highway authority want to raise or lower the level of the road. The highway authorities should also pay the cost of undertakers' altering their apparatus to suit the convenience of the highway authority. That is really all that is contained, with a good deal of elaboration, in Part II of the Bill.

In my opening remarks I told your Lordships that the breaking up of streets was controlled before this Bill by about twenty-five General Acts and approximately 5,000 Special and Local Acts. The latter figure is something of a guess, but we think it is fairly near the mark. We know the General Acts; we can easily find and study them and amend or repeal sections which come into conflict with this code. But when we come to the 5,000 Special Acts, unless we search the Statutes for the last 150 years we shall not find them. So, in Clauses 15 and 24 of the present Bill, we seek to repeal or amend all the relevant sections of both the General Acts and the Special Acts where they are incompatible with the provisions of this Bill. That is comparatively easy to do when we are dealing with General Acts;,and in the Fifth Schedule your Lordships will see all the twenty-five General Acts set out, together with the sections which it is intended shall be repealed where they offend against this code. We give notice in the Bill that the Bill will come into operation within six months of its passing. That is necessary to enable all the various authorities to make their administrative arrangements accordingly.

But when we come to the Special Acts we are in somewhat of a difficulty. What we are doing is, by means of a cesser clause, to render inoperative or modify all the provisions in any Special or Private Act in so far as they are incompatible with the clauses in this Bill. We say that it will come into operation at such time or times as the Minister determines, but not less than twelve months after the passing of this Bill. That is done to give all who are interested in one of these Private Acts time to see how their Act conflicts with this. They can then, if they desire, go to the Minister and ask him for an order (which this Bill authorises the Minister to make) altering their Act so that it is workable without the offending clauses. It may well be that when we repeal or modify a clause in a Private Act by this general cesser it may make that Act unworkable in some other direction which we do not intend. In such an event the party interested can apply to the Minister for an order and the Minister can make an order, making the Act work where it would not otherwise work in consequence of the cesser of these clauses.

I hope I have made that clear, because that is the only way in which we think we can get this Bill to work without a long, laborious and almost impossible process of digging into the past, getting all these Acts out and examining them all to see where they come into conflict with the provisions of this Bill. This applies also to the multitude of agreements between authorities. No agreement will be enforceable where it is contrary to the principles of this Bill. There is Parliamentary procedure provided where the Minister makes an order and objections from interested parties are properly lodged and not withdrawn. If your Lordships would care to look at the Sixth Schedule, paragraph 9, you will find the provision set out. As regards Part III, Clauses 26 and 28 outline the general question. There is only one important provision there, and that is to settle the respective responsibilities between an undertaker vis-à-vis his fellows when they are laying apparatus in the same street.

I wish I could come to your Lordships and say that the passing of this Bill will finally take away the menace of the street breaker we know so well. First, the gas man comes along and does his breaking up; then comes the water man and does his bit; then the electricity man comes along and does his. But I am afraid that I cannot hold out any great hope that we have managed to expel this menace from the roads and streets of this country. In Clause 28 we have made a general provision that a street must not be broken up for the laying of apparatus for twelve months after it has been substantially repaired. But then, because there are so many undertakers who are under a statutory obligation to give a service to the public on demand, we have had to make so many exceptions regarding the safety of the public, the safety of lives and the safety of property that I am afraid some noble Lords will think that they could drive the proverbial coach and horses through the clause. I would ask your Lordships to make a special study of Clause 28. The exceptions appear in subsection (2). I am not going to weary your Lordships by reading them, but I hope that, when you have been able make this study, you will, if you can, suggest to us any way in which we can improve this clause. I will undertake to look at such suggestions very closely. I really do believe there is a public demand that our streets and roads in the future shall not be broken up unnecessarily, for the public are under the firm opinion that they are broken up too often to-day.

Part IV of the Bill (Clauses 29 to 37) deals with routine and procedural matters including the application of the Bill to Scotland (Clause 36) and to London (Clause 34 and the Seventh Schedule). I have only one other matter which I think would interest your Lordships. That is that there will be cases under this street works code where there will be differences of opinion, on the one hand, between the authorities and the undertakers, and on the other hand, perhaps between authority and authority or undertaker and undertaker, as to how this apparatus shall be laid, where A shall be laid and the cost of laying it when one or other of the authorities or undertakers has to pay the other for so doing. So in Clause 30 we have provided for arbitration. Noble Lords will see that, whenever there is conflict between parties, provision is made for them to agree upon an independent arbitrator and, when they cannot agree, one or the other can apply to the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers (and in Scotland to the sheriff) for the appointment of an arbitrator. In cases where differences arise over matters that are for the courts, provision is made for jurisdiction by the courts, and maximum penalties are set down.

I feel sure that your Lordships will all agree that the Bill is necessary if it brings some order into what is admittedly both a chaotic and an expensive position, because a good deal of expense and Parliamentary time are involved in the promotion of these private Bills; a good deal of expense and time is also involved for local authorities, and I hope that this Bill may do something to reduce it. I am fortunate in that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is leading the Opposition on this Bill, because at one time in his distinguished career he occupied the same position that I occupy to-day—that of Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Therefore his knowledge of this subject from his experience in that Ministry must be profound; and while it is profound I hope it is sympathetic. Also, the noble Lord, in his capacity as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, an office which he holds with rare distinction, will appreciate that this Bill does something which is perhaps not an inconsiderable trifle towards securing the safety of life and limb on the roads. I am also mindful of the fact that, when I had the duty of piloting through your Lordships' House another very intricate and highly technical Bill, I had the sympathetic help of your Lordships. In the belief that I shall receive the same help this time, I now beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

4.45 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved the Second Reading of this Bill has done so, if I may say so, extremely clearly and has made it seem to any of your Lordships who have not read it a very simple Bill. But if any noble Lord other than the noble Lord opposite and myself has read this Bill from cover to cover, as was my week-end task, he certainly has my sympathy—and, I may add, my respect. Quite frankly, I admit that if it had been a finer week-end I do not think I should have persevered with my task. As the noble Lord has said, this Bill forms a compromise drafting between, on one side, the Ministry of Transport, on another side, street undertakers—that is, the County Councils Association, the municipal associations and the different local authority associations—and, on a third side, the statutory undertakers.

I understand that a lot of the—I was going to say verbosity, because that is what some of it in this Bill is, is no doubt the result of compromises between those who are accustomed to construing Private Acts of Parliament. I presume that they understand what many of these clauses mean, but they are rather difficult for the ordinary person to understand. I am not making great point of that, because this is a measure which, except in one or two cases, does not directly concern the private citizen. It is really a code between those responsible for the maintenance and building of our highways and those who are the statutory undertakers responsible for the gas, electricity, water, sewers, railways and whatnot. Of course, this legislation ought to be welcomed. It was a hundred years ago or so that Parliament first made an effort to try to stop matters being dealt with haphazardly, with individual Private Bills. Parliament brought in the Gasworks Clauses Act and the Waterworks Clauses Act, followed later by similar Acts dealing with electricity when that came to be considered. There are variations between these Acts and there were even variations in the numberless Private Acts to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred, some of them, of course, compromises agreed between the parties appearing before the Private Bills Committees, either of this place or of another place.

There were certainly some unresolved matters left. One matter that was never properly solved was what right the authorities responsible for bridges had to be informed of steps which might affect them. That is a matter which this Bill, I am glad to say, clears up. Secondly, where the street authority altered the course of a road, it was not at all clear who had to pay for the consequent alterations of the gas or electricity mains. Perhaps the sewers did not matter because very likely they were done by the same authority. But at any rate the outside authorities, gas or electricity, might have had to move their mains and it was not clear who ought to pay. In 1925, an attempt was made to clear matters up (I do not think the noble Lord mentioned this) when an informal Committee met under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Maybury, and thereafter a joint negotiating Committee came into being. When by 1938 that Committee had not completely settled things, there was set up the Carnock Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, to which the noble Lord has already referred.

My Lords, I gather that the basic assumption now underlying this Bill is that the undertaker does not lay his mains or cables in the street just as the mere licensee of the highway authority. That matter has now been disposed of by this Bill. The second principle which I hope this Bill will settle is the vexed question as to who shall pay if installations have to be moved. It comes down quite properly on the line that he who causes the move has to pay for it. If the street authority cause the move, as I suppose will happen in most cases, then they will have to pay for the cost. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, himself mentioned, the Bill will give street authorities wider powers to make undertakers lay their pipes or their cables in land other than the street itself, which I think is a great advantage. Your Lordships will remember that we had some discussion on that when we were discussing the Special Roads Bill.

Fourthly, the Bill gives a greater right to bridge authorities to know what is going on, and to have some say as to what happens when statutory undertakers carry out their works over, under, or near the foundations of their bridge. Fifthly, as again the noble Lord told us, the Bill enables road authorities in any case where they wish, where a road has been interfered with, to repair the surface themselves. After all, they are much greater experts in repairing road surfaces than are the gas or electricity undertakers, and it is right that they should have this power. All too often I, and no doubt other noble Lords also, have driven down roads which have been taken up by some statutory undertaker; they have attempted to repair it, and for ages after- wards there has been a rough surface, the road has probably sunk two or three inches, and it is a place in which people are more liable to have accidents. This is not caused by any neglect or wantonness, but because they do not understand as well as the highway authority how properly to lay a surface in conformity with the existing surface. So, my Lords, on all those main principles I think there will be no question whatever that we in your Lordships' House are all agreed, and therefore we welcome this Bill.

If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment or two more, I should like to touch lightly on one or two matters of more detail. I am not going into them in any great detail, but it is often better in a Bill of this sort to know before we come to Committee stage some of the points that we may try to deal with together. It struck me that in one respect the definition of "street" in Clause 1 (3) seemed rather too wide. It deals with whether any length of land laid out as a way"— and I omit a few words— is a thoroughfare or not. That definition would include the drive up to a man's house, and I do not suppose any of us would feel that it need be quite so wide as that. I pass lightly over these points because I shall probably draw them to the attention of your Lordships at a later stage.

May I then turn to Clause 2 (5), which states: In this Act the expression 'street managers' (used in relation to a street that is not a maintainable highway) means— (a) if there is an authority, body or person liable to the public to maintain or repair that street, that authority, body or person."— I have no criticism of that— or (b) if there is not, any authority, body or person having the management or control of the street. One might then expect to find in the margin one of those little gremlin chaps with his nose over the wall, so popular in the Army in the days of the war, saying: "Wot, no more?" As your Lordships will see, paragraph (b) ends nowhere, and obviously we shall have to do something about that on the Committee stage of the Bill.

To go on to Clause 3, let me say that I regard the way in which the arbitrator is appointed as right, and if the undertakers and authorities cannot agree on an arbitrator, that the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers should appoint him. I am, however, a little doubtful whether the arbitrator may direct the alteration of the works to conform to a plan and section settled by him, and whether the undertaker will be under an obligation to comply with any such direction. I should have thought that what we wanted was that unless the undertakers complied with such a direction they should not be allowed to carry out the proposed work. As your Lordships will see, there is a difficulty here, because, of course, if the matter is left as wide as this the arbitrator may make an order which would render the work so costly as to make it not worth the undertaker's while to lay the mains at all.

To go back now to Clause 3 (3) (b), I am a little doubtful why we need a plan after emergency works have been carried out. I agree with the overall plan, but after works have been carried out (in most cases emergency works), I see little reason for subsection (3) (b).

While we are on this clause, may I say a word about the penalty clause? I think the first time any penalty is mentioned is in Clause 3 (5), where your Lordships will see that the undertakers, if they fail to do certain things, are liable to a fine not exceeding £50. I am a little doubtful about some of these penalty clauses—there are several of them, What would a fine of £50 mean to such a body as British Railways, who are losing some millions a year; and what would it mean to the recently nationalised gas and electricity industries? Both the last-named industries, I suppose, would just put up their prices in order to meet the fines. I would much prefer to see some extra power given to the nationalised undertakings to get rid of some of the people who make these mistakes. I think that would be better than imposing a fine which would, obviously, fall either on the taxpayer or on the consumer. I am afraid that one of the difficulties that we are falling into with regard to the nationalised industries is that there is a tendency for so much security of tenure to be created that a certain number of "duds" will be kept on in those organisations, whereas previously such people might have found their proper level. I should like next to draw the attention of the noble Lord to Clause 29 (3), which states: The provisions of this Act creating a liability to a fine for breach of any obligation shall not apply to any obligation in so far as it falls to be performed by any authority, body or person on behalf of the Crown. I should like to ask whether that subsection excludes all nationalised undertakings. Is that the effect of the inclusion of those words?

Now, if I may go back, I should like to make a few remarks upon Clause 15. As I understand Clause 15 (2)—though I must say that the drafting of paragraphs (a) and (b) is not very clear—I gather that paragraph (a) refers to general legislation, and paragraph (b) to what we call Private Bills—though it takes a good many words to say so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, dealt in passing with those particular provisions, but I am a little doubtful whether we ought to put off for at least twelve months the application of the terms of this measure, when it becomes an Act, where it conflicts, or may conflict, with any previous Private Bill. I do not know what is going to happen in the meantime. Everyone will know that at any rate after a year these provisions will apply, so those who will benefit—I do not mean those who will personally benefit but those whose general position is benefited—by the new procedure, will be inclined to hang back until the new procedure has been applied to these special cases by order of the Minister. I am doubtful whether there should be provision for this period of at least twelve months in Clause 15. I do not think it would be good to have this delay, during which some people will be waiting until the Minister makes the necessary alteration to the Private Bill. That is all I will say at this stage. We can discuss the matter, but I think there is something to be said for the point of view which I am putting.

I want now to come to Clause 28 to which the noble Lord also referred. If ever there was a compromise clause, this is one. You can see it on the face of it. Indeed, it is only necessary to read the first few lines, especially that part which states: … or the width of such a carriageway available for vehicular traffic has been reduced to less than two-thirds of the width thereof. It looks as though, first of all, someone said: "You will have to make it 'when the whole road is taken up and closed completely to traffic '." Then someone else came along and said: "It will be all right if we make it half the width of the carriageway'," and then finally someone else said: "Perhaps we can all agree if we say two-thirds '." Anyway, "two-thirds" has somehow got into the Bill. I do not see why 'we want it there at all. I think the highway authority ought to be able to say, if they are doing substantial repairs to a road which mean resurfacing, that they can give statutory undertakers the opportunity, then and there, of doing work which they want to do, whether the road has been closed completely or not, or whether they have taken up only two-thirds of it or not. The point is that they should be able to give the statutory undertakers the opportunity to do their work at the same time. I would cut out the first part of teat subsection, and I hope that we shall be able to do so. The sensible thing which everyone wants to secure is that if the road authority is doing work which means completely remaking the road they shall have power to say to statutory undertakers who want to do work at the same time: "Yes, you can do it now, before we re-lay the surface. We do not want you to come along and pull the road up just when we have got the surface relaid." To lay these heavy roads nowadays costs a great deal of money, and it is really silly that people should be able to come alone on a number of occasions, as they sometimes do, and pull them up within a comparatively short time of their completion. There is no political controversy about this: it is merely a little ordinary common sense.

Further, with regard to Clause 28, I feel a certain reluctance about the exceptions which are specified in subsection (2). The first of these exceptions is "emergency works." Of course, there must be provision for these to be done. A gas main or a sewer or a water pipe may have burst, and the responsible authority must he allowed to send its workmen to carry out repairs. But the exceptions specified in subsection (2) (b) occasion me some doubt. I am extremely doubtful whether within twelve months people ought to be allowed to lay a new service pipe or service line for a group of houses.

What is all this planning for? Surely, when the road is being relaid someone ought to know that a group of houses is going to be put up in the vicinity—doubtless it would already have been planned by the planning authority. The necessary steps should be taken then to arrange for water mains or electric mains. I do not say that the pipes should necessarily run all the way to the site of the houses, bat it should be possible to run something to an agreed point. I believe that if this paragraph were omitted, people would be much more inclined to do that while the street itself was being repaired.

I think that paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is far too wide. In regard to paragraphs (b) and (c), I would say that the statutory undertakers should not be allowed to come in and pull up road surfaces except for emergency works, unless they can satisfy the Minister that it is essential that they should do so. I would make excisions here, and I would have it provided that the undertakers must prove their case. They will have had three months' notice that they ought to do it when the road is being repaired, which is ample time. If they do not do it then, certainly they ought not to come along under the many pretexts allowed under subsection (2) and do it, even within twelve months. I should like to make the period longer than twelve months. Why should we not look a little further ahead? I think that is a clause of first-class importance. I looked through the Bill to see whether street authorities are given power, when one undertaking is repairing their cable, or pipes, to compel another undertaking to do their works at the same time. I have not found such a clause in the Bill, and I should like to add a clause providing that when one undertaking has given notice that they are going to pit]] up the street, the street authority may give notice to another undertaking whose cables follow the same line to do their repairs at the same time or not come in for a period of twelve months.

There are one or two points in the definition clause to which I shall have to draw attention. I do not like the phrase "damage includes obstruction" because in ordinary English language it does not. We might as well put in "obstruction" when we mean to include obstruction as well as damage. Before I saw this beautiful definition I thought I knew what "a Public General Act" was. The definition says: 'Public general enactment' means an enactment in an Act treated as a public general Act under the system of division of Acts adopted in the regnal year 3,8 George 3, other than an Act for confirming a provisional order"; In regard to paragraph 4 of the First Schedule something may have to be done so that notice is given to those who have tenancies from year to year. Although they have security of tenure under the Agricultural Acts, a large number of farmers exist in law as yearly tenants. If we are going to lay drains or cables just outside the road, on land which is still in private occupation although designated for the road, we must give a farmer sufficient notice to enable him to object if he wishes to do so. I do not see how paragraph 7 of the First Schedule got in at all. Sub-paragraph (1) reads: (1) Undertakers to whom an authorisation is given under this Schedule shall pay to the street authority an amount equal to any amount by which the cost reasonably incurred by the undertakers of executing any works which are executed in controlled land pursuant to the authorisation is less by reason of their being executed therein than it would have been if they bad been executed in the street. Frankly, I do not understand that. I should have thought we wanted to encourage people to go on controlled land. Costs include the cost these people would have had of digging up the surface of the streets and laying it down, and by going on controlled land under the Bill they are liable to pay compensation to the street authority although they have never tampered with the surface of the street at all. When we come to discuss this Schedule I hope we shall be able to leave that sub-paragraph out altogether.

I have mentioned a few points, to which I do not ask the noble Lord to reply to-day, in order to raise them as a preliminary to discussions on subsequent stages of the Bill. We welcome the Bill, although we should like to see the provisions of Clause 28 going further than they do. We will help the Government if they want to break through that compromise and wish to have some excuse for doing so. Otherwise, we certainly support the Bill and will do our best to co-operate with the Government in getting it through all its stages.

5.17 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I wish to add only one or two words at this stage. I feel that it is a commentary on the times that an entirely uncontroversial Bill, whose purpose can be summed up in two sentences, requires language of such a complicated character. This Bill compares most unfortunately with Bills drafted seventy years ago, for they made relatively easy reading. So far as Scotland is concerned the Bill is welcome. There have been extensive discussions and to a great extent there has been agreement on all the main provisions. Indeed, the Bill proposes no great change from the system which at present exists. The major point of the Bill is clarification. The Bill has been described to me as a handy compendium of the powers of public authorities with regard to street-works, and in this sense it is warmly welcomed and, I think, will be extremely valuable to local authorities.

I should like to confirm one point. There are several penal clauses and I should like to be certain that no powers other than that pertaining to the Lord Advocate are given under the Bill. I do not think so, but I wish to put that point for confirmation. I cordially agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said about the penalties imposed. There is no point in imposing fines on statutory undertakings like the British Electricity Authority and the Gas Board, because they will be paid by the consumer, though I am all in favour of finding ways and means of giving these big corporations a jolt. We have recently discussed penology in the House, and although I do not know whether what we were discussing is particularly suitable to be applied here, I think that penologists might discuss how best a local authority could give a jolt to the British Electricity Authority.

LORD CALVERLEY

Send them to gaol.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The noble Lord says: "Send them to gaol." I suppose he means send the chairman or the Board to gaol.

LORD CALVERLEY

Certainly.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I was not taking such an extreme view as that, but I think that the imposition of a fine of £10 a day is quite useless. I suggest that we might well consider whether some other means could be found. In some cases these big organisations may be slow to react to the requirements of the local authority. The type of offence I have in mind is where they put up obstructions at night time in public streets and do not light them. In my view, there ought to be some way in which it can be brought home to those responsible, acid this is a measure in which that could be properly considered.

I should like to mention one or two other points which, although rather of a Committee nature, are of some importance. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said that the principle of the Bill is that the cost will be borne by those responsible for alterations. By and large, I would agree with him, but I find in Clause 7 (6) that the liability for any disturbance is limited, to any subsidence which takes place within six months. It is obvious that if extensive repair is undertaken to a road then the deterioration in quality of the roadway will not appear until after six months. I suggest that the party making the disturbance should be fully responsible, perhaps not for eternity but certainly for a longer period than six months for seeing that they put right what they have disturbed. That seems to me, if I may put it this way, to be in line with the whole purposes of the Bill. There is no particular point in limiting it to such a short period. I would add only that I feel this Bill is useful, but I am sorry that it is not in simpler form.

5.24 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, it only remains for me to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for their welcome of this Bill. I am going to take Lord Llewellin's suggestion at face value acid not attempt to reply to a number of Committee points which I know will arouse keen discussion on the Committee stage. However, there are one or two points to which I will reply. Both noble Lords have mentioned the length and wordiness of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, thought—and I agree—that the definition of a street was very wide. But the definition of a street appears in thousands of Acts, and they vary greatly in themselves. It is our desire to claw into this Bill all the streets that can and have been designated as streets in all the Acts of Parliament to which this Bill is likely to refer. Therefore, we had to have one clause as wide as the whole of the clauses that define "streets" in all the Acts. That is one reason why this Bill is a mass of words.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether the nationalised industries are immune from the penalty clauses. The answer is that they are not, but that Government Departments are. The Bill controls Government Departments in exactly the same way as any other undertaker and/or authority, except in the imposition of fines. I can only think that that was done because Government Departments, like Caesar's wife, set such a good example to the rest of the community by their law-abiding natures that to put a tine upon them would be rather foolish.

LORD LLEWELLIN

It was because they would have to pay them out of the taxes. That applies equally to the nationalised industries.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But the nationalised industries have to pay the fines. The noble Lord also doubted the wisdom of giving six months' grace in respect of the operation of repeals to general legislation and twelve months to special legislation. I gather the noble Lord thinks that even six months, where it affects general legislation, is too short a period.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Too long.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Too long a period—and twelve months, in any case, is too long. I can assure the noble Lord that we will look into the point, and I will take the opportunity of discussing not only this but other points with him.

I am in sympathy with the noble Lord in what he says in regard to Clause 28 as to the cost of this work. I have it worked out that to re-metal a road cost; anything from 20s.to 30s. per square yard, and that to re-surface a road costs about 5s. a square yard; and it may cost anything up to £160,000 to construct a mile of road, when the land has to be acquired and the road has to be made from its foundations. That is, the noble Lord said, a colossal expense, and the cost is mounting as the years go by. I will certainly look carefully into the noble Lord's suggestions, and perhaps in this respect he will give me the benefit of his advice when we come to consider any Amendment he may think fit to put down. My provisional answer to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about any extension of the powers of the legal profession in Scotland is "No." However, I will have that matter looked into and give him a definite reply on a later stage of the Bill. I do not think I need deal with any of the other matters, which are really Committee points. I conclude as I began by thanking both noble Lords for their help and their welcome of the Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.