PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 02 April 1962 vol 239 cc28-88

4.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mills.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 20:

Power of the Minister to impose requirements with respect to mode of construction &c., of pipe-lines

20.—(1) The Minister may at any time if he considers it necessary so to do in the interests of safety, by notice served on a person who is executing, or is proposing to execute, works in land for the construction of a pipe-line,

1. (a) prohibit, as regards works for the construction of the line or of any length thereof specified in the notice, the execution of the works (so far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice) otherwise than in such a manner as may be so specified;

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may at any time if he considers it necessary so to do "and to insert shall". The noble Earl said: This Amendment to Clause 20 is the first Amendment that stands in my name, but it is to the same effect as a number of later Amendments—namely, Nos. 42A and 42B. I would also mention another Amendment, No. 70A, to the First Schedule. I would tell the noble Lord that these Amendments are all designed with one object, and that is to strengthen the safety provisions in this Bill. We think that the Bill is surprisingly weak in provisions that make for safety. Under Clause 20, the Minister has power to serve notice on applicants for a pipe-line authorisation insisting that the works shall be executed as he directs, that the pipe-line shall be made of materials that satisfy him and that it shall be sunk at a sufficient depth below ground level. Under Clause 23, he may also serve notice that the examination, repair, maintenance, adjustment or testing of a pipe-line shall be in accordance with his requirements, and that he may prohibit a line from being operated at more than a given pressure of pounds per square inch. All these requirements are permissive. The Minister may insist that the line is constructed to certain standards.

Remembering that one of the objects of the Bill, as stated in the Long Title, is to "secure the safe operation of pipelines" and that this is a new and, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, an almost untried method of transport, it seems to us that stronger powers ought to be put into the Bill. Pipe-lines used for the supply of oil and chemicals will contain, at times, inflammable and possibly highly explosive substances conveyed under pressure. Yet there is nothing in the Bill to insist that a person proposing to build a pipe-line shall state in advance to what standards he is going to build his line. That is the point of Amendment No. 70 (A). We think that in his initial application, a pipe-line promoter should say to which of the recognised British standards he is proposing to build his line.

Anybody who applies for an authorisation under the Bill hopes to get compulsory power to lay his line wherever it suits him, through any kind of country, along streets in towns, through built-up areas, in fact anywhere within 10 feet of any building. He is going to have considerable powers. And since, by definition, this is thrown open to private enterprise, and the object of an operator is to make a profit, it is obviously to his interests to construct his pipe-line as cheaply as possible. To put it colloquially, he can cut his safety margins as low as he likes and risk serious damage to life and property wherever he is conveying these highly dangerous substances. It is hard to understand why the Bill as drafted makes so little of the question of safety. One would have thought that the most rigid precautions would not have been too much to insert in a Bill like this.

There are various comparable spheres of industrial activity—electricity, for example—where the law provides similar permissive powers to the Minister to insist on provisions to ensure the safety of people and property. The Gas Act and the Coal Mines Act similarly give the Minister permissive power to make regulations for safety. There are other spheres in which we might look for guidance on what safety precautions are necessary. With the help of the Library in your Lordships' House, I find that the Civil Aviation Act, as one would expect, gives the Government far stricter control over the operators of aircraft. The Act of 1949 lays down that, by Order in Council, the Government may prohibit any aircraft from flying without a certificate of airworthiness, and lays down the minimum standards to ensure adequate safety for passengers and others in civil aviation. That is a precaution without which I, for one, should be reluctant to fly at all.

The Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, as your Lordships know, set up the Licensing Board, and laid down that no aircraft shall be used unless the owner has an air operator's certificate under the Order in Council, to which I referred just now, and an air service licence from the Licensing Board, which is a licence authorising the operator to operate an aircraft on such flights as those for which he applies. The air operator's certificate is a certificate of the applicant's competence to secure that aircraft operated by him on such flights are operated safely. Those seem to me to be suitable safety provisions for a highly dangerous activity such as aviation.

I would cite another Act, the Consolidated Petroleum Act, passed as long ago as 1928. That lays down that petrol is not to be kept without a licence, and a licence is issued by local authorities, who may attach such conditions as they think expedient as to the mode of storage and generally as to safe keeping. In respect of all these provisions an appeal lies to the Secretary of State. Moreover, under the Petroleum Act the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the conveyance of petrol by road and for protecting persons or property from damage in connection with this; and he may lay down regulations for vehicles carrying the petrol on the roads, for the quantities, for loading precautions and for the enforcement of these provisions.

What do we see in this Bill? There is merely the permissive power in Clause 20 about execution of works, materials, depth below ground and operating pressure. And this does not empower the Minister to make regulations, but merely to deal with an individual applicant and, presumably by bi-lateral negotiations, to insist on that operator changing the methods or the materials he proposes. The little that we know of pipe-lines that has been published is all about pipe-lines abroad and, in particular, the French pipe-line that has been operating for ten years. We know that that system is operated at different pressure, according to the country that the length of line goes through. In urban areas it is about 430 lb. to the square inch and in other areas it goes up to 1,200 lb. to the square inch.

What is proposed in the United Kingdom as to the standards and operating maxima of pressure? That surely must depend on how robustly the pipe-line and its associated equipment is constructed. If it is done as cheaply as possible, with a small safety margin, obviously the operating pressure must be kept low. If the pipe-line and its pumps and valves are really strong and robust, then higher pressure can be permitted. But where under the Bill is all this going to be laid down? How is the Minister going to decide what standards to insist on? I believe that the British Standards Institution has well-known and recognised British standards for all manner of gear, equipment and materials; and I believe the relevant one to this (the Minister can verify this, because I may be wrong) is known as "Standards for unfired pressure vessels". There are recognised standards based on long engineering experience in this country. But there is no mention of the matter having been given that much thought. I think that before this Bill goes any further through this House we are entitled to have an assurance that these matters have been thought of, and that there is provision in the Bill for the Minister to exercise the control that in the interests of the public should be exercised. Whether the actual form of my Amendment, substituting "shall" for "may", is the correct way of doing it, I am not certain, but it conveys the idea in my mind that the Minister must have greater powers and be willing to exercise them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 26, leave out from (" Minister ") to (" in ") in line 27 and insert (" shall ").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MERRIVALE

I hope the Minister will not accept this Amendment, though I must say that I agree with the motives which have led the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, to put it down. I say that because I believe the imposition of safety requirements would be better achieved, as I said on Second Reading, if the Minister had power to make regulations rather than to serve notices, whether the notices be mandatory or arbitrary. When I mentioned this on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mills stated that regulations would depend so much upon the type of pipeline concerned and what it was conveying. While I agree that a single code could not be devised, I think it is true to say that in various ways and for various purposes industrial operations and plants are subject to regulations authorised by enabling Acts. I would particularly stress that this is done by a procedure which allows consultation between the parties concerned. I can see no mention in this Bill that, with regard to notices, there would be any consultation with those who have to receive a notice. I feel that there is no necessity for the arbitrary, let alone the mandatory, imposition of safety requirements in individual cases. I would opt for the adoption of regulations for specified types and classes of pipe-lines.

Safety regulations are already made by the Minister of Power under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954. In fact, Statutory Instrument No. 854, the Coal Mines (Explosives) Regulations, 1961, was initiated under the power granted to the Minister 'by that Act and under the Factory Act, 1937, and later Factory Acts. The Minister of Labour may make special regulations for safety. Such regulations are enforced by highly competent inspectors. But this Bill makes no provision to use the existing qualified inspectorates, while Clauses 20 to 24 do not provide the inspectors who will be appointed under Clause 39 with the customary regulations for the exercise of the inspectors' powers. It would seem that this is something quite new. There would appear to be numerous precedents for the Minister to make regulations, even when it concerns inflammable or dangerous materials. Although I oppose this Amendment, I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will have another look at this question of the imposition of safety regulations to see whether it would not be possible to incorporate at a later stage powers for the Minister to make regulations, rather than serve safety notices.

4.32 p.m.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

I am grateful to the noble Earl opposite for speaking to Amendments Nos. 40A, 42A and 42B at the same time, because, as he said, they cover the same point, except that the first Amendment is in respect of construction, while the others are in respect of repair and maintenance and of working pressure per square inch. Although I do not address myself specifically to Amendment No. 70A, which the noble Lord included (I think that may be discussed in due course), I agree that certain of the objections I propose to put forward will apply to that Amendment. But I hope that at this stage they will not be taken as necessarily in direct reference to it.

The noble Earl drew an analogy between the safety regulations for pipelines and those of aircraft and petrol, in particular. He drew other analogies, but those are the two I marked out. I think there must be a definite line of demarcation drawn here. They cannot be loosely bracketed in that way, because there is an inherent risk with aircraft, as there is with petrol, all the time. Petrol is potentially dangerous, and any aircraft which is flying may cease to be airborne. So there is a potential danger all the time. One cannot say the same for pipelines. There may be pipe-lines conveying high explosives under pressure, and there may be others conveying perfectly innocuous substances rather sluggishly along.

Although the noble Earl was critical (as I thought, a little unfairly) of what one might call the accent on safety in this Bill he went some way rather to destroy his own argument by referring to the various unknowns with which we are faced in the world of pipe-lines. He was to a certain extent, as was my noble friend Lord Merrivale, critical of the lack of regulations, or lack of power to make regulations, to govern these matters. I do not believe that at this stage, in this way, it is possible to lay down standards, to make a standard set of regulations under which they can operate, because each pipe-line must be considered individually. It is a question of the Minister addressing himself on the safety angle to each individual case as it is put to him.

We had some discussion earlier on in the Committee on public interest, and we shall hear more at a later stage. I thought the noble Earl was a little unnecessarily critical of the way that Ministers addressed themselves to their responsibilities. They must act in the public interest; that is their job. In this case the whole emphasis of the Bill is on two things: to ensure, first, that there shall not be unnecessary multiplicity of pipelines; and, second, that they shall be developed in a controlled fashion and be safe. Those are the Minister's duties, and I think there is ample provision for him to carry them out. The noble Earl criticised the question of the original specification. I would draw his attention to paragraph 1 (e) of the First Schedule, where he will find that, in addition to what the pipe-line constructor must supply in his application, that application must contain such other (if any) particulars as may be prescribed ". There is no difficulty in the Minister's finding out what is to be the specification and working conditions of the pipeline, and informing himself fully of the necessary technicalities which he would need to know in the interests of safety.

The object of Clause 20 is to empower the Minister at any time, if he considers it necessary to do so in the interests of safety, to impose requirements. Later on in Clause 23 there is the same responsibility in respect of repairs and working pressure. So far as construction is concerned, he can lay down the materials, the depth, the method, and so on. That is a pretty full power which the Minister has at his disposal. The difference is that the Amendment seeks to oblige the Minister to impose these requirements whether he considers it necessary or not. There may well be occasions when the situation of the pipeline, and the nature of the things that are to be conveyed in it, will be such that it is not necessary on safety grounds to impose all, or even possibly any, of the requirements which the Minister is able to impose. Where that is so, I cannot see the point of obliging the Minister to impose the requirements just the same. If, on the other hand, he thinks it is necessary to impose the requirements, then he should be empowered by the Bill to do it. And that is exactly what happens. I should not have thought there was need to impose upon the Minister the duty of taking action which he himself considers necessary in the discharge of his responsibilities as a Minister. I think I am right in saying that the permissive aspect of this legislation, to which the noble Earl drew our attention, is in the usual form for enactments of this kind.

But there is one final point, and it is, I think, the most important point: that if the noble Earl's Amendments were to be accepted they would have the effect of taking the words "at any time" out of the Bill—that the Minister may make these requirements "at any time". That is most important. Those words are needed to make it quite clear that the Minister is not restricted as to the time at which he can, in the interests of safety, serve notice on the pipe-line constructor, and that he may do so even when the work of construction is well-advanced. I think it is a most important provision which must be preserved. I hope that the noble Earl will think over carefully what I have said and, in particular, the point that to remove those words from the Bill would be very detrimental to the interests of safety. I hope that when he has thought about what I have said he will not wish to press his Amendments.

LORD STONHAM

I do not know what my noble friend's intentions are with regard to his Amendments, but before he comes to a decision there are two points I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, arising out of what he has just said. His case for refusing the Amendments really rests on two things: that we know very little about pipe-lines at the moment, and that we do not know what kind of powers the Minister will really want; and for those reasons we ought not to make regulations which might be wrong regulations or, presumably, might be unduly harsh in some circumstances or restrictive in ways which will not prove necessary. As I see it, both those arguments are not arguments against my noble friend's Amendments, because if each pipe-line application muse be considered on its merits there is still no need for refusing to say that the Minister shall apply requirements in the construction of that pipe-line. That is the whole point. The noble Lord rather took it as a reflection on Ministers in discharging their responsibilities. Of course, Ministers are not of one particular Party, and I have no doubt that before very long Ministers in another political Party will have the job of carrying out this Bill; therefore, if we on this side of the House are not a bit shy about having conditions imposed on Ministers in this Bill, I do not see why the noble Lord should shy away from having these responsibilities imposed. Therefore, I do not see that there is much in his reply about these "shall" or "may" arguments.

The other point arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, about the desirability, if possible, of making regulations. I can see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said, in that we know so little about this particular business that it would perhaps be wrong at this stage to attempt to impose regulations of general application which would not be suitable in many cases; but that is no reason why a Minister should not take power to make regulations in the Bill. He is not thereby compelled immediately to start setting up a list of regulations. But surely the noble Lord can see that when it is possible to make regulations they can be of great value to the applicant. A great deal of time and expense can be saved if someone who was going to apply for the right to construct a pipe-line knows of certain rules that will have to be observed in its construction, even in the actual construction of the pipe itself. I should have thought that at a reasonably early stage sufficient experience would have been gained to enable regulations to be drawn up of sufficient general application to be of great value to those who want to construct pipe-lines. Therefore I would submit that the Minister should consider taking powers in this Bill to make regulations. I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that he has not answered my noble friend's point, and I hope he will consider the secondary points I have put to him.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am surprised that the Minister still takes the safety question so lightly. He says that aircraft are dangerous all the time, and I say, so are pipe-lines, if they are carrying petrol.

LORD CHESHAM

But not if carrying milk.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The Minister told us on Second Reading that he reckons that the immediate need for pipe-lines is mostly for the oil companies to carry oil products. We know the sort of oil products that will be carried: aviation spirit, premium petrol, ordinary petrol, kerosene, diesel fuel, gas oil, domestic fuel oil and light fuels. If when under pressure, those are not dangerous substances, I do not know what are. For the Minister to say that he will serve notice only when he thinks it is expedient to do so means, no doubt, that he will examine every application on its merits. But how will he examine it? With what in mind? What standards will he have to measure the safety or otherwise? How will he decide what is a safe operating pressure in built-up areas, in open country, in hard soil, or in soft soil? For how much of that will he expect to make provision in these notices?

After all, what harm does it do to insist on certain minimum standards of safety? Are we not all accustomed to that? No ship goes to sea without a Plimsoll line. You cannot tell me that that is not a mandatory power to ensure the safety of ships at sea. If the noble Lord wanted to install electrical fittings in his house they would have to comply with certain minimum safety standards which are laid down by local authority by-laws. Why should not applicants for pipe-line authorisation know, by turning up the regulations, of the British Standards which will have to be observed if they want to carry one substance or another? It is not impossible for regulations to specify one standard for milk and another for aviation fuel. There is nothing new about the issue by Government Departments of regulations varying with different conditions and substances. The Government are showing no appreciation of the need for controlling pipe-line development in the interests of safety. So far as we have seen and beard from the Ministers, the Government have not got that sufficiently in mind.

LORD CHESHAM

In view of what the noble Earl has said, I do not want to spend all day arguing with him, but I must have just another word about this matter because I think it is important. I still think that he goes some way to destroying his own case. I agree that my noble friend said that the early use of pipe-lines is likely to be more by oil companies for their products, which are liable to be dangerous, than for other commodities. But we are trying, to a certain extent, at any rate, to legislate a little more generally than that, and I ask him to consider the fact that the safety powers the Minister has are pretty far-reaching and very adequate.

I do not want to interrupt the serious discussion on a slightly lighter note, but the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took up my point about Ministerial responsibility and said that there might be a change. I knew noble Lords opposite thought that. I surmised that it was perhaps with that very thought in mind that they wished to impose some further shackles; but I was too polite to say it the first time. With the multiplicity not of pipelines but of commodities which may be sent up them in varying circumstances, in varying quantity, over varying distances, there will prove to be, I should think, a good many variables, and I should have thought that to have laid down regulations per commodity would have been almost impossible—impossible, at any rate, at the present stage of development—and to lay down generalisations might well work as much against the interest of safety as in favour of it. I think that in this matter of safety it is most important that we preserve the element of flexibility. I would have thought that, from the paragraph I quoted in the First Schedule, there was room for a code to grow up of requirements for pipe-lines for varying commodities. I should have thought it is better to leave the matter in the way the Bill has it at present—that is, with the necessary flexibility to make certain that each pipe-line is safe.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?

4.53 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

Before we part with this clause I should like to say a word or two about the machinery of it. This is a clause which, on the noble Lord's own admission, deals to a considerable extent with the question of safety. Perhaps whoever is going to reply could say whether the Bill in another Part gives the Minister power to make regulations. If it does, obviously it is not necessary to have it here. But at some time it might well be necessary to make regulations, even though at this stage the Government may find it difficult, in the light of their lack of knowledge and experience of the working of the Bill, to define exactly what the regulations may be. I thought my noble friend's suggestion, that power be taken, if it does not already exist in the Bill, to make regulations, was a very prudent one and ought to have been accepted.

I want to say a word about subsection (2). If we are dealing with safety we seem to be dealing with it in an extraordinarily leisurely way. Once the Minister has made up his mind that certain pipes need to be dealt with, removed or prohibited, the person interested has twelve weeks in which to object. Why on earth should he need twelve weeks in which to state an objection, in a case where danger is involved? Surely he could serve a counter notice in less than twelve weeks. However, he is given twelve weeks, and then the Minister, if there is a counter notice, holds an inquiry. How long that inquiry is going to take, how long it will be before the inquiry is held, goodness only knows!, but, judging by my own personal experience, I would say it might be three months before the inquiry was held. That makes six months.

Then the Minister has twelve weeks from the time of the holding of the inquiry. The wording is a little vague, and it may be he has more, but I am giving the Government the benefit of my doubt; I am assuming he has twelve weeks in which to give a decision. So we now have 36 weeks, roughly, in a matter where there is, or there may be, considerable danger. Really, the Government ought to be able to move more rapidly than that. I know the Government find it difficult to move; we all recognise that. But even this Government ought to be able to move more rapidly than this, especially where there is danger. So I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they have another look at this matter and see whether they cannot speed up the machinery and make it really more effective.

LORD MILLS

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, there is no power to make regulations. The noble Lord referred to subsection (2) and the time required to deal with objections, counter notices and so on. But the noble Lord, I think, should have in mind what this refers to: it refers to the Minister's requirements for the construction of a pipe-line. It is not simply twelve weeks but "before the expiration of twelve weeks". The Minister has complete control here because work cannot go on unless the Minister's requirements are complied with: so there is no danger in this at all. I think if the noble Lord reads the clause he will see that this is the case.

LORD SILKIN

There is one more point. This is a direction to the Minister to give a decision within twelve weeks. What happens to the Minister if he does not? Subsection (3) provides sanctions against the person who acts in contravention of the provision in the Minister's direction, so it does contemplate that people might act in contravention. The work is not necessarily at a standstill. The person who acts in contravention may get three months. What happens to the Minister if he acts in contravention?

LORD HAWKE

May there not be impeachment in that case?

LORD SILKIN

I am asking the Minister, not the noble Lord, Lord Hawke.

LORD HAWKE

He may not like to make such a hazardous prediction.

LORD SILKIN

What happens if the Minister does not give his decision within twelve weeks? There are parallel cases under the Town and Country Planning Act. In the days when we did give serious thought to these matters, if the local authority did not give a decision within two months that was deemed to be a refusal. At any rate something happened. What would happen here? It says that the Minister shall give a decision within twelve weeks. What is the position if he does not do so? I really think that this clause requires looking at again.

LORD MILLS

The Minister would have certain duties imposed upon him under this Bill us he has under other Acts. The answer must be that the same would happen to the Minister in this case as would happen if he did not carry out his duties in any other case.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Enforcement of requirements imposed under Section 20]:

LORD CHESHAM

Both Amendment No. 41 and Amendment No. 42 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 41.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 16, leave out (" contravention ") and insert (" failure ").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move Amendment No. 42.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 19, leave out (" contravention ") and insert (" failure ").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 [Power of the Minister to cause steps to be taken for rendering pipe-line, or length thereof, safe on abandonment or cesser of use]:

5.3 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to subsection (2): Notwithstanding the provisions of the two foregoing sections it shall be the duty of the owner of any pipe-line at all times to maintain it in a safe condition until such time as it shall be removed from the land. The noble Lord said: This is quite a straightforward Amendment. It seeks to impose on the owners of a pipe-line a statutory responsibility to keep that pipeline in a safe condition at all times so long as it remains in the land. Under the Bill as it now stands that is not done. It is true that under Clauses 23 and 24 the Minister has power by notice served on the pipe-line owners, to impose certain requirements, but there is no actual statutory obligation ion the owners.

Section 33 of the Esso Act, 1961 says: The Company shall at all times after the construction of the works maintain the same in substantial repair and good order and condition and, when necessary, renew the same. So there is there a complete obligation there on the company to maintain the pipe-line. But what is more important, I think, is that the Government, under regulations made under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, have imposed on Departments much more stringent powers. Perhaps I may read a short extract from Statutory Instrument No. 724 of 1959. Paragraph 4 (1) says: Where a pipe-line or works has been laid, installed or constructed under a wayleave order, the Minister by whom the wayleave order is made shall, so long as such wayleave order has effect

1. (a) keep such pipe-line and works in good repair and shall indemnify all persons interested in the land to which the wayleave order applies … or affected by the maintenance"

and so on. There the Government have imposed a strict liability on themselves, as owners of the pipe-line. I do not see why they should impose a lesser obligation on private companies who are the owners of pipe-lines. Here a private company brings a pipe-line on to the land. I think that it should be under a liability to see that it is maintained so long as it is on the land and until it is removed, even if it is not used. I understand that at times when the pipe is not used, the practice is to fill it with water. There have been instances where the water has caused flooding because the line has not been maintained. All that I am seeking to do here is to make certain that private owners of a pipe-line are placed in no better position than the Government as the owner of a pipe-line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 46, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MILLS

I think the chief objection to my noble friend's Amendment is that a statutory requirement to maintain the line in a safe condition is not sufficiently precise to be capable of enforcement. In fact it would not be known whether the line was in a safe condition or not until something had happened, and perhaps damage had been caused. In any event, the owner's liability is covered by his Common Law liability. I am advised that this Amendment is unnecessary, seeking as it does to put an absolute obligation on the owner, because under Clause 11 (2) the pipe-line owner is already absolutely liable, arising from the exercise of his rights under a compulsory rights order, in regard to damage to land or chattels. He may be liable in cases of personal injury also under the Common Law rules as to negligence. As a subsequent Amendment makes clear, the owner would not be absolved by any of the provisions of the Act from liability for nuisance. This means that if an abandoned pipe-line causes damage he can be sued and made to pay. But my main objection to this Amendment, as I have said, is that it requires something without making it possible to carry it out. I hope that if the noble Lord considers that point, he will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I must say that we have just had rather a peculiar answer. I listened with considerable sympathy to the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney; and for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to refer to the compensation that may arise in the event of an accident hardly meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, who wishes to ensure that these pipe-lines are kept in first-class condition so that compensation is not likely to arise. As I understand it, under this Bill the Minister will have no powers of regulation in regard to safety. If the noble Lord cannot accept the words as set out in the Amendment, would he consider whether there should not be some provision for making regulations? As I understand it, it is not only a pipe-line that is involved here: there will be the pumping stations and other services involved. Where you are pumping high-grade petroleum, I should think that there would be considerable danger of an explosion at the pumping station.

LORD MILLS

May I interrupt the noble Lord? This Amendment deals with pipe-lines out of use or abandoned.

LORD SHEPHERD

Yes, but there still remain the pumping stations, where no doubt, gas might accumulate. I would ask the Minister whether he would not consider the whole question of regulations for all the pipe-lines, whether disused or still in use. I should have thought that that was the least the Committee could ask of the Minister.

LORD MILLS

The question of regulations is another matter, where I think it is still a question of feeling one's way. It would be quite wrong, I think, for my right honourable friend the Minister to attempt to make regulations until we have gone further along this road. But we are dealing at the moment with abandoned pipe-lines or pipe-lines which have not been in use for some time. When I studied this point I had a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and I saw what he was getting at. I had to come to the conclusion, however, that the Amendment would add nothing to the position as it stands in the Bill at present. It would not he right to clutter the Bill with Amendments which do not improve it.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply. I could not quite follow the first point. If it is too vague a requirement, I cannot see why the Government have sought to impose it in regulations under the Statutory Instrument and also in the Esso Act—where there is imposed upon the Company a definite liability to maintain the line in a safe condition. I cannot see why in those cases it has been sufficiently precise, yet we are told here that it is not precise. Perhaps I have misunderstood the noble Lord. However, I do not intend to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST or HACKNEY

This Amendment is on rather a different point and I am a little more hopeful about it because the noble Lord was kind enough to accept an almost exactly similar Amendment which I moved on Clause 4. The point of this Amendment is that various orders can be given to pipe-line owners to remove the pipe-line, but there does not seem to be any provision for compensating the owner of the land for any damage done during the course of removal of that pipe-line. It is the same point which I made on Clause 5, which involved the removal by order of a pipe-line that had been put in the wrong place. This relates to the removal of a disused pipe-line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 46, at end insert— (" ( ) Full compensation shall be made by the person in default to any person who suffers any loss or damage by reason of entry upon land or any works done pursuant to the provisions of this section and any dispute as to a right to compensation under this subsection or as to the amount thereof shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MILLS

As the noble Lord has said, this Amendment is comparable to a similar Amendment which the noble Lord moved on Clause 4 and which was accepted in principle. This one also the Government are prepared to accept in principle. I think the wording of the Amendment will require further consideration, and if the noble Lord agrees to withdrawing it, I will see that a Government Amendment to deal with this point is brought forward at a later stage.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

LORD HAWKE

I wonder whether the word "abandonment" is quite the right word to use in line 29? I cannot find any definition of it in the Definition Clause. Is it abandonment of the use of the pipe-line or the abandonment of ownership? For example, if I own a mine and I abandon it I presumably still own the mine and am responsible if people break their necks falling down the shaft; but if I abandon some possession of mine, like an old hat or something like that, and somebody picks it up and comes to some damage through using it, presumably I have no responsibility. If abandonment of a pipe-line means that the owner has not only abandoned its use but has also abandoned its ownership, how can he be held responsible in any way for any damage that may result from its use? I feel that some word other than "abandonment" should be used to make certain whether it is the abandonment of use or the abandonment of ownership which is concerned.

LORD MILLS

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, the word "abandon- ment" here is used, I think, in a well-understood sense and means abandonment of use.

LORD DERWENT

The heading to the clause refers to "abandonment or cesser of use". It would look from that as if abandonment does not mean cesser of use.

LORD MILLS

Perhaps noble Lords will permit me to give further consideration to that matter.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

Is it possible for a person to abandon a pipe-line or anything else just like that, as expressed in subsection (1) of Clause 24?

LORD MILLS

So far as I know, it is not. But I was in India at the time of the partition from Pakistan, and I can assure the noble Lord that there was a lot of plant and things abandoned at that time not that I am expecting anything of the sort to happen here.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

This is England.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Who measures the three years from the date on which the pipe-line is last used? It seems to me that that may be open to a great deal of doubt, particularly as I am led to understand that it is the normal practice to keep water in a pipeline when it is not in use.

LORD MILLS

Under another clause, notice has to be given to the Minister of the abandonment or the cessation of use.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

Avoidance of Damage to Pipe-lines by Buildings, &c.

Power of the Minister, where pipe-line imperilled by building or structure, to order demolition thereof or execution of remedial works

25.

— (6) Subsections (2) to (5) of this section shall not have effect in the case of a building or structure forming part of a pipe-line or erected or constructed for the lodging therein of part of a pipe-line, being a building or structure no part of which is situate less than ten feet from a point on the surface of land whose position is vertically above a part of another pipe-line below the surface or in the case of a building or structure in which a pipe-line or any part of a pipe-line is terminated.

LORD LINDGREN

Clause 25 is concerned generally to prevent the construction of a building or a structure within 10 feet of a pipe-line. It is uncertain to me how this might affect the apparatus or works of a statutory undertaker in the highway—electricity, gas or water—where a pipe-line is laid in the highway. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 25 would not apply in the case of a structure for a water undertaking, a gas undertaking, an electricity undertaking, et cetera constructed in the highway, because if they were to apply they would almost prevent the laying of water mains in the highway where a pipe-line was also sited. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 1, at end insert (" in the case of undertakers' works as defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, or").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD CHESHAM

I think the point made by the noble Lord is a reasonable one. Such buildings as would come within the definition of "building or structure" in Clause 25, and which are likely to be employed by statutory undertakers in the course of their carrying out works within the control of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, are likely to be only small and, in particular, only temporary. Consequently, I think the risk they are likely to cause to the pipeline is very small. For my part, I should like to accept in principle what the noble Lord has put forward. I should also like to examine it again, to make sure that the point requires covering, and to put down a suitable Government Amendment at a later stage, if he will agree to that.

LORD LINDGREN

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his accommodation in regard to this matter. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the basis of his undertaking.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Execution of remedial works by the Minister in default of compliance with order to execute them, and recovery of expenses incurred in executing such works]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is a drafting one, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 25, after first (" be") insert (" in executing the works").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Power of the Minister to remove deposits imperilling pipe-line]:

LORD LINDGREN

Here, again, the Minister is given power to remove earth, refuse, spoil or any deposit that is placed within 10 feet of a pipe-line. Again, it is not clear to me if this would apply to statutory undertakings such as gas, electricity or water. If they were repairing part of their structure in a highway in which a pipe-line was also sited, would the Minister have power to come along and fill up the hole halfway through? We get a lot of unnecessary opening of highways, for one purpose or another. I should not think it was intended, but if in fact the Minister were to have power under this clause to interfere with works of other statutory undertakings as they were in progress, it ought to be rectified. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 23, after (" of ") insert (" undertakers' works as defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, or").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD CHESHAM

Since the noble Lord has raised this point, I would tell him that the Bill as it stands would, indeed, give the Minister that power. Again, I would say that, where there are statutory undertakers covered by the Public Utilities Street Works Act, who are carrying out their works under the umbrella of that Act, it would once more seem reasonable to suppose that such deposits of earth, soil and so on, which might be thrown up in the course of their operations, would not be likely to be detrimental—again, largely because they are likely to be of only a very temporary nature. Once more, if the noble Lord would allow me to accept the principle of his Amendment, I would give him a similar undertaking to that which I gave on his Amendment No. 44A.

LORD LINDGREN

I am getting quite excited with two successes. I am grateful again to the noble Lord, and with the leave of the House I would withdraw the Amendment, on the basis of his undertaking.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.30 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(not being operations for the storage of crops, grass or silage)". The noble Lord said: The Bill as it stands allows ordinary agricultural operations to go on in the strip of land ten feet on either side of the pipe-line, but prevents the storage of crops, grass or silage. It is true that provisions for preventing this storage are included in the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, but in subsequent Acts promoted by the oil companies they have not found it necessary to insist on these provisions. On Second Reading it was suggested that possibly the pipe-line might be damaged by acids seeping down from the silage heaps stored over the top. In practice, however, pipes are protected, and it is almost inconceivable that any moisture seeping down to a properly buried pipe would cause any harm. If the pipes are as easily damaged as that, they should not be in the land at all. The main point of this clause is too allow access to the pipe; and, after all, there is no difficulty, with a bulldozer or something like that, in clearing away a silage heap. The point of this Amendment is to void having in the Bill an unnecessary inconvenience to agriculture. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 24, leave out from first (" operations ") to first ("the") in line 25.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD HAWKE

This Amendment, when one studies it, does point to one or two peculiarities in this clause. Presumably we are legislating for many years ahead, and yet in the future—ten, fifteen, twenty years' time—somebody is supposed to know precisely where this pipe-line runs to a foot, so that he knows where a zone of ten feet is to be. Then, lest somebody should hazard the pipe- line in some way or another, no earth, refuse, spoil or other materials may be deposited there. It is quite right, possibly, to protect the pipe-line. On the other hand, if those very same materials happen to be deposited in the course of agricultural operations, it does not matter. So what really is the purpose of the clause protecting the pipe-line? Must an action taken as part of an agricultural operation be quite safe and precisely the same operation be unsafe when it is not agricultural? I feel that this clause needs to be looked at again.

LORD CHESHAM

My noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney has correctly summed up the situation here, and has told us that the clause empowers the Minister to require the removal of deposits of earth or other materials. The exception, of course, as he already knows, is in favour of agricultural operations other than the storage of crops, grass or silage. Now generally speaking, but not within the narrower bracket of agriculture, there are two objects in the clause. The first is to avoid damage through seepage of any kind. I cannot give your Lordships details, but I imagine that certain things might be deposited there which could give rise to risk. As my noble friend said, that hardly applies in the case of silage and other agricultural materials.

The second point, ensuring access to the pipe-line, is the more important one, because it is in the interests of safety. If there were half-a-dozen corn ricks and a silage clamp on top of the pipe-line, and there should happen to be a leakage of highly volatile avaition fuel under pressure, that would be no moment to start sending twenty miles away for a bulldozer on its conveyor to come and move the silage clamp to get at the leak. It is an important form of protection, and these three agricultural operations—the storage of crops, grass or silage—were rather deliberately included to avoid blocking the access to the pipe-lines. I do not know what they move about in large quantities on farms down in Sussex, but I do not think that many people move about such vast quantities of earth as would block access.

As to what happens as the years go on, I understand that markers will be put in from time to time—and, of course, maps will be available. I know that when you are seeking somewhere to deposit some dung, perhaps, to make a dung clamp, or something like that, you may have forgotten exactly where it is and you may not have a map handily available, but in such a case the markers should help. On the whole, I do not think there is much difficulty in siting a haystack or silage clamp ten feet one way or the other. If the farmer thinks it so very necessary that it should be sited absolutely bang on the pipe-line, he can obtain the Minister's consent. To do that would, of course, be a bore, but I think that the access point is extremely valuable in the interests of safety, and I do not think it should give rise to very much nuisance to the farming community.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I entirely appreciate what my noble friend Lord Chesham has just said, and I should not dream of disputing in any way his very good reasons for resisting my noble friend's Amendment on the grounds of access. However, I was looking at the marginal note to this clause, and before he gave his reasons it seemed to me a somewhat bizarre idea that the innocent haystack or potato clamp should be a peril to a pipe-line. However, if these particular words in brackets have been inserted in order to provide reasonable access to the pipe-line then, perhaps, in order to avoid misleading those who read the Bill, it might be as well to say so in the marginal note.

LORD HAWKE

I have listened with great interest to my noble friend but, quite frankly, I do not think he has provided any solid reason for suggesting that an action which is perfectly safe from an agricultural point of view might be hazardous from any other point of view. If he is going to allow agriculturists to deposit these things, I do not see any reason why he should not allow everybody to do so, and why he should not therefore revise the clause to the effect that only dangerous materials, or something like that, should be allowed to be moved by the Minister.

LORD CHESHAM

I do not think my noble friend has quite appreciated the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I did not make it properly. It was that. I compared with other forms of industry, other than the storage of crops, grass and silage anything else which is liable to be deposited anywhere in the course of agricultural operations is normally only there very temporarily. That is as much the reason as anything else: that the obstruction is there on a very temporary basis. I do not know what it is that they pile up in Sussex for such long times; I must go down and find out.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

Would this clause stop one from erecting a fence for forestry purposes over the path of a pipeline? It would be almost impossible to put up a row of stocks if they were over 25 feet apart, or whatever it is, and I think it would lead to great difficulties if this were the case.

LORD HAWKE

I have heard my noble friend explain this matter, but I think the whole clause is nonsense and that it is quite unnecessary to have these restrictions.

LORD SILKIN

One point which has occurred to me is this. How would the noble Lord deal with the question of the deposit of manure? That is quite a common agricultural activity. It is not very certain whether the manure is to be there temporarily or permanently. It may be there for a whole season and it may accumulate. Would that be regarded as an agricultural activity, and how would it be affected? I do not think the position is quite clear and maybe the noble Lord will look at it again.

LORD CHESHAM

If it is not clear, may I say that the intention is that it should be included? Although I agree that sometimes a dung clamp stays around rather too long, normally by its very nature it is a pretty short-term thing.

LORD STONHAM

I have agreed with the noble Lord all the way on this so far, but I would not agree with him there. These dung clamps can be in a place for a couple of years. On most farms trey are put out in a manner convenient; that is, convenient immediately to the source of the dung, or convenient to the place where it will be spread and it stays there sometimes for [...] to two years. Therefore, it might be of much greater difficulty if there were a dung clamp there which could not be moved, than if there were a silage bin. That is almost certain to be used during a period of twelve months.

LORD CHESHAM

I have no wish to be unnecessarily argumentative about this. We thought that the three items we mentioned, which we felt were most likely to be concerned in the agricultural world, were pretty temporary; but in view of what the noble Lord has said I should like to think about this again and consider whether or not it is reasonable to do something about it I do not want to make any promise one way or the other, but in view of what has been said I should like to think about it.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I see the noble Lord's point, particularly on the question of access. I agree with him that it would be very inconvenient to wait for a bulldozer to come from miles away if you had a highly volatile petroleum spirit coming up; nor would it be much fun working the bulldozer when it arrived. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Clause 31 [Inquiries into accidents]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 16, leave out (" this Act ") and insert (" the last foregoing section ").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

5.47 p.m.

Clause 32:

Deposit of maps of pipe-lines with local authorities

32.—(1) A person to whom a pipe-line construction or diversion authorisation is granted shall, forthwith after the grant, deposit with each local authority within whose area lies any part of the route to be taken by the proposed pipe-line or, as the case may be, portion of pipe-line to be diverted, a copy (on the same scale) of so much of the map annexed to the authorisation as shows the part of that route that lies within that area, and a person who sends to the Minister a notice for the purposes of section two of this Act or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section three thereof shall, at the same time, deposit with each local authority within whose area lies any part of the route to be taken by the proposed pipe-line or, as the case may be, the portion of line to be diverted, a copy (on the same scale) of so much of the map that accompanies the notice as shows the part of that route that lies within that area.

LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), after "local authority" to insert "or river board". The noble Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment 47C are designed to secure that all river boards as well as local authorities will receive a copy of the map of the route of any cross-country pipe-line which it is proposed to lay in their area, so that they may not, in respect of these major pipe-lines, have to trust merely to normal liaison with the local planning authority. The River Boards Association consider that these proposals for major pipe-lines are of such importance to river boards that the river boards should be placed in a similar position to local authorities. It might be argued that, in effect, a river board is a local authority. It is responsible for a certain area. It is true it is not directly elected, but is a nominated board. It is also to be noted that, since Clause 5 of the Bill would enable the Minister to grant planning permission, the normal liaison arrangements between river boards and planning authorities could easily break down, and river boards would have no opportunity to make known their legitimate views.

I would submit that river boards and statutory authorities, with important duties and responsibilities placed upon them, ought not to be left, so to speak, in the air, that they should not be ignored, but that, right at the outset, in view of the importance of this development, they should be able, like local authorities, to know what is proposed, in order to see how it will fit in, as it were, with the duties and responsibilities which Parliament has placed upon them. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the responsibilities which river boards have, I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 28, after (" authority ") insert (" or river board ").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I should like to support my noble friend in his plea to the Minister. After all, river boards are not local authorities but they are very large authorities and it so happens that they function in almost every part of the country. Since the passing of the last Drainage Bill through your Lordships' House, the activities of river boards have been extended, until I believe that now they have the right, and almost the obligation, where necessary, to carry out works to improve drainage in areas over which they had little or no authority prior to the passing of the recent Bill. Therefore, I hope, since drainage is of very great importance to agriculture and to food production, and since the size of the authority is so large—and it is now maintained almost wholly by the ratepayers, so it has functions to undertake for ratepayers—that the Minister in charge will feel that it is going to be no excessive burden upon the would-be pipe-line owner to allow one of the largest kind of authorities in the country to know just what is happening in any part of the country over which it has jurisdiction.

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

The Central River Boards Association, of which I have the honour to be a member, feel this Amendment to be indispensable. With a little foresight one has to think of what will happen within the next year, when we have been promised a Conservation Bill. That Bill is going to apply to the whole of a river basin, which may comprise six, seven or eight local authorities. Therefore we have to take a wide view of how a pipeline may affect our future area. There is another point. We are to be given powers, which we do not now have, to grant licences for extracting water from underground. This is a subject which really requires geological experience to understand, but water underground is always on the move, and past experience has brought home to us that in cases like this a pipe-line might disturb the soil and let out spring water on another place on a hillside and cause a flooding of land. All this sort of thing means that we must be given parity with other undertakers, and I feel that it is essential that river boards should be put into Clause 32. I trust that the Government will accede to the very strong feeling on our part that we should be included.

LORD CHESHAM

Before I reply to the Amendment that has been proposed, I wonder Whether The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would permit me to address my argument also to Amendments Nos. 47B and 47D, because there is a considerable overlapping of argument and it may conceivably save time.

LORD SILKIN

I am not so sure that it will save time, because these Amendments have been put down separately and independently and I do not necessarily accept that the argument for the river boards is identical with the argument which I should put forward on behalf of the fire authorities. However, if the noble Lord is going to accept my Amendment, I will gladly make way and allow him to say what he wants to say. But if he wants to treat them all on a par. I do not think that that should be done.

LORD CHESHAM

I did not intend that the noble Lord should not move his Amendments, but merely hoped to be able to shorten the proceedings. I wanted to draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there was a great deal of overlapping argument. The noble Lord must judge for himself when I have stated my argument. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, put forward this Amendment in his usual convincing way. He feared that river boards would not be able to obtain information because the usual liaison arrangements with planning authorities would break down. I do not see why they should. The local planning authorities will be as aware of this as ever they have been; and as the liaison arrangements work now, they should work equally well after this Bill begins to operate. I do not think that that is a very strong point.

The purpose of this clause is to require that maps should be deposited with local authorities to ensure that anyone who has need to know, or may be interested to know, exactly where a pipeline is to run, has a convenient means of finding out. No doubt it will be useful for solicitors conducting searches on behalf of prospective purchasers. Of course, that information is available to everybody. I do not suppose for a moment that that would be accepted by the noble Lord.

It seems to me that the interests of fire brigades and river boards are specifically taken care of by Clause 34, which we have not yet reached. If your Lordships think that more stringent requirements should be imposed for ensuring that the authorities concerned, including river boards and fire authorities, have all the information necessary to enable them to carry out their tasks, in my view, the proper place for dealing with it is on Clause 34. I suppose I am letting the cat out of the bag in saying that we are willing to strengthen Clause 34 somewhat to carry this out and that my noble friend Lord Mills is likely to accept Amendment No. 47G, which would make the clause much more stringent upon the owner of a pipe-line. The words It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line, … to make, and to ensure the efficient carrying out … et cetera, mean that the owner must not wait until something goes wrong, but must make arrangements beforehand. This means that the river hoard or fire authority concerned must be approached and consequently must be given warning of what their duties cover.

If the acceptance of this Amendment is not enough, I would be prepared to look at the matter again, to see whether there is any other way in which it would be desirable to strengthen the clause by requiring the pipe-line owner to consult with the authorities concerned or to supply them with further information which they may need. I should not have thought that this would he necessary; but if the noble Lords, Lord Burden and Lord Silkin, feel that they should press their Amendments, I am very willing to do it in this way.

LORD BURDEN

I have not quite grasped what the Minister has been good enough to submit to the Committee, but I should imagine that there are two aspects of this matter. The first is knowledge by the river board—and, for that matter, the fire authority, although I can leave that to my noble friend Lord Silkin—to know what is proposed in regard to a pipe-line before it is constructed. As the noble Earl pointed out, the pipe-line may quite unwittingly cause trouble with spring water and other underground sources of water. It may be in their own interests for the pipe-line company to give a map to the river boards over whose area they propose to traverse, because river boards will have detailed information, accumulated over a number of years, of the conditions obtaining.

We are now looking ahead to development in the direction of building pipelines, and I think it is proper for us to get off at the beginning along lines which will enable these pipe-lines to be constructed properly and without causing damage or trouble to other statutory authorities. The responsibilities of local authorities, river boards and fire authorities are defined by Statute. Surely it is not asking too much that these authorities should know of work that is likely to impinge seriously on their responsibilities and cause them trouble.

The second aspect is of the authorities I have mentioned being made aware of the position after the pipe-line is constructed. That is not what we want in this matter. I think they should be in at the beginning, before the pipe-lines are built, in order that the best practical use should be made of their knowledge. If the noble Lord says that he can strengthen any one of the clauses along these lines, to ensure that right at the beginning, before any damage is done, these authorities will be made aware of what is proposed and can make reasonable representations in regard to it, I shall be satisfied not to press the Amendment; but I should like an assurance as to along what lines the Minister's mind is moving.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

I agree with my noble friend. I suspect, if I read the two clauses aright, that Clause 32 sets out to do one thing—that is, provide a map for the local authority, to which we should like to add "and the river board"—while Clause 34 deals practically with something that has just happened, as to which the pipe-line owner must at once notify certain authorities. As my noble friend said, what the river boards ought to have, because of the size of the authority and the fact that they cover almost every square yard in England and Wales, is a copy of a map at the earliest possible moment, so that they may know exactly where the pipe-lines are going to be provided, how they are likely to disturb their watercourses and just what steps they ought to take before an accident, such as the one referred to in Clause 34, occurs. I am sure the noble Lord wants to do the right thing and that we are no more anxious to serve the river boards than he is. I think my noble friend would perhaps be best advised (if I may tender some advice) to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to have another look at Clauses 32 and 34, to see whether between now and a later stage what we are seeking cannon be provided.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend replies, may I say that if I understand rightly what noble Lords opposite want, it is that the river boards should know at the earliest possible moment where it is proposed to lay a pipe? However, so far as I can see, an Amendment to Clause 32 would not have that effect in the least: it would provide them with the information only after the authorisation is granted. Surely, noble Lords opposite are seeking that the river boards should have notice of the pipe-line owner's proposals before the Minister grants the authorisation and before he decides the line the pipe is to take. Therefore, it seems to me that, when my noble friend comes to examine it, it is not Clause 32 or Clause 34 that is in point here, and that he should look at the First Schedule.

LORD CHESHAM

There is something in what my noble friend has just said, particularly in regard to the points made by my noble friend Lord Albemarle, which would surely require to be taken into consideration before the authorisation is made. That is the stage at which to object to proposals. This could be done at an inquiry, which there often may be, or by river boards, if they are consulted, or the local planning authority in the case of a local pipe-line. But I do not want to make too much of that. I do not know whether acceptance of the Amendment would be sufficient to meet what the noble Lord wants. I would remind your Lordships of what I said—namely, that if your Lordships feel that Clause 34 needs strengthening by requiring pipeline owners to consult with the authorities in advance and supply them with such information as they may require for the purpose of discharging their duties, I should like to look at the matter again. It seems to me that your Lordships wish that to be considered and do not con- sider that what I said about Amendment No. 47G will go far enough. Therefore, I should like to do what your Lordships wish and take it away and have another think about it.

LORD BURDEN

Speaking for the Amendment for which I am responsible (I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Silkin), I am happy to accept that assurance, because I feel that members of the Committee are seized of the point and would like a clause strengthened in order that, in the public interest, the river boards (again I am speaking only for my own Amendment) should be brought in. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.10 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), after "authority," (where that word first occurs) to insert: "and fire authority ". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and in the name of my noble friends. The purpose of this Amendment is to acquaint the fire authority of any pipe-lines which have been authorised, either new lines or diversions. I want to say at once that the fire authority is a different authority from the local authority. The noble Lord shakes his head.

LORD CHESHAM

I nodded.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord shakes his head in agreement. I want to make the point quite briefly that the fire authority, which is a different authority from the local authority, will have certain duties in connection with these pipes. There is a possible danger of the outbreak of fire or of other damage in respect of which the fire authority may be called in, and it seems to me that it should have at its disposal the exact information in relation to the whereabouts of the pipe as is given to the local authority. This is not asking a great deal. It is largely a matter of convenience. The noble Lord made the point that the sole purpose of depositing with the local authority these plans of the pipe-lines was that solicitors and people interested in the whereabouts of the pipe-line should be able to make searches and secure information.

LORD CHESHAM

Or anyone else.

LORD SILKIN

Or anybody else. I suppose the noble Lord would include in that the fire authority. But is it really convenient for the fire authority, which is an independent authority, to have to go to the local authority to find out? I suggest that, if the noble Lord is not able to accept this Amendment now, at least he should go away and think about it. I should have thought it was one of those things he could take it upon himself to agree to without any further ado. The fire authority will get the information by applying to the local authority, but it will not do much harm to anybody if the pipe-line owner has to deposit a further plan with the fire authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 28, after (" authority ") insert (" and fire authority ").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD CHESHAM

I realised from the beginning that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would have a different argument to advance in this case. I do not find myself in opposition to him on the force of the argument that he has put forward, because the fire authority must be able to do its job. I will not go again through the argument I have been through already (I do not think the noble Lord would wish me to do so), but perhaps I may remind him of what I said about requiring owners of pipelines to consult with the authorities in advance and to supply them with such information as the authorities may require for the discharge of their duties. If I were to offer the same umbrella as I offered in the case of river boards, would that be acceptable to the noble Lord? I should like to offer that, because I do not accept exactly what he has said. Being attracted by the principle, I should like to have another look at the matter and see whether a strengthening of that kind can be carried out.

LORD STONHAM

Do I understand the noble Lord is referring to a strengthening of Clause 32?—because a strengthening of Clause 34 would not meet the same point. Clause 32 deals with fire before it starts, and Clause 34 with fire after it has happened.

LORD CHESHAM

That is not quite right, because I do not see how you can make arrangements with authorities to do something if something happens unless you do it in advance. I do not see how you can do it in advance unless you approach them before it happens. That, I think it will be found on consideration, is what I have promised liberally more than once to do. I referred to Clause 34 because it covers the interest of the local authorities and seems to me to be the obvious one to strengthen. It may be that, when it has been looked at again, there will appear to be a need, as your Lordships wish, for owners to consult with the authorities in advance and to supply them with information such as they may require. Perhaps it should be done under Clause 32; or it may be under Clause 34. I should not like to be tied here as to how it should be done, but I repeat my assurance to your Lordships that I should like to have another chance to do it.

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

Before we leave this subject, my noble friend has indicated that he wishes to take all aspects of this matter into consideration. I would invite him to consider not only the aspects which have been put before him, but also the cost which these aspects are going to lay upon the authorities concerned. We are rather inclined, in the course of legislation of this sort, to make proposals for increasing the burden on the authorities involved, all of which have to be paid for out of public moneys. It seems to me that if, in accordance with the suggestions that have been made, maps are to be supplied by the pipe-line authority, not only to the local authority but to the river boards and the fire authorities, it is not simply a question of the cost of supplying the additional maps, but also a question of the people who are going to read and use those maps. Each of those authorities will have to set up some small department in order to receive the maps, consider them, keep them up to date, and ensure that, if and when an event does occur, the information contained in those maps will be available. We all know that once you have started to set up the smallest sub-department it never diminishes but simply continues to grow. My appeal to my noble friend is that, when he is considering these matters, he will also take into account the cost which will be involved.

LORD BURDEN

I am sure we are all interested to have from the noble Viscount this exposition upon Parkinson's Law. No doubt he had that in mind. So far as river boards are concerned, they feel that, while it will entail some work in the initial stages, it may prevent untold damage and loss in the future. Therefore it is an element of insurance. I dare say that applies to fire insurance, too.

LORD SILKIN

I wish to dissociate myself from the argument about river boards, good as it may be. This is a separate Amendment and argument on fire authorities. I feel that Clauses 32 and 34 are quite different, and are directed to different matters. Clause 32 provides that the authority shall have a permanent record of what has been authorised. It seems such a simple point: that the fire authority, which may be called upon at any time to take action, should have a record of what has been authorised so that it can take action speedily.

I do not know whether the noble Viscount has ever been on a local authority. Local authorities do not, in fact, spend their time setting up committees to look into all documents that have been filed for permanent record, but they can be very useful indeed when the occasion arises. I feel that this is an important question. I did not understand whether Lord Chesham was offering to look at the point again, in the light of what he is going to do about Clause 34, and that possibly he may come to the conclusion that my Amendment may be accepted. If that is his offer I will gladly withdraw the Amendment, to give him an opportunity to look into the whole thing in that comprehensive way. If not, I feel that this Amendment ought to be pressed.

LORD CHESHAM

I am extremely sorry that I should have expressed myself so unbelievably badly that the noble Lord should have found it necessary to feel like that about it. In fact, I used certain words deliberately, and I have now read them out to your Lordships deliberately three times. If there should be any misapprehension on it, the fault must entirely be my own and I can only apologise to your Lordships for it. What I did say was that I should like to look at the point again, in view of what has been said. After all, the noble Lord will agree that a fire authority does not necessarily require for the efficient discharge of its duty long notice of the pipe-line before it comes into existence. In advance, yes. But it does not need it at the moment a pipe-line is conceived. I should have thought that the first authorisation was the question it needs to know, preferably in advance of when the pipe-line is actually constructed. But the real work for a fire authority begins when the pipe-line is constructed. That is the point. As I say, I should like to look at it. Your Lordships have said quite clearly that you would like more done about this matter on behalf of certain authorities. I have undertaken to look at that and see how the Bill can be improved, if your Lordships so wish, which obviously means that an Amendment will have to be set down at a later stage—although I cannot guarantee at what later stage—to carry out what your Lordships think should be done. I hope that that is clear, and that the noble Lord will be able to accept it.

LORD SILKIN

I now understand. It often takes three times before an idea penetrates people. I have often found that they do not understand the first or the second time. I follow what the noble Lord is now saying, and I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SILKIN

This Amendment is on a slightly different point. Subsection (4) defines what is meant here by "local authority." It sets out the various authorities included, but I see it does not include a county council. I was wondering whether that is deliberate, whether it is thought that for this purpose county councils should not be regarded as local authorities—which may well be so—or if it is deliberate, what is the reason. Or is it merely an oversight? If we leave out "county council" in this we are leaving out the London County Council, which is one of the largest authorities in the world. I should be glad of an explanation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 7, after (" a ") insert (" county, ").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD CHESHAM

In reply to the noble Lord, the omission was deliberate, for this reason. It was thought that it would hardly be necessary to include "county council", because, surely, any part of the area of a county council also falls within the area of a county district—an urban or rural district council. Therefore there are available, as I said, for people who need to know them, maps which indicate the scheme in the area, and normally the offices of those councils will probably be more convenient than offices of the county council.

Furthermore, the county council will already have the information in its capacity as a planning authority, because, I think I am right in saying that even where the Minister deems a planning permission to have been granted (that, I think, is under Part III of the Planning Act), the information is conveyed on to the planning authority who would have granted permission had the Minister not deemed it. So they do know and already have the information in the office. They would therefore get it in twice. I suppose there might be some people who would obtain their information more readily from the county council than from the local council office, but on the whole it was thought that the local office would he the more convenient. There is nothing more subtle underlying it than that.

LORD SILKIN

I never thought there was anything subtle about it. I was wondering whether, in the light of that explanation, which I fully understand, it would be convenient that the county council should have this information, or were supplied with it, in the case where a number of district councils are involved. In answer to an earlier Amendment the noble Lord explained that it was for the purpose of enabling people who were interested to know the whereabouts of a pipe-line that the information had to be given to the local authority. That might include a number of authorities, and this would mean going to each authority and finding out how much of the pipe-line was incorporated within the area of their authority. Would it not be convenient if one could go to the county office and find out how much of it was included in the county? That is all there is to it. It may comfort the noble Lord to know that I am willing that he should think about it, and that I will not press the Amendment. I think it is worth considering, however.

LORD CHESHAM

On this particular matter, I have listened to what the noble Lord has said, I do not feel that the objections I put forward are particularly ones for which I wish to die in the last ditch, so to speak. If the noble Lord feels that the Amendment adds something, I am prepared to accept it. I am bound to say that I do not myself think it is going to do very much good to the Bill. On the other hand, it is equally true that it is not likely to do any harm at all. Therefore, in view of what the noble Lord has said, if he and your Lordships so wish. I will accept his Amend ment.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [Notification of abandonment, cesser of use and resumption of use of pipe-lines or lengths thereof]:

6.29 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "Minister" to insert: and to each local authority and fire authority within whose area the said pipe-line or length thereof is situate". The noble Lord said: Clause 33 says that the owner of a pipe-line shall notify the Minister when he begins its use, when he abandons it, the expiration of three years from the date on which a pipeline ceases to be used, and on the resumption of its use. While it is important that he should so inform the Minister, it seems to us almost of equally urgent importance that he should inform the local authorities and the fire authorities through whose area the pipeline moves. I would point out that in other clauses of the Bill it is regarded as of importance that local authorities should be informed, and if at the next stage of the Bill we find that the Government agree that it is important that fire authorities should be given information, then it is of equal importance that they should be informed (and it does not involve a map; it means only a letter) of these changes in the use or disuse of a pipe-line. I should therefore hope that the Government would agree that this Amendment is reasonable and necessary.

While they are looking at that—and I hope I am not too much of a purist in these things—would they just have a look at the wording of subsection (1)? It seems to me that there is an extraordinary use of language: the Minister shall be given "notice of the happening of the event". When I first read it through it seemed to me that the Minister was going to be told about a happy event. Surely we can find other ways of indicating that the Minister should be informed when things are done or are not done to a pipe-line than by using the term "happening of the event". Perhaps that might be thought of at some time. I think the purpose of the Amendment is clear, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 22, after (" Minister ") insert the said words.—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD MILLS

The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the Minister is aware of the events specified in it, so that he can take any action that might be needed to ensure safety. In practice I assume the Minister would send his inspector to discuss with the pipe-line owner what should be done. There is no such duty falling on either the local authorities or the fire authorities, and that was why it was felt that there was no purpose in requiring notification to be given to them. I have, however, carefully listened to the arguments on the proposed Amendments 47A, 47B, 47C and 47D, and I think that this case is analogous to those. If the noble Lord agrees to withdraw his Amendment I will see it is given consideration along with those other Amendments.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Duty of pipe-line owners to make arrangements for notifying fire-brigades, police, &c., of pipe-line accidents]:

LORD LINDGREN

When the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, was speaking earlier to former Amendments I understood him to say that he was inclined, at least, to accept Amendment 47G. As the clause at present reads, the pipe-line owner should, if so required by the Minister, make and ensure the efficient carrying out of certain arrangements. In so far as the bodies connected with this clause are concerned, we feel it ought not to be a question of the Minister's having to require this to be done. We are not suggesting that the Minister would not require them to do so in most appropriate cases. But this is an Act of Parliament and we are creating legislation, and as there are circumstances in which detrimental events are likely to arise the requirement should be directly on the pipe-line owner to carry out the work or to take a line of action as suggested in the rest of the clause. In view of what the Minister indicated earlier, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 32, leave out from (" pipeline ") to the second (" to ") in line 33.—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD MILLS

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, that there is no need to keep in this qualification and I am therefore prepared to accept the Amendment.

LORD CHESHAM

Amendment No. 48 is one of a group which hang together; they are 48, 49, 49A and 49B. They do something quite simple: 48 is merely drafting; 49 does the work; 49A and 49B are consequential. Whatever happens, as we have just been discussing Clause 34, which is the one which is intended to cover the interests of various statutory authorities, fire brigades, police, river boards and so on, we still need this Amendment. Inadvertently the sewerage authorities have been left out. It is necessary that they should he brought in, because if there should be an accident or a leak or something like that, they are just as liable to have duties to perform, possibly through there being inflammable liquids running about in the sewers forming gas and so on. What these Amendments do is to bring in the sewerage authorities. It is actually Amendment 49 which does so, 49A and 49B being concerned with definitions. I beg to move.

LORD CHESHAM

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 42, at end insert (" and to all sewerage authorities who will or may have, in consequence of the happening of the event, to take steps to prevent injury to their sewers or sewage disposal works, interference with the free flow of the contents of any of their sewers or the prejudicial affection of the treatment and disposal of such contents or to combat the effects of any such injury, interference or affection ".—(Lord Chesham.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (1), to insert: (" ( ) In any case where as a result of the accidental escape from a pipe-line:—

1. (a) any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter enters or is likely to enter a stream (as defined in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951);
2. (b) matter enters a stream and it is of such a volume or quantity as to cause flooding or an obstruction to the flow of the stream;

the owner of the pipe-line shall forthwith take such steps as are available to him to prevent or minimise (as the case may be) the effect of the escape.")

The noble Lord said: The Amendment which we have just accepted strengthens this particular clause, but I would ask the Minister on looking at it again to consider whether the Amendment just carried goes far enough, because that Amendment calls upon the owners of the pipe-line to take steps to prevent injury to sewers or sewage disposal works. It is not only sewerage works or works of that kind that might be damaged by an accidental leakage or defect in a pipe-line, but also streams coming under the jurisdiction of a river board.

The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved and which your Lordships have accepted imposes a responsibility on the pipe-line authorities to take steps in regard to any possible trouble arising from a leakage so far as sewage works are concerned; but it leaves open the question as to what the pipe-line authorities are to do in the event, say, of a stream being affected. Will they be justified in simply folding their arms and waiting until some other authority comes along to tackle the problem? The Amendment which has been carried puts certain responsibilities on the pipe-line people. I would ask the Committee to strengthen that Amendment a little more and to put the responsibilities on to them in regard to any damage which might arise, to ensure that within their power they should take stops to prevent arising more damage than is absolutely necessary.

In view of the Amendment which has been carried, I quite agree that my form of words may now not fit the circumstances. If the noble Lord feels that what I have said is of substance, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment on the assurance that the Minister will have another look at it to see whether his Amendment can also be strengthened to give effect to what I have in mind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Burden.)

LORD MILLS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for his suggestion, because the Amendment which we are now considering is, I think, quite impracticable. Amendment No. 49, which we have just passed, requires consultation on these things, whereas the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord requires action—it requires the owner of the pipe-line to take active steps to minimise the effect of an accident. Of course it is in his own interests to minimise the effects so far as he can, because in the end he will have to pay. But that is not what the clause says. The clause compels him to take such steps as he can to minimise the effect. Therefore, I feel I have to say to the noble Lord that while one has a good deal of sympathy and understanding with what he was trying to do, it would not be practicable to accept his Amendment. But when we look at Amendment No. 49 we will certainly have regard to what he has in mind.

LORD BURDEN

In view of that assurance and the overall consideration that this Amendment will also be taken into account, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 14, at end insert (" and any reference in this section to a sewer shall be construed as including a reference to any manholes, ventilating shafts, pumps or other accessories belonging to that sewer, and any reference in this section to sewage disposal works shall be construed as including a reference to the machinery and equipment of those works and any necessary pumping stations and outfall pipes ").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 [Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line]:

6.45 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

This Amendment raises a simple point. Under the Bill as it stands, when there is a change of ownership of the pipe-line there is naturally an obligation on the owner of the pipe-line to inform the Minister. This Amendment seeks to make it obligatory on the owner of the pipe-line to inform also the owners of the land through which the pipe runs. It seems to me that the least one can expect, if there is a pipe-line running through one's land, is that, should there be a burst or an explosion or something like that, one should know who is the owner, and whom one should ring up so that it can be rectified. A number of people have rights to be on the land—inspectors and such people—and I think it only right that the owners of the land should know to what company those people belong. Whether this Amendment is the right way of doing it I am not certain, but I feel that there is a point of substance here and that the owners should be informed. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to accept this Amendment, at least in principle. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 18, after (" Minister") insert (" and owners of the land in which the pipeline is situate ").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MILLS

The purpose of providing for notification to the Minister is to enable him to ensure that adequate safety measures are taken. When a new owner takes over a pipe-line it will normally be desirable for an inspector to call upon him to discuss the question with him and to see that all the neces- sary precautions are being taken. It may even be necessary for the Minister to impose new safety requirements, if the line is being put to a different use. But there would be no purpose in requiring the owner to notify landowners of any change in the use of the line, since the landowners have no duties to perform in relation to it. At the same time, it would, I think, be proper and reasonable that the landowners should know when there is a change of ownership. We can therefore accept that part of the Amendment. If the noble Lord cares to withdraw his Amendment now, I will see that a suitable Government Amendment is introduced at a later stage.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD LINDGREN

In view of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to the previous Amendment, I would only point out that although the landowner has no duties to perform, the local authority and the fire authority have. We think that, because of this, the notification of change of ownership should be given to the local authority and also to the fire authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 18, after (" Minister ") insert (" and to each local authority and fire authority within whose area the said pipe-line is situate ").—(Lord Lindgren.)

LORD MILLS

The local authority and the fire authority do not really need to know about this change. But we have had considerable argument on this class of Amendment and perhaps the noble Lord would permit me to look at this one in conjunction with the others.

LORD LINDGREN

In view of the statement by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clause 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Avoidance of interference with telegraphic, etc., lines]

6.50 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or used for the purposes". The noble Lord said: It always seems to fall to me to offer your Lordships large blocks of Amendments, and this is no exception: Amendment No. 51 goes with Nos. 63, 78 and 79. The effect of this group is this. They add to the ancillary works and apparatus, which under Clause 54 (2) are treated as being part of the pipe-line itself, signalling wires for use in connection with the pipe-line. Thus they are brought within the scope of planning permission for a cross-country pipe-line under Clause 5 and are likewise made subject to the Public Utilities Street Works Act when placed in or over a road. It is quite a simple point, and in a moment I will ask your Lordships to accept Amendment. No. 51.

Before I do that, there is just one outstanding point that I think I must mention. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, inquired on Second Reading whether the right specified in the first paragraph of the Fourth Schedule to lay electric cables for the purpose of signalling entailed the right to lay electric cables above the ground. My noble friend Lord Mills said that he would look into the matter. Under these Amendments the first paragraph of the Fourth Schedule will disappear, and, instead, apparatus for the transmission of information for the operation of the pipe or system will be treated as part of the pipe-line itself. The answer to the noble Lord's question, therefore, is that the Bill as amended would permit the Minister in the case of a cross-country pipe-line, or the local planning authority in the case of a local pipe-line, to authorise the laying of signalling lines above the ground.

On the other hand, both have adequate powers under the Planning Acts to ensure that such lines are placed underground where this is desirable. We had considerable discussion the other day as to whether the pipe-line itself should be put underground, and I said at the time that that would normally be desirable. I think that we should say the same of this signalling apparatus: that that would normally be desirable, and it would not make a great deal of sense to treat it on a different basis from the pipe-line itself—certainly not to insist that the signalling wires were buried when the pipe-line was not. Therefore, I think we should have the same discretion and flexibility. It only remains for me to remind your Lordships that we visualise that signal lines will normally be underground. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 44, leave out (" or used for the purposes ")—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.

LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 37 to insert the following new clause

Provisions for avoidance of pollution

".—(1) Before commencing to execute works for the construction or diversion of a pipe-line, or for the maintenance, replacement, relaying or altering temporarily or permanently of a pipe-line, the owner of the pipe-line or proposed pipe-line (as the case may be) shall give notice to the statutory water undertakers within whose limits of supply any works are to be carried out specifying the proposed works; and if in the opinion of any such undertakers, or of any other statutory water undertakers, the said works will render necessary the execution of protective works (whether temporary or permanent) for the purpose of protecting against pollution any water which they supply for human consumption or domestic purposes, the statutory water undertakers so affected may within twenty-eight days from the date when the said notice is given to them by counter-notice require the owner to execute the necessary protective works.

(2) The owner of a pipe-line or proposed pipe-line (as the case may be) shall carry out such protective works specified in a counter-notice given tinder subsection (1) of this section as may be agreed between the owner and the statutory water undertakers concerned or in default of agreement as may be determined by the Minister of Housing and Local Government."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this new clause is to assist in the avoidance of pollution of water supplies. Water undertakers can be particularly susceptible to pollution, particularly those who draw their water supplies from porous materials such as chalk or limestone. There is, in addition, the danger of water becoming contaminated by oil or petrol, in which case there would be great difficulty in getting rid of the taste. Therefore I feel that the pipe-line itself should be protected in case of a break or a leak, in order to prevent the fluid in the pipe-line from being able to reach the water supplies. I think there has been some such provision as this in private legislation for the construction of pipe-lines.

The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the people who propose to construct the pipe-line to consult with the statutory water undertaker before the pipe-line is built, when it is going to be constructed within the limits of supply of a particular water undertaker. The water undertaker can then insist that the pipe-line operator should undertake proper protective works if it is felt that there is some danger of contamination of the water supply. If there is a difference of opinion between the pipe-line constructor and the water undertaker, then possibly there could be an appeal to the Minister to adjudicate on the point. I hope it will be possible for the Government to adopt this Amendment, or something akin to it, because it would go a long way to allay the fears of the statutory water undertakers.

Amendment moved— After Clause 37 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Amulree.)

LORD MILLS

As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has said, the proposed new clause is intended to provide that before beginning work on a pipe-line the owner should give notice to any statutory water undertaker concerned, who may then require protective works to be carried out to avoid pollution of water. Provision is made for reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the event of a dispute.

I have already said that the Government consider the avoidance of water pollution a matter of the greatest importance. The Bill, however, has been drafted on the basis that ensuring safety in all its aspects, including the avoidance of pollution, is a matter for the Minister of Power. It would be totally at variance with this basic conception to require separate notice to be given to statutory water undertakers and to enable them separately to require protective works to be carried out. The Government are, however, very conscious of the need to avoid pollution and recognise that it is a risk of a very special character. While we could not agree to impose upon a pipe-line owner a separate duty to give notice to water undertakers and to carry out works that may be specified, I think it might be possible in the Bill to provide some special recognition of the duty placed on the Minister to safeguard against pollution of water supplies. If the noble Lord would be content with that undertaking and will withdraw his Amendment. I will give consideration to that point.

LORD AMULREE

In view of what the noble Lord has said, which goes a considerable way to meeting my case, I shall be pleased to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 [Certain pipe-lines to be plant or machinery for rating purposes in England and Wales]:

7.0 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved to leave out Clause 38. The noble Lord said: As the law stands at present, pipes are not plant "in the nature of" a building, machinery or a structure, and therefore do not come within the ambit of the Third Schedule of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. Four classes of plant and machinery are rateable, but the only way by which pipes can be brought within this Third Schedule is by the creation of another class. But is this Bill, which refers purely to pipe-lines, an appropriate Bill for the introduction of an additional class of rateable plant and machinery? Surely, such an amendment to the substantive law on rating should find its place in a Bill related to rating and not to pipe-lines. It could then be considered in its proper context, and the pros and cons could be discussed in relation to the whole background of the rating of plant and machinery, in general.

I would stress that this Bill creates a new class in complete isolation. This Bill has nothing to do with rating, yet it creates a completely new class of rateable article. At a time when so much legislation is reaching the Statute Book it seems to me that this is a somewhat untidy method, which consists of a stray clause such as this being inserted into what I feel may be an inappropriate Bill. Surely this is a trend which must eventually lead, for clarification purposes, to more frequent Consolidation Acts. That is why I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 38.—(Lord Merrivale.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I support what has just been said by my noble friend. It seems to me that, however right the Inland Revenue may be in wishing to overcome the reverses they have suffered in the tribunals of this country, it is very strange that we should find in the middle of a Bill on pipe-lines a clause which is suitable only to be found in rating and valuation legislation. If, as I said, the reverses the Inland Revenue have suffered must be put right as quickly as this, I wonder whether this is altogether the most suitable way of doing it. Is there no more simple way of phrasing the particular requirements which are felt to be needed? For instance, would it not be possible merely to say that, "For the purposes of the Third Schedule of the 1925 Act, a pipeline within the meaning of this Bill shall be deemed to be a conduit "? I believe that that might, perhaps, provide at any rate an interim solution to the problem, until such time as we have another Rating and Valuation Bill before Parliament—and I do not suppose that will be long.

In any case, I foresee a certain amount of difficulty in the clause as it now stands in the Bill. So far as I can see, there is no provision that it should be read together with the rating and valuation legislation, and I know of no method in the Bill of interpreting the various expressions used in this clause; which, of course, are not in the context of pipelines at all, but are pure rating and valuation matters. If it transpires that this clause has got to stand as it is now drafted, I wonder whether it would not be better to add at the end a subsection to say that, "This clause shall be construed together with the Rating and Valuation Act ", in order that there shall he no difficulty in its interpretation. I certainly feel that it is incongruous where it is, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Mills will be able to give some reassurance on this matter.

LORD MILLS

I can well understand the view of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, but I think it is necessary that I should explain to your Lordships in a little more detail the reason for inserting this clause in the Bill. There was a recent case in which the Lands Tribunal upheld an appeal by Unilever Limited, against the valuation officer's decision that certain high-pressure steam pipes serving various factories near Port Sunlight were rateable. These pipelines had always been regarded as rateable under Section 24 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and the Plant and Machinery (Rating) Orders, 1927 and 1960. Since it was held that pipe-lines were not rateable, we are faced with the necessity of altering the law; otherwise, very large sums of rateable income would be lost.

The noble Lord says that this is not the right place to deal with rating matters, but the provision in the Bill is intended to do no more than to restore the status quo before the Lands Tribunal's decision. Since it is only the rating of pipe-lines that is in question, the Pipe-Lines Bill appears to be a reasonable place to deal with it. The matter is urgent and cannot wait for general rating legislation.

The point of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about construing this clause with the Rating and Valuation Act is unnecessary, because the effect of the clause is to amend that Act. I really think that this is the simplest way of dealing with the matter. The noble Viscount suggested that it might be dealt with by classifying pipes as conduits, but it has already been held that they are not conduits. We cannot, therefore, rely upon that suggestion. I should like to put it to your Lordships that this is a simple and convenient procedure, and that we must take these steps to keep as rateable these pipes which have always been considered in the past as rateable.

LORD MERRIVALE

I must say that, listening to my noble friend, I am not entirely convinced by his argument. What I felt was that the main reason why the Government are putting this clause in this Bill is because it is a handy measure in which to insert a clause introducing legislation for the rating of pipe-lines, because they could not await the introduction of a new Rating and Valuation Bill, which may not be for some time. But I cannot see that there is such an urgency for pipelines to be a rateable commodity that they cannot await a Rating and Valuation Bill in the future. I do not feel that these pipe-lines will develop to such an extent that income will become available to Her Majesty's Government large enough to warrant the inclusion of a clause such as this in the Bill.

LORD MILLS

If I might interrupt my noble friend, I should just like to point out to him that there are pipe-lines in existence which have been subject to rating and which were upset by this decision.

LORD MERRIVALE

I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. As I say, I do not propose to press this Amendment now, but I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his support. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 agreed to.

Clause 39 [Inspectors]:

7.12 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

All that my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that inspectors appointed by the Minister should not enter upon land without reasonable means of identification and without due notice. There are many precedents for this in the Public Health Acts and in the Town and Country Planning Acts. In particular, in the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, which deals with Government pipe-lines, there is a clause in terms almost identical with those of my Amendment, except that it ensures that seven days' notice is given by inspectors, whereas I am seeking only 48 hours' notice. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the principle of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 4, at end insert— (" A person authorised under this section to enter upon any land shall, if so required, produce evidence of his authority before so entering, and shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless forty-eight hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.")—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD CHESHAM

I wish I could help my noble friend a little more than I find myself able to do, but, as he will not be in the least surprised to hear, I must resist his Amendment. The first half of his Amendment does exactly the same as is already provided for in the Bill; that is, provides that the inspector, on request, must produce evidence of his identity. To require him to give 48 hours' notice before he can demand admission as of right seems to me to impose an unreasonable restriction on his movements, such as might very seriously hamper him in carrying out his duties.

Let us just think for a moment what his duties are. We are not granting free admission as of night at any time to some official of the pipe-line operating firm: we are granting it to the Minister's inspector, who is principally charged with certain duties—and this is most important—in connection with ensuring the safety of the pipe-line. I think it is important he should be able to inspect the pipe-line without delay—and, after all, it might very well be just as much in the interests of the owner or occupier, or both, as of anyone else if he could do so. I do not really see any other way round that. It seems to me a reasonable point, particularly if there are to be the dangerous substances that some of your Lordships tell us about. I do not think that in a case of a suspected leak, or something like that, the inspector should have to give 48 hours' notice before he does to look for it. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend can accept that and will not press his Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I accept my noble friend's first point about the identification; I think that matter is covered. I understood that here we were covering the periodic inspections. My Amendment is not to prevent an inspector coming on should there be a suspected leak, or something like that; this is a periodic inspection. What I cannot quite understand is why, if an inspector must give seven days' notice under the Land Powers (Defence) Act before going on land to look at a pipe-line, he need not give any notice at all under this Act. I should like an explanation of that point.

LORD CHESHAM

As a matter of fact, I cannot understand it either, and therefore I say to my noble friend that perhaps I had better think that one over and get in touch with him about it. But, at any rate, as the Amendment is drafted, the 48 hours' notice required before he could go in applies alike to emergency inspections and to periodic ones. I have not thought very much about differentiating the two, and I do not know, indeed, if the two can be differentiated in any way; but I am prepared to think about that one to see whether they can, although perhaps not with much hope. At all events, I will look into this other point and get in touch with my noble friend about it.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to my noble friend, and, on the understanding that he will look into the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39 agreed to.

LORD MILLS moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause:

Preservation of amenity

". Where—

1. (a) a person is formulating proposals for the execution of pipe-line works, or
2. (b) the Minister is considering any such proposals, whether in relation to the grant of a pipe-line construction or diversion authorisation or the imposition of conditions under section five of this Act,

that person or the Minister, as the case may be, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographic features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects."

The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with the preservation of amenity, and is in accordance with an undertaking I gave to your Lordships' House on Second Reading. I have had much pleasure in seeing this Amendment, because I remember we owe the terms of it to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hurcomb, made when we were considering the Electricity Act, 1957. I thought at that time, and I still think now, that it is a masterpiece, covering a problem with which all your Lordships are concerned. Under this clause, when anyone is formulating proposals for the execution of pipe-line works he must take into account any effect the proposals would have on such amenities. Likewise, the Minister must take the question of amenity into account when authorising the construction of cross-country pipelines under Clause 1, their diversion under Clause 3 and in according planning permission under Clause 5. I think it is a very full clause, and I hope your Lordships will think it acceptable in meeting the point we had in mind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 39 insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Mills.)

LORD HURCOMB

I should like to say one word of thanks to the noble Lord, not so much for what he has said as for what he has done. Various organisations, with many of which I am connected and which are concerned with the preservation of our wild life and the amenity of our landscape, attach great importance to the promoting authorities, and also to the Minister concerned, having their attention directed by Parliament to the importance of the considerations which are set out in this new clause. They had noted its omission from the original Bill, and, as I say, are grateful to the noble Lord and to the Minister for having now inserted it. Its terms are wide, and provided it is applied and administered in the spirit in which it is intended, I think it can in some cases prove effective. As I said to your Lordships on a previous occasion, what we really want are not merely pious expressions of goodwill in this matter, but a few decisions in the right sense; and, of course, you cannot bind the Minister to that in a Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree that the statutory directions are important and will carry more and more weight when it is clear that, in the opinion of Parliament, these considerations stand rather higher in the scale of values than they have sometimes in the past.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am a little surprised that the Government had to wait to put this clause in at all and that it did not find itself in the Bill as one of the first matters which had to be regulated for; but, none the less, we are grateful for having it. I should like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, who has done so much, and no doubt has played a very useful part in ensuring that this matter is taken care of. But I wish that there were a few more teeth in this clause. I do not know whether something rather stronger is possible. I know that this is following an existing formula, but it is a painful fact that particularly sites of special scientific interest are from time to time being destroyed. I am wondering whether this clause takes into account that fact, and whether the Minister (perhaps he has dealt with it already in another way) is in a position to ensure that, in any access to works that may be going on or may be contemplated quite apart from the actual line of the works themselves, he will be able to influence the action of the particular person who is building the pipe-line. It takes so little to destroy in the countryside, and I am wondering whether, on that particular point, we can have some assurance. I suppose this clause is strong enough. The Minister is only to "have regard" to the matter; he is not obliged in any way to preserve these features; and clearly, in certain circumstances, it might be impossible. But like the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, I wish that these matters were sometimes more generally regarded and had a higher status in our judgment of things which ought to be done or ought not to be done.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I, too, should like to thank the Minister for this clause, which will especially please my noble friend Lord Chorley, who is not here now but who put down an Amendment earlier in the Bill. I hope that the optimism and the gratitude of the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, are fully justified; but I feel rather like my noble friend Lord Shackleton, that just to take into account the effect of any action on the natural beauty of the countryside, the flora, fauna, and the rest, may perhaps not in all cases bring about the results for which we hope. We have to remember that pipe-lines are not all the way underground. There may be a large number within a distance of not many miles. They require quite considerable installations above ground—pumping stations, and the like.

I wondered whether it would not be as well to have something in the Bill like Section 11 of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act, 1928. That section says that, for the purpose of preserving amenities, councils — that is, local authorities—who have the power to grant licences for petrol stations may make by-laws—

1. "(a) regulating the appearance of petroleum filling stations; or
2. (b) prohibiting the establishment of petroleum filling stations,"

in any areas which they designate. It seems to me that if we are going to have areas of natural beauty with a pipe-line traversing them, that is all very well till you come to the installation, and then the installation might completely ruin the neighbourhood, or, indeed, do permanent damage to sites of special scientific interest.

LORD MILLS

I think it is a good thing that we should discuss the problem, because I know how deeply your Lordships feel about it and I know how deeply Ministers feel about it. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave me the opportunity of apologising—because I like apologising—for the fact that this was not in the Bill in the first instance but we are proposing to put the clause in the Bill now. If the noble Lord will look at the clause for a moment, he will see that it enjoins not only the Minister but the person formulating proposals to take care of the amenities. I can assure the noble Lord that the utmost attention is paid to this problem, because we are all seized with the smallness of our island, the beauty of our island, and the need for conserving it.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I ask the noble Lord whether he would answer my question as to how far the Minister himself can intervene in regard to this question of access for equipment, and so on, and possible damage to the countryside when equipment is conveyed to the pipe-line? I do not doubt that the persons concerned will have due regard to that and will be anxious to avoid trouble, but they may say that they have to do it in a certain way for economy. That is the point which I think we ought to be concerned about—whether the Minister can exercise that power. It may be that it is covered somewhere else in the Bill and I have missed it.

LORD MILLS

There is provision in this Bill for the Minister to be assisted by inspectors, and it is usually through his inspectors that he would have regard to these problems on the spot.

7.29 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 39 to insert the following new clause

Disclosure of information

—(1) If any person discloses any information which has been furnished to him under this Act he shall be guilty of an offence, unless the disclosure is made—

1. (a) with the consent of the person by whom the information was furnished; or
2. (b) in connection with the execution of this Act; or
3. (c) for the purpose of any proceedings arising out of this Act, or of any criminal proceedings whether so arising or not, or for the purpose of any such report of any such proceedings.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under the foregoing subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

The noble Lord said: Under Clause 39 an inspector is empowered to carry out inspections and tests of pipe-lines and pipe-line works; that is, at all reasonable times. He is also empowered to require the production of any documents which are in the possession, or under the control, of the owner of the pipe-line. An inspector could thereby have access to manufacturing processes or trade secrets, and I feel it is only right that there should be in the Bill some restriction on the disclosure of information. Therefore, I trust that this Amendment will commend itself to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government, for it follows very closely a precedent in Section 68 of the 1961 Public Health Act. In that case it is in the context of the discharge of trade effluents. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 39, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)

7.30 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I hope very much that the Government will not accept this Amendment, which seems to me to go much too wide, notwithstanding the precedent which my noble friend Lord Merrivale has quoted. It seems to open the possibility of many entirely innocent people becoming guilty, technically at any rate, of offences under subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. Any information which was furnished, for instance, to a public inquiry held under this Bill either into an authorisation or into a compulsory purchase order would come within information furnished under the Act, and innocent persons would immediately attract the penalty provided here. I do not suppose that, in practice, anybody would be fined or go to prison, but I think it is wrong that your Lordships should approve an Amendment which is drafted in such a wide way as this one is, and which would be open to entirely wrong results, if it were taken literally. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will not accept it.

LORD MILLS

I am glad of the support of the noble Viscount in suggesting that this new clause should be resisted. As drafted, it goes far wider than is necessary for the purpose and could lead to all kinds of people being prosecuted for the disclosure of information which there could be no harm in making public. However, it is probable that it is designed more particularly to provide a sanction against the disclosure by one of the Minister's inspectors of information which he might have acquired in carrying out his duties. These inspectors are civil servants, and the proper action against civil servants who disclose information which they ought not to disclose is to dismiss them. Clauses restricting the disclosure of information are right, but only for Bills where the information is obtained by people who are not civil servants—for example, public health inspectors. A provision of this kind is included in Section 154 of the Factories Act, 1961, but I think that it is quite inappropriate in this place, and I suggest to your Lordships that we should not accept it.

LORD MERRIVALE

I do not propose to press this Amendment, but perhaps my noble friend will look again at what I am trying to achieve. The Amendment may be drafted too widely, but would he please ask his Parliamentary draftsmen to look at the precedent which I mentioned, to see whether there are not grounds for incorporating some supplementary clause in this Bill, so that there would be some form of restriction on the disclosure of information. I feel that it is not enough to say that if a civil servant discloses information which may be of secret nature, he will be dismissed. That is a penalty in one way, but it is not a criminal penalty. Possibly my noble friend would give an assurance that he will look at this point again, to see whether or not there are grounds for incorporating in the Bill some clause which would reduce the possibility of inspectors and other persons disclosing secret information and information of manufacturing processes which could be detrimental to the firms concerned.

LORD MILLS

I have continually been giving assurances to look again at this or that point. I am not sure that this proposal comes under that category, because I am advised that it is misconceived and would be a wrong thing to do. But the matter need not end there. I will certainly discuss it with my right honourable friend the Minister to see whether his advice differs in any way from that which I have received.

LORD MERRIVALE

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.