Lords Sitting of 3 April 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

SITING OF LARGE BUILDINGS
2.35 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, seeing the widespread concern expressed by a great many individuals both outside and inside Parliament regarding the considerable number of important both modern and historic ancient buildings which have recently been seriously overshadowed or worse by the placement of exceedingly big buildings, they will consider setting up an authoritative commis-mission of technical experts, not Government officials, to look into the entire problem of placing these new buildings in London or in other important cities and so give guidance to prospective developers as to where further great buildings can be erected without destroying the amenities of the already existing buildings.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government doubts whether the establishment of such a commission would serve a useful purpose. Whatever policy is adopted, some of these high buildings are bound to give rise to differences of opinion. Moreover, as I explained in the debate on February 22, all high building proposals in Central London are the subject of most careful scrutiny. Expert advice on these proposals is already available from the Royal Fine Art Commission. Responsibility for these decisions must remain a matter for the planning
90
authority and, in the last resort, the Minister and could not be delegated to a body of the kind suggested by my noble friend. As regards guidance to developers, the London County Council are already reviewing, in the light of experience and in consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission, the criteria against which they examine high building proposals, I understand that that study is now nearing completion.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not a fact that if this system is permitted to continue we shall have a most unsatisfactory architectural chaos continuing in London?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should hope, on the contrary, that we might see a considerable improvement.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, we should all hope that that is going to be the case, but the facts are that if this system continues it will be certain that the visitors who come to London to-day to see us will not do so; they will stay at home and see what they can find in their own country, which will probably be better than what we have here, and we shall make a considerable loss on our national annual income. Therefore I hope my noble friend will make a great effort to see that there is a body, not of officials but of private experts, who are given the opportunity to make recommendations on this subject.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the present arrangements allow far private individuals, and not only for officials, to review applications for high buildings. The Royal Fine Art Commission, for example, is not composed of officials.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, while I welcome what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the review which is taking place with regard to this policy, having regard to his hope that matters are going to improve, may we take it that the Government are dissatisfied with many of the decisions that have so far been given by the planning authority? Secondly, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that at the present time a review by the London County Council is taking place

91
of the criteria by which they judge applications? Is that tied up with the inquiry which the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated is taking place at the moment? Lastly, will there be any opportunity for informed public opinion to express its views upon this matter before a final decision .is arrived at about the future?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I have all my noble friend's questions quite clear in my mind. As regards his first supplementary, as to whether or not we are satisfied with the planning decisions which have taken place in this field hitherto, I would reply that of course there is room for improvement in this field. Even in the best of all possible worlds we might possibly have better high buildings.
In reply to his second supplementary, I think there is some confusion about this matter. The only inquiry to which my reply to my noble friend Lord Bossom referred was the re-examination by the London County Council of the criteria against which they judge high buildings. The Government, of course, have the general position constantly under review; but the only specific inquiry is that at present being undertaken by the London County Council in consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, will the result of the inquiry by the London County Council and the Royal Fine Art Commission, to which the noble Earl referred, be published?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that is a matter for the London County Council. But, of course, full publicity has been given to the existing criteria against which applications for high buildings are judged.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Earl draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the great thought that has been given by Members of the House to this matter? And when these inquiries are finished, will he then be in a position to publish a White Paper?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not sure about publishing a White
92
Paper; but I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to the considerable interest which this House and, indeed, the other place have displayed and are displaying in this important matter.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will consider extending the scope of the National Buildings Record to embrace not only the buildings themselves but also the 'situation and the setting of the buildings and their approaches. Would not the provision of what would constitute a National Vistas Record be an essential step towards identifying, and thereafter preserving, these historic and architecturally important viewpoints about which the public are so naturally disturbed?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that that is a wider and rather different question from my noble friend's original Question. But in answer to the noble Lord, I would say, first of all, that the question of the scope of the National Buildings Record and its responsibilities is at present under examination by a committee under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I think it would be advisable to await the results of that committee's findings before committing myself to anything in that regard. I am not quite certain of the noble Lord's second point. Could he repeat his question?
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would not the provision of such a record, which I called a National Vistas Record, be the first essential step towards identifying, and thereafter preserving, the historic and architecturally important viewpoints about which there is increasing public concern?
EARL JELLICOE: I think the question of the importance and preservation of historic viewpoints is precisely one of the matters at present engaging the attention of the London County Council.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for the consideration he has given to this subject, may I ask whether he is aware that we in England are very limited in the study

93
of planning? We are probably less informed about it than is any other first-class country, and it would be a good thing if my noble friend could take up that question with his Minister to see whether the Government could not do something about it.

UNDERGROUND TRANSMISSION OF ELECTRICITY
2.46 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what research they are undertaking, and through what agencies, to discover means of carrying electricity underground economically; and what progress has been made.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, such research is the responsibility of the Electricity Council and the Boards, in consultation with my right honourable friends the Minister of Power, for England and Wales, and the Secretary of State for. Scotland. Some related researches are carried out by the universities and by the Electrical Research Association, which receives a grant from Her Majesty's Government and financial support from the industry. The Electricity Council and the Boards are seeking to reduce the cost of moving electricity underground by using alternative insulating materials and by research to discover what cheaper cables and methods of installation might be suitable. While it is hoped that the wide difference in cost might be reduced, there is no real prospect that the use of underground cables will ever be as cheap as overhead lines, especially at high voltages.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer, and, in view of the importance of this question to the future of the countryside, ask him these further questions? Are Her Majesty's Government kept informed of the progress of research in other countries, and will my noble friend consider, perhaps in consultation with my noble and learned friend the Minister for Science, whether anything can be
94
done to accelerate research in this country?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the question of research into this matter is reported upon from time to time by the Minister of Power's Advisory Council on Research. They of course take into account in their examination what is going on in other countries. The Minister for Science already supports the Electrical Research Association and makes a substantial grant to their work, so I think the noble Lord can rest assured that every aspect of this matter is under constant review.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the implementation of the results of research depends upon the availability of capital resources, and is not the recent Government decision to require the Electricity Board to provide its future capital out of revenue likely to be a handicap to provision of the heavy capital costs that underground cable laying might involve?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the position here is that the electricity authorities, particularly in the local distribution of electricity, have already spent very large sums of money in putting cables underground. The difference in cost between putting them underground and overhead is so great that it is in the interests of everyone to have the greatest research possible into this subject, even with a view to curtailing present expenditure. But I can assure the noble Lord that, even in regard to the high-voltage cables, a great deal of research is going on. If the noble Lord would be interested, I should be glad to send him the remarks which Sir Christopher Hinton has made on this subject from time to time.
LORD REA: My Lords, would the noble Lord make those remarks more generally available than to one noble Lord, as they are of great interest to everyone in the country? Do they reveal the great differences in the expense of putting lines underground in the granite in the Lake District and in the softer ground in the South country, bearing in mind that the public would like to see some further expenditure on these amenities, if possible?
LORD MILLS: I will certainly make available such information as there is on the subject. Sir Christopher Hinton's remarks, to which I referred, of course deal with the subject in a general way and show the enormous disparity between the cost of laying cables underground and above the ground. Above the ground the air is a cheap insulator, whereas in every other form of laying, the cable has to be laid in the ground and insulation and other costs are really very great.

ARREARS IN UNITED NATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the number of member countries of the United Nations in arrears in respect of: —

(a) basic contributions;

(b) contributions to Special Funds;

also what is the number of countries who are in arrears in (a) and (b) above; and whether the arrears in (b) attract sanctions similar to those under (a); also what representations, if any, have been made by the United Kingdom representative with a view to accelerating the payment of these arrears and thereby reducing the probability of further special recourse to those countries prepared to give supplementary assistance.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME):My Lords, the answers to the first three parts of the noble Lord's Question are as follows. At the end of February, 45 members were in arrears with their contributions to the Regular Budget for 1961 or earlier years, 62 with their contributions to the account for the Middle East Operation and 77 with their contributions to the account for the Congo operation. Of the 45 defaulters to the Regular Budget, 43 were defaulters also to one of the Special Accounts, 40 to both. These figures are drawn from
96
United Nations document ST/ADM./ SER. B/156, which is available in the Library of your Lordships' House.
How far, if at all, Article 19 of the United Nations Charter (which provides for loss of vote in the General Assembly when arrears equal or exceed two years' subscriptions) can be held to apply to the Middle East Operation and the operation in the Congo is the subject of an inquiry by the International Court of Justice, which has been asked by the General Assembly for an advisory opinion on whether these costs are "expenses of the Organisation". In Her Majesty's Government's view, the question put to the Court should be answered in the affirmative.
The answer to the last part of the noble Lord's Question is that we have made representations about the payment of arrears in the General Assembly several times; a recent occasion was in the statement by the United Kingdom Delegate to the Fifth Committee on October 11, 1961. Your Lordships will also remember that we co-sponsored last December the General Assembly Resolution referring the question to the International Court; and we have submitted a written statement of our views to the Court. Copies of this statement are available in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, while thanking the Foreign Secretary for so full a reply, which he will appreciate it is not possible to take in all at once, may I ask whether it would be right to understand that the penalty for nonpayment under head (b) in the Question attracts the inability to vote on questions? That is the first point. The second point is, would he be in a position to state the total amount of the arrears under both categories outstanding at the present moment, or would he prefer that I should put that down as a separate Question?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the noble Lord will have to do some mathematics, because I think I have to express this in dollars. The latest information, as at the end of February this year, shows that the arrears contributions for the year 1961 and earlier amount to 88,141,995 dollars. I will not divide it up, but will circulate it if

97
necessary in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Further figures are available of the noble Lord requires Them. As for the rule on disqualification, if a member country is two years in arrears then it is liable for disqualification, but I think the final decision would be taken by the Assembly.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, might I ask whether any country is now two years in arrears, not bringing in the special contributions?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, I think there are two countries which are two years in arrears. Those two countries are Bolivia and Haiti, but both, I gather, have promised to pay up.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl whether there is any case on record of any member of the club having lost his vote through failure to pay his subscription?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, there is no such case on record yet.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, dinners will be available in the Refreshment Department this evening if your Lordships require them, but I would ask you to be good enough to "warn in" by five o'clock if you desire dinner, whether you are dining by yourselves or entertaining guests. The reason I ask that is that on one or two occasions lately when dinners have been available only one or two Peers have come in, and we really are not justified in keeping the staff there for only one or two dinners. So will your Lordships be good enough to sign in by five o'clock if you wish to take dinner?
ROYAL HOLLOWAY COLLEGE BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY BILL
Read 3ª, and passed.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
2.58 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 40 [Obligation to restore agricultural land]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: As your Lordships will see, under Clause 40, after the pipe-line has been laid the land has to be so restored as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land. What my Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that so far as possible the land is restored to its former condition. It seems to me that "reasonably fit for use as agricultural land" is far too vague a term. In the case of good land something far worse than its former condition might easily be considered reasonably fit for agricultural use. In the case of really poor land, on the other hand, "reasonably fit for agricultural use might mean better than its former condition. I understand that at the moment it is the practice for a schedule of condition of the land to be taken before the work starts; then the company tries to restore it as near as possible and, of course, pays damages on any difference. But it seems to me that my Amendment is much more precise. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 14, leave out from ("is") to the end of line 15 and insert ("restored to the same condition as before the execution of the works.").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): In a way I am rather sorry that my noble friend does not like the words that are proposed to be used in the Bill, because they are founded on a precedent. They were the words used for similar circumstances in the Opencast Coal Act, 1958. I had thought that they were adequate, being an agreed form of words for a rather similar set of circumstances. I think that my noble

99
friend's suggested words are the ones that really are much too precise, because the Amendment rather assumes What is probably impossible. I do not think it is easy to claim that restoration arrangements could be made which would ensure the complete recovery of all land to the same condition as it previously was. It does not seem to be practicable and it certainly would be very difficult of interpretation and of enforcement in law.
In practice the restoration of land presents no undue difficulties in the case of pipe-lines as compared with other forms of operation. The machine used for excavation normally segregates the subsoil and topsoil on different sides of the line so that there is very little mixing of the two when the soil is put back. But when you dig a hole and put something in it you displace earth and create a difference in the land compared with what it was before that was done.
Therefore, I must reject the words which my noble friend has proposed. If it seemed that your Lordships thought that the words in the Bill were not strong enough, perhaps inadvertently my noble friend gave something of promise when he used the words "as near as possible", or something like that. If your Lordships think it should be done, I should be prepared to reconsider the matter to see whether a form of words could be found which would be more suited but I cannot commit myself to whether I could find the words and. if so, what they might he. I hope my noble friend and the Committee will accept what I have said, and that he will not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I am not at all sure that the noble Lord's Amendment is the right sort of Amendment for this purpose. Nevertheless, there are words in the clause as it now stands that are extremely difficult to interpret—
"so far as is practicable".
The work of the pipe-line authority may have been such as to make it not too practicable to restore land for agricultural uses in such a way as it ought to be restored. Then there are the words
"as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land".
100
Who determines what is "reasonably fit"? I know, of course, that over the years there has been an enormous improvement in restoring land which has been used for opencast coal mining, but it took many years before those operating huge American machines for excavating the surface coal were persuaded to restore the land so as to be really useful for agricultural purposes for several years ahead. I think the noble Lord who put down this Amendment has the right idea in his mind, but as to the right words, that is a totally different thing.
I could not try to advise the Ministry in charge of the Bill just what would be the right words to ensure that the land was restored to a fairly good state for agricultural purpose without waiting two, three or four years. I admit, frankly, I have not the appropriate words in my mind, but there is no reason why I should not appeal to the Minister. If it is possible to produce words more useful than the words embodied in the first paragraph of Clause 4, I think the Government ought to spend a little more time in trying to ensure that a pipe-line is not going to be a bugbear from the agriculturists' point of view, because we have to make it possible to restore land for agricultural use as quickly as possible once the work has been done. I repeat I have no words in my mind and I can only appeal to the wisdom of the Minister in charge to see whether it is possible to find an alternative to the words, "practicable" and "reasonably fit", because the interpretation of "reasonably fit" can be almost as wide as the oceans.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance that he has given me that he will look into this point again, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 27, leave out from second ("of") to second ("in") in line 28 and insert ("damage to that land").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.8 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: moved, to add to Clause 40:
"(4) The Minister may, after consultation with such bodies and persons as appear to him to represent the interests of owners and occupiers of land and of owners of pipe-lines, make regulations providing for the carrying out of works for safeguarding the interests of owners and occupiers of land to be affected by the construction of the pipe-line and of works necessary for its maintenance and in particular provision may be made by such regulations—

(a) for prescribing the depth at which a pipe-line shall be laid in land and the means by which pipes shall he laid over land (including land covered by water),

(h) for prescribing protective works which shall be carried out to minimise the disturbance to the occupation of the adjoining land.

(c) for the reinstatement and future maintenance of land drains, ditches and watercourses affected by the construction of the pipe-line and ensuring the continued efficiency thereof and freedom from pollution thereof,

(d) for giving notice to the occupier of the land as to the planning and progress of the works to enable him to make suitable arrangements for the working of the land,

(e) for the making of a record of the state of condition of any property proposed to be affected by the construction of the pipe-line before entry on the land is made for that purpose.

(f) for the safeguarding and maintenance of all means of access and the provision of temporary alternative access to adjoining land.

(e) for ensuring the restoration of the land to its former condition and the orderly back-filling of trenches and other soil disturbance,

(h) for safeguarding existing water supplies and drainage systems,

(i) for the replacement of hedges and fences.

(j) for the prevention of trespass or straying of animals.

(k) for the protection of fishing and sporting rights.

(l) for ensuring supervision of the construction works and a procedure for the early notification by the occupier of the land of damage or loss arising in consequence thereof.

(m) for cathodic protection of the pipeline.

(n) for giving notice to the occupier of intended entry for inspection and future maintenance of the pipe-line,

(o) for the payment of compensation for all damage arising from the carrying out of the construction works or entry on land for the purposes of future maintenance thereof,

(p) for reference to arbitration as to matters in dispute."

102
The noble Lord said: Although this appears to be a very long Amendment, the point is a comparatively simple one. We shall probably have in the future the position that one will have a number of pine-lines running across the country and they will go over the land of a number of small owners. Once the pipeline is in the ground and covered up it is very difficult afterwards for anybody to tell what has happened under the land. As your Lordships know, it is extremely important to know what has happened under the land. What my Amendment seeks to do is to enable the Minister, in consultation with the bodies who seem to him to represent the owners and occupiers of land and the owners of pipe-lines, to produce a set of regulations which would stipulate how the line was to be laid, so that occupiers and owners of land, who are really the only people who can see what is happening, can assure themselves that it is being properly laid.
The headings in the Amendment are based on the assurances which were given by the Esso Company to the Select Committee considering that Bill, and as a result of those assurances the opposition to certain clauses of the Bill was withdrawn. They are also very similar to undertakings given by the Shell B.P. Company with their pipe-line from Shell-haven to, I think, St. Albans. It is obviously difficult to put all the detail into a Bill and I think that probably my Amendment goes much too far. The sort of things which have to be considered, which were put into the undertakings of the Shellmex Company, were that the pipe would be four feet down in the ground: where it crosses a ditch, that it would be one foot below the bottom of the ditch with cement over the top; there would be provision for allowing access to various parts of the farm during the construction of the line, and all sorts of small things, many of which, once the line is covered up, cannot be seen. It seems to me that it would be much simpler if the Minister made a set of regulations which were easily available to anybody and would cover the majority of pipe-lines. There would be nothing to prevent the Minister from making special stipulations in particular cases. I should be grateful if the Minister would seriously consider this suggestion and, even if he does not accept the Amendment as it stands, would accept

103
the principle that it is important to have easily available regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MILLS: I think it is natural that the noble Lord should take the !stipulations which were made in the cases of the Esso Company and the Shell B.P. Company and seek to apply them in this Bill. The difficulty, of course, is that there we were dealing with pipe-lines for a specific purpose, whereas here we are trying to legislate for whatever pipe-lines may come along. I doubt if it is desirable to try to deal with the matter, by drawing up a code and empowering the Minister to issue regulations.
Some of the particular subjects listed in the Amendment deal with safety. This is already covered in a different way under Clauses 20 and 24, which in general impose upon the Minister the duty of specifying such requirements as he thinks necessary in individual cases. We have the experience of the United States, where it was shown that safety matters cannot he dealt with satisfactorily by statutory regulation. The drawing up of safety regulations is a complicated and lengthy task, and I think that a better way would be to provide for the application in individual cases, as required, of a code of practice drawn up by the individual industries concerned. In general. I think that would be the way in which my right honourable friend the Minister would be able to exercise his function under the clauses dealing with safety.
So far as a code of restoration may be desirable or necessary, it would seem more appropriate to leave this to administrative arrangement, as was done, I would remind your Lordships, for opencast coal working. Restoration of the land after the laving of a pipeline is a much less complicated task, and there seems no reason why this problem should not be dealt with administratively by taking the interested bodies into consultation. Some of the other provisions of the Amendment might perhaps be appropriately included as conditions attaching to a planning consent, whether this was given for a
104
local pipe-line by the planning authority, or for a cross-country line by the Minister. Others again are matters under which the landowner would have rights at Common Law to sue the pipeline owner it damage or trespass occurred. Generally, I suggest that the interests of owners and occupiers will be safeguarded either by specific provisions in the Bill as to safety and restoration, or by their ordinary Common Law rights. Regulation by the Minister is not the best way of providing for detailed matters of this kind, and I hope that, after this explanation, the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I take up only the last point that the noble Lord made, when he said that the owner of the land would have Common Law rights—in other words, he would go to court to have the damage put right. Taking into account the high cost of court procedure, I should have thought that it is rather hard on a landowner whose land is going to be used compulsorily for the laying of these pipe-lines, to be put into the position of having to go to court. I should have thought that, when the powers are taken for the laying of the pipe-line, it should somewhere be laid down that the contractors who are laying the pipe-line must, without any shadow of doubt, put that land back into as good order as is possible. I think it is hard that such people as small farmers should have, at considerable cost, to go to court to obtain their rights. I should have thought it far better to have it clearly laid down from the beginning that when land is being used for the laying of pipes it is replaced in good order.
LORD MILLS: I think that point is covered by the Bill. I was referring to some of the points in the suggested code, like the prevention of trespass, the straying of animals, the protection of fishing and shooting rights. That is the sort of thing that cannot be covered by regulation. But I suggest that the owner or occupier of the land still has his rights.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: Would the noble Lord be good enough to tell us to whom one will apply if one feels that the land has not been restored so far as it practicable? To whom will

105
the person apply if he feels that the land has not been restored, according to the words in the Bill. "to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land"? As I see it, there is nothing in the Bill to tell us to whom one should apply to see that the words are interpreted as obviously the Minister hopes they will be interpreted. I should like to ask him whether it would not be possible to provide some sort of procedure, much less costly than the one referred to by my noble friend, to settle these potential disagreements between the pipe-line owners and the owners of agricultural land.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord has gone back to the subject of the previous Amendment proposed by my noble friend. I should have thought that the answer was that the landowner's first application should be to the owner of the pipe-line. He also has the right to apply to my right honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for the whole range.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: I should like to take up one point only. What worries me is that the excavation of a trench may alter the system of drainage and damnify the owner of the next plot of land. I agree with the last speaker who said that we Ought to be able to represent the matter to someone who knows about it—someone in the National Agricultural Service under the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister involved here is not really experienced or competent to appreciate that a system of drainage may be tapped by the digging out of a trench, which could open up springs, become a conduit and thereby injure the drainage system. I hope the noble Lord understands what is worrying me.
LORD MILLS: Yes; I understand the point very well. My noble friend Lord Chesham's reply to Amendment No. 54 concerns this point. My noble friend found it difficult to accept the words "to the same condition", but promised to give consideration to the point the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, had in mind on this question of restoring the land to a similar condition.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I am not quite clear on this matter. I thought that Amendment No. 54 was concerned with
106
land disturbed by the pipe, but the point just raised might well be concerned with land adjacent to the pipe. It would be quite possible for the pipe-line to cut a line of tiled drains, thus damaging land well away from the pipe. Furthermore, it might not become apparent for quite a long time that the damage had been done. The other complication is that in a large number of cases the present owners do not know where their drainage system actually runs, especially if They have taken over a farm fairly recently. This is the sort of problem that worries me.
LORD SILKIN: I hope that I may be forgiven for speaking to the Amendment itself, and not to the clause in general. I think there is much to be said for the Minister's taking power to make regulations. I understand that he has no such powers under the Bill. I think that this would be worth his while, though I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mills. He thinks that what this Amendment seeks to do can be achieved in other ways under the Bill as it stands. But, after all, the Minister may be wrong, and it may turn out that he could better achieve his purpose, in certain respects, by means of regulations. Therefore, I should have thought it would be an act of prudence to take powers to make regulations without necessarily making them.
But when it comes to this particular Amendment, this point cannot stand up. No Minister would want to be burdened with such detailed directions as to what he wants to make regulations about. I should have thought that a general power to make regulations relating to any Part of this Bill would be a valuable one, and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to think about this. I do not press him, but I must say that if I were in his place I should feel that it would be a power worth having in the Bill.
The noble Lord referred to the making of planning conditions as one of the safeguards. I presume that where there is a deemed planning permission or a permission by a local authority, conditions can be imposed. I think it would be most valuable if in some way the local authorities could he guided as to the kind of conditions they might reasonably make. What form that guidance would

107
take I do not know. It could be by means of some communication from the Ministry to the local planning authorities, or it could be by way of regulation. I should not wish to be dogmatic about it, but unless some advice is given to the local planning authorities we shall get into difficulties when we seek to make in regard to the grant of planning permission regulations and conditions which might be challenged as ultra vires or unreasonable—so giving rise to appeals—or, in some cases, inadequate, I think that in a new matter of this kind it would certainly be useful if some kind of uniformity could be secured, with some guidance to local planning authorities to ensure that where they make conditions they should be the right kind of conditions.
LORD MILLS: I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made a very useful suggestion, but it is one that I should have thought my right honourable friend the Minister would have found necessary in any case—that is, he would need to advise the local planning authorities on this problem. As I said yesterday, there is no power in this Bill to enable the Minister to make regulations. I was advised that it was unnecessary—perhaps even undesirable—to have such powers where we are dealing with individual cases of this kind. However, I have noted what the noble Lord has said on the subject of enabling powers. Perhaps he would like to return to the matter, say on Third Reading; meanwhile, we will look further into the problem.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: While the noble Lord is looking into this problem, would he also look into another problem? If conditions are attached to the installation of a pipe-line under town planning conditions, what benefit will that be to the owner of the land concerned if the conditions are breached? Has he any right of action against the owner of the pipe-line if he does not comply with the town planning conditions?
LORD MILLS: I assume that the remedies would be just the same as against anybody else who does not comply with the conditions laid down in a planning permission. The owner of the pipe-line may be required to take it up, or to do anything else that is required.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The point is: who can require him to do so?
LORD MILLS: In the case of a cross-country line it would be the Minister; in the case of a local line it would be the planning authority.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his intervention, because I fully realise that the Minister could not possibly accept this Amendment in this form, and I realise that parts of it are already covered in other parts of the Bill. The point worrying me is that the pipe-line owner might come to a small owner-occupier to run a line across his land. How does the occupier know what standard of work he can expect from the owner of the pipe-line? What can he insist on? Here is a company coming with compulsory powers, and there will be no regulations to say how deep that line is to be. What can the occupier in fact insist on? I understood from the noble Lord that he was going to look into certain points again, but I was not quite certain which points. I wonder if he could help me over that.
LORD MILLS: The point that I undertook to look into further was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the Minister should be empowered to make regulations. I said that I had been advised that it was not suitable and probably not desirable, but I agreed to look into the matter again. The Minister, in granting a pipe-line authorisation, will, of course, issue at the same time the conditions under which the authorisation is granted.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he is going to look into the question of regulations, though I realise he has not given any assurance. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 41 to 46 agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 46 to insert the following new clause
Nuisance
" Nothing in this Act shall exonerate the owner of a pipe-line from any indictment,

109
action or other proceeding for any nuisance caused by or arising from the use of a pipeline."
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that this Amendment is extremely similar to the one which the noble Lord is proposing to move at No. 69. If someone can assure me that that is so, I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment, but I want to make sure that my point is covered. However, I would formally move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 46 insert the said new clause.— (Lord Amulree.)
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord is perfectly right, Amendment No. 69, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, is to cover exactly the same point as the noble Lord has in mind. There is a slight difference in drafting, but that is all.
LORD AMULREE: In view of that assurance from the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47:
Amendment of section 3 of Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923
47. The reference, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section three of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923 (which subsection specifies ancillary rights that may he granted under that Act), to conveyance of minerals shall be construed as not including conveyance by means of a pipe.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to leave out Clause 47. The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I referred to the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923, and advised your Lordships that this clause would have the effect of doing away with a system that is at present working very well and that it also would have the effect of involving mineral undertakings in a dual procedure. At the moment the rights of the landowner are fully protected in the courts, as well as by the local planning authority or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Surely, it is placing an unwarranted burden on the minerals industry, when Section 3 of the 1923 Act is invoked, for this industry also to have to consider a different authority altogether—the Minister of Power—when just one ancillary right is involved out of several ancillary rights
110
which are mentioned in Section 3 of the 1923 Act. The ancillary right to which I refer is the conveyance by means of a pipe. Such pipes already exist, and I would remind your Lordships that the 1923 Act is an Act
"to make provisions for facilitating the working of minerals".
I feel that if this clause remained in this Bill it would have a detrimental effect and would not help to facilitate the working of minerals. That is why I sincerely hope that the Minister has been able to give favourable consideration to this Amendment, for on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that consultations were then going on between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Power with regard to the china clay industry. There can surely be no benefit to the interests of the general public, by the exclusion of conveyance by pipes from the provisions of the 1923 Act. Such short pipe-lines—and I would stress the words "short,pipe-lines"—Which can be secured under the provisions of the 1923 Act should, in my humble opinion, be excluded from the provisions of this Bill as they come purely under the power to grant ancillary rights for facilitating the working of minerals—and I stress the words "facilitating the working of minerals". Therefore, I feel that this clause is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 47.—(Lord Merrivale.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: In view of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Merrivale in mentioning the china clay industry, I hope that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if, with the permission of the Committee, I were to refer at this stage to the Amendment to Clause 50 which I have down, because, although your Lordships might not imagine it to be the case by looking at the Amendment, my Amendment is in fact intended to deal with the china clay industry which my noble friend has mentioned. I do not know that I should like again, as I was yesterday, to be captious about the breadth of the Amendment moved by my noble friend; and, indeed, I am not really equipped with the information to talk about any other industry than that of china clay. But I think there

111
is a special case for the china clay industry in Devon and Cornwall, where it occurs in two fairly compact and special areas, and I think that your Lordships might consider that there should be an exception in this Bill for that industry.
As for other industries, I do not know, but the china clay industry is already dealt with rather specially under the Town Planning Acts, for, since they have this particular area in the two counties, there has already been set up an arrangement by which there are special consultations between the Minister, the industry, and the local planning authority for the area which has been allocated as being of special interest to them. In that area they have rather freer power to lay pipes, and so on, than I think they would have anywhere else. In the later Amendment that I should otherwise have moved, I have proposed that inside those areas, and inside those areas only, there should be an exemption for the china clay industry.
As I understand it, this industry frequently has to lay pipes at short notice, whether it be to transmit an extra quantity of one grade of their clay or, perhaps, alternatively, to lay a new out-fall into the river for the sake of avoiding pollution or some such risk; and the sixteen-week period under the local pipe-line procedure would be rather too slow for them. Equally, I think, there is no case whatever for the china clay industry to he allowed special powers, other than those provided for other people who wish to lay pipe-lines, outside their special consultation areas. I think, for instance, that if they were to wish to lay a pipe-line between their area around Plympton and the other area between St. Austell and Par, in Cornwall, this should come fairly and squarely within the ordinary provisions for pipe-lines in this Bill. But I think that, within the consultation areas in Devon and Cornwall, there is a case for them to be given a certain exemption. For those reasons I support, at any rate in part, the Amendment moved by our noble friend, for although I do not think that this clause should be left out I consider that something should be done along the lines I have suggested.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has spoken on Amendment
112
No. 58A, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on Amendment No. 60, which is germane to the subject. There is a difficulty here. Clause 47 of the Bill withdraws from certain pipe-line owners—that is, mineral workers—the powers to obtain compulsory rights over land under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1923. This Bill provides a more suitable method of acquiring compulsory rights, and I suggest that it would be wrong to allow these pipe-line owners the alternative of proceeding under the 1923 Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, he had in mind the special problems of certain industries, and the china clay industry in Cornwall in particular. I fully agree that there is a problem in the china clay industry which requires a solution. They have to lay pipes at very short notice, and it is only right that we should do nothing under this Bill to interfere with the proper working of the industry. Having said that, and having said that it is our intention to find a solution, I hope that my noble friend Lord Merrivale will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment for the moment and wait and sec what we are able to propose. I do not know that I need make any further comments on Amendment No. 60 when we come to it, because the object of that Amendment is to achieve exactly the same purpose.
LORD HAWKE: Could I ask my noble friend this question? Do I understand that he is going to examine the whole situation to see whether some special facilities should be preserved for the china clay industry? If not, could he tell us what is the main difference between the procedure for creating a pipe-line under this Bill and a similar procedure under the Act of 1923? And if the Act of 1923 has worked perfectly satisfactorily, both to the industry and to the landowners in that part of the world, would it not be better to stick to the 1923 procedure rather than to bring forward an entirely different one?
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord's first assumption was correct. It is our intention to examine the position of the china clay industry to see whether it is necessary to make special provisions or whether it is desirable to leave it under its present arrangements. That examination is taking place. I cannot say

113
when it will be completed, but it is hoped that it will be possible to find a satisfactory solution during the passage of this Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, as I expect he will, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Mills one further question. It seems to me that, although the special circumstances of the china clay industry are themselves of some importance, what is cardinal to their case is that they function in these special planning areas where there is already very considerable control and which are already, I am afraid, to some degree spoiled by the china clay operations. Indeed, I believe the Cornish area is known as the Cornish Alps on account of the white slag heaps which have been thrown up by this industry. This is probably a more important consideration than that of their need for a quick procedure; and I hope that when my noble friend considers this subject he will not think of going outside the special consultation areas in these two places in Devon and Cornwall, and will not give the china clay industry special rights. I see no reason why the china clay industry, rather than anyone else, should be free of the provisions laid down in this Bill when laying large, cross-country pipe-lines between their two areas, for instance, or anywhere else. I think the justification for giving them special treatment lies largely in the fact that they are already so closely controlled in the places where they operate.
LORD MILLS: I need hardly say that I fully agree with what my noble friend has just said. There would be no question of giving them powers outside the special considerations to which he has referred.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for his qualified support and to my noble friend Lord Hawke for his support. In view of the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to the effect that a solution of the problem of the china clay industry requires to be found, I do not propose to press this Amendment. But could the noble Lord be a little more specific with regard to when this solution may be found? I
114
think it is important that it should be found in time for it to be incorporated in the Bill. Can he give an assurance that every effort will be made so that, if not in this House then in another place, an Amendment will be tabled which will take into account the interests of the china clay industry?
LORD MILLS: Yes, I appreciate that point. I thought I had already said that we would try to reach a conclusion during the passage of this Bill.
LORD MERR1VALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines of certain statuary bodies]:
3.49 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Sections one and" and insert "Section". The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the listed statutory bodies within the ambit of the Bill in so far as cross-country pipe-lines are concerned. As I understand it, the reasons for this Bill are to ensure the orderly and co-ordinated development of pipe-lines in this country in the public interest. It would therefore seem illogical that methane gas pipe-lines, for instance, should not come under the control and authorisation of the Minister of Power; that is, in the event of Area Gas Boards not having to invoke their powers to acquire land and rights compulsorily by an application to the Minister under Section 11 of the Gas Act of 1948. The development of underground gas storage, if it is sanctioned by Parliament, will certainly give rise to many major pipeline projects.
At the present moment, in view of the Gas Council's decision to import methane gas from North Africa, with Ministerial approval for 700,000 tons per year, I understand, there are proposals to lay a main pipe-line of eighteen inches diameter from Canvey Island, in Essex, to Ellesmere Port, in Cheshire, with branches running off to feed into different Area Boards for distribution The six Area Gas Boards which will be responsible for laying that portion of

115
pipe-Line which is within their territory are proposing, I understand, to acquire all necessary rights by voluntary agreement with owners and occupiers. Therefore, if that be the case, the Minister will have no control whatsoever for that very extensive pipe-line. I understand that thirteen counties are involved, so surely, with regard to pipe-line development on such a scale, the Minister should have proper powers of authorisation and control. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, leave out ("Section one and ") and insert ("Section ").—(Lord Merrivale.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: On this occasion I am wholeheartedly in support of my noble friend. Indeed, this is the very point that I, with my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, should have attempted to raise on the next Amendment standing in my name. It seems that, when the Minister is taking these very strict powers of controlling the future network of pipe-lines in this country, with, we hope, the object of preventing a proliferation of them and an unnecessary nuisance to people through whose land the pipes may go, it is very important indeed that the operations of these statutory bodies should not be left out of account. My noble friend has very rightly drawn attention to the fact (as I believe to be the case) that, unless the particular statutory authority, such as the Gas Council, has to take compulsory powers, the Minister does not necessarily come into it at all. So that however much he may say at this stage that the would try, presumably, to co-ordinate the activities of the Gas Council with the petroleum companies and other would-be pipe-line owners. nevertheless he may find it extremely difficult to do so.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to give your Lordships some sort of assurance that the various bodies listed in Clause 48 of this Bill will not be allowed to get away unsupervised with their various large projects which they may promote in the future. I understand that already there is a case where a pipe-line from Southampton Water to Middlesex, put in, or proposed to be put in, by a petroleum company, is to be accompanied in the same trench by a pipe-line to be installed by an
116
Area Gas Board. If that is so, it seems to me to be quite admirable and exactly the sort of thing which your Lordships aim at in putting forward the measures in this Bill.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Mills will be able to give a really strong reassurance to your Lordships on this point, because otherwise I see nothing to prevent exactly the sort of trouble that has arisen in the past with the railways happening all over again owing to the lack of Ministerial control, not of the private pipe-line owners, but of the statutory authorities who operate each under its own separate, individual Act without the Minister's overall supervision. Therefore, I do support as strongly as I can my noble friend in this Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: We have a chance now, while starting with a clean slate, of avoiding the scenes which are so common in our great cities, where one public authority after another digs up a different piece of road to get at its own particular piece of pipe or wire, whereas if there had been co-ordination from the very beginning they could all profitably have been put in the same trench. Although in speaking on this Bill everyone seems to assume that these pipe-lines will be used to send quantities of oil around the country, its possibilities are far, far beyond that. We may live to see the day when we shall have the Somerset to London milk line, for instance. It may not be an enormous great pipe, but a small one. I do not put it past possibility that we may see, for example, a London to Brighton beer line. These things should, where possible, be put into the same trench, along with the installations of the nationalised utility companies, and if this clause stays in the Bill I think it will definitely militate against that happening.
LORD MILLS: Of course, there is a certain amount of logic in this Amendment, but there are also very considerable difficulties. The statutory bodies named in the clause have statutory duties under their own Acts, and will not really be competing with private industry in pipe-line development. Nor is it the case here that they would be able to share their pipe-lines with private industry.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask a question of my noble friend? Does he visualise that it would be impossible for more than one pipe-line to be in the same trench?
LORD MILLS: I would not have thought that that was impossible. As I said one or twice yesterday, it is very difficult to generalise on these things because one has to have regard to the nature of the pipe-lines, the materials they are carrying, and so on. While I would not exclude anything, I should not like to say what was possible either. I do not see that there is any real purpose to be served by forcing these other statutory bodies to use the authorisation procedure under Clause 1 of the Bill. I am sure there is need for the Minister or Ministers to keep an eye on what the statutory bodies are doing, and that is not difficult either. The Ministers control their investments. I am sure that my right honourable friend's mind will be very much on this point, and on the points made by noble Lords, when he is administering the Act.
Even if it were desirable, it would be a very long and complicated job. So to alter the Act under which statutory bodies operate would present very unusual difficulties. I hope that noble Lords will rest content with the assurance that my right honourable friend has this problem very much in mind and will look upon it as his job to see that any co-ordination which is necessary is fully carried out. I hope that on that assurance my noble friend will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: This assurance does not go very far. I appreciate fully the difficulties of bringing these public authorities into the Bill. I have an Amendment down to leave out Clause 49, which is on the same principle, and I confess straight away that it is a probing Amendment because I want to be satisfied about co-ordination. Having given these bodies specific powers under specific Acts, I do not think that they can be duplicated. It would be difficult indeed to leave out the clause, but the co-ordination to which the noble Viscount referred is very important and I do not think that we can rest merely on an assurance that the Minister will have it very much in mind. Has the
118
Minister any power at all to effect this co-ordination? By what means will he bring it about?
This question relates not only to the Minister of Power. The same principle arises in Clause 49 in the case of the Minister of Transport and in Clause 50 in the case of whoever is responsible for factory, mine and quarry premises. So that we have a number of Ministers, each of whom would be required to carry out co-ordination. I think that, before we part with this part of the Bill, we ought to have it made much clearer how this is going to be carried out, what is the machinery and what are the powers of the Minister. Has he any power to achieve this co-ordination? Will he just do it by his good looks and good will? Because these may not always be available.
LORD MILLS: I readily agree that this problem of co-ordination is of the greatest importance. As I have said, the Minister has certain powers—for example power in connection with investment by these statutory bodies—and he is in constant consultation with them. I should like a little more time to examine with my right honourable friend this problem of co-ordination, but I am sure that to try and take away from the statutory bodies the powers they already possess is the wrong way to do it.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am always attracted by logic and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mills for saying that there is a certain amount of logic in this Amendment. I am also glad that there was a fair amount of support from other noble Lords with regard to the need for co-ordination between statutory bodies and private pipe-line owners, and especially that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his wisdom, stressed this point. I must say that at the moment I do not see how the Minister is going to keep an eye on the beneficial and proper working of the Act as it affects statutory bodies, but my noble friend said that he would like further time to examine this problem of co-ordination, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdrawn my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines in factory, mine and quarry premises]:
On Question, whether Clause 49 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STONHAM: Could I put a question to the Minister at this point? When he is discussing with his right honourable friend the question of coordination in Clauses 49 to 51, will he also have in mind the question of safety? The Minister has no authority over statutory bodies under this Bill, because they are excluded, and if he has any authority it must be elsewhere. It is not only a question of co-ordination, of avoiding the digging of holes over and over again, but, in view of the fact that inflammable liquids will often be going through these pipe-lines at high pressure, there is the question that the statutory bodies should be fully seized of the importance of safety regulations and that there should be sufficient power residing in the Minister, apart from this Bill, to ensure that proper safety standards are observed. Otherwise, however public spirited pipe-line owners might be, it might be that they would not observe the necessary safety standards in what, after all, is virtually a new medium of transport.
LORD MILLS: Of course, that is of very great importance, but I think that it will be found that in the case of statutory undertakers safety regulations are provided in their own Statutes.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines in factory, mine or quarry premises]:
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved to add to Subsection (2):
"( ) Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing subsection where a 'factory' is in the proximity of any other factory or land In the same ownership any pipe-lines for the conveyance of anything from one factory to another or between any factory and any such land shall be excluded from the references to pipe-lines in sections one to thirty-seven and thirty-nine of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I am a little disappointed because I thought that my noble friend would have moved his Amendment and I was under the impression that the Amendment included other industries as well as the china clay industry.
LORD MILLS: I think that probably the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, did not move his Amendment because I had already given him an assurance on the subject.
LORD MERRIVALE: I understand that the assurance the noble Lord gave affected solely the china clay industry and would be of no benefit to the chemical industry, so I have no option but to move this Amendment. Pipe-lines which are part of the equipment of, and situated within, industrial premises are in a special category and are thus excluded from the main provisions of the Bill. I feel that it has been overlooked that many of these pipe-lines go just outside the factory fence. There may be two factories which work together and pipe-lines may connect them, and a line may go just underneath a roadway or through a small area of non-industrial land. We should then have a situation where the greater part of the pipe-dine—,that is to say, the pipeline which is within the curtilage of both factories—would be outside the provisions of this Bill and only the small portion of the pipe-line connecting the two factories would come within its ambit.
The noble Lord, on a previous Amendment I moved, referred to logic. I can see no logic in this at all, especially when it may be a matter of only a few yards. There would seem to be good ground for extending the provisions of Clause 50 to short sections of pipelines which form a necessary part of industrial plant and equipment situated outside industrial premises. Such an operation is part of the day-to-day working of a factory, and it seems quite wrong that so complicated a procedure should now be involved. Here, again, is the question of a dual procedure. The wording of the Amendment may not appeal to my noble friend, but I hope he appreciates the principle behind it. If that be so, I trust that the Minister of Power will not hesitate to use these powers to relieve from unnecessary control the numerous short pipe-lines which at the moment (and no doubt they will in the future) play such an essential part in day-to-day industrial production. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.— (Lord Merrivale.)
LORD CHESHAM: I am not going to endeavour to destroy the logic of my noble friend's argument in putting forward his Amendment, because I suppose it could be said that there is something in what he says. What I am going to do is to advance to your Lordships a very good reason for not accepting the Amendment: and that reason is the reason of safety. If the Amendment were accepted, it would have the effect of removing from the Minister the power to impose safety requirements on such lines. I do not think it makes much difference whether the lines are very short, not quite so short or a little longer; the length of the line is quite irrelevant in deciding whether or not safety requirements should be imposed.
Perhaps it may be said that it is illogical when it relates to a few yards only. But how is that to be defined? When do yards between two factories cease to become few and become sufficient or many? It has to be remembered also that in the majority of cases where a pipe-line runs between factories it may not be quite so short as all that, and it is very likely run through built-up areas 'where there are houses, other factories and so on. It might well be much more important to impose safety requirements on a very short line conveying quite dangerous products between two factories over a short distance than on a much longer line carrying fairly innocuous things over a much greater distance, possibly across open country. I hope my noble friend will see that and understand that that is logic too. That is the reason why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend for relying on logic, but again he has brought in this question of safety. There I do not follow him at all. When referring to safety, he stressed that some of the connecting links may not be as short as all that. We find ourselves, therefore, in a rather interesting situation, in that two different inspectorates will be concerned. If the pipe-line is within the surrounds of a factory, then it will be the inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour, under the Factories Act, who will be concerned; and directly the pipe-line goes outside the factory boundary it will be the concern of the inspectorate of the Ministry
122
of Power. I should have thought that any inspection that was to be done would be carried out at the extremity of the pipe-line. It would be much more efficient to do it in that way than to inspect it in the middle, because, unless they can sever the pipe-line, I fail to see what inspection they can carry out from time to time without opening up the land. So here we are with a situation where we have two inspectorates involved.
I cannot see why the Minister, if he does see the logic in this, will not give ground in any way. He always brings up this question of safety. But already, under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, and the Factories Acts since 1937, there are adequate safeguards; and there are already adequate inspectorates to enforce any safely regulations. I urge the Government to reconsider this point. I cannot see how it will be a working proposition to have one authority concerned with a whole array of pipe-lines within the area of a factory and connecting links between the two factories being the concern of a completely different inspectorate. Perhaps my noble friend will be good enough to reply to that point.
LORD CHESHAM: I am not, off-hand, on a quick shot like that, quite sure how the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act cover this matter adequately. I should have doubted that they would. However, I am always interested in what my noble friend says, and I am quite prepared to think about the situation of a dual inspectorate. But one thing I am not going to depart from is the fact that the Minister, under this Bill, has to do two things—namely, to ensure the orderly development of pipe-lines and the safe development of pipe-lines. I am sorry, but I cannot give away anything on the safety grounds; and I do not think your Lordships generally would wish that I should.
LORD MERRIVALE: I feel my noble friend has given nothing there. He is being excessively stubborn. I think he has rather missed my point, because he is talking of the orderly and safe development of pipe-lines. I am all in favour of the orderly and safe development of pipe-lines, but here I am talking specifically of short links, mainly between factory and factory, where there

123
may be just a matter of yards separating them.
LORD CHESHAM: Or hundreds of yards, through a built-up area.
LORD MERRIVALE: In my humble opinion it is absolutely illogical that there should be two inspectorates involved, or two Ministries, as the case may be. It is either the Ministry of Power, the Ministry of Labour or the Board of Trade, whether it is a quarry or a factory. I think this matter needs looking into further, and I should be most obliged if my noble friend would look into this question again with regard to these short lengths which go from one factory to another, or from a quarry to another nearby processing station.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not know what the noble Lord expects me to add in view of what he has just said, because I said that I was prepared to do just what he asked.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sorry I misunderstood. Then I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHESHAM: In order that my noble friend may not be misled, I said that I would look into the position of the dual inspection that he alleges. That is what I am looking into. So far as his Amendment is concerned, I do not withdraw my objection to it in the slightest, because the overriding consideration must be that the pipe-lines, whether 5 yards, 50 yards, 500 yards or 5 miles long, must be safe.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, dock, &c., pipe-lines]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 12, leave out ("section one hundred and twenty-five (docks, &c.) of the Factories Act, 1961, applies") and insert ("certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1961, apply by virtue of subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-five (docks, &c.) of that Act.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Meaning of "pipe-line"]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is a further drafting Amendment in the interests of clarity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 42, leave out from ("which") to end of line 44 and insert ("certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1961, apply by virtue of subsection (1) of section one hundred and twenty-seven (building operations and works of engineering construction) of that Act.")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: On Amendment No. 51 yesterday, which your Lordships accepted, I explained that there were four Amendments which gave effect to the inclusion of signalling apparatus as part of the pipe-line. This is the second of them, the other two being Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 13, at end insert—
("(d) apparatus for the transmission of information for the operation of the pipe or system")—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 54 shall stand part of the Bill?:
LORD STONHAM: I was very disappointed that the noble Lord. Lord Merrivale, was momentarily absent from the House and for that reason was unable to move his Amendment with regard to pipes for agricultural and horticultural purposes. As this is an extremely interesting subject, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would let us have the benefit of his views on that matter since we were unable to hear the arguments.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to apologise for not being present. The previous Amendment went rather quickly.
LORD CHESHAM: If we may discuss this subject in vacuo at the end of this clause, I am bound to say that I, too was a little disappointed that the Amendment was not moved. My views were going to be based somewhat on the arguments put forward, because I was not very clear what pipes the noble Lord had in mind. We are in a little difficulty through having gone past the Amendment. I have not got written at the top of my notes, "Reject" or "Resist", or

125
anything like that. It may be that there is a case whereby pipe-lines of a certain type in the agricultural world require examination. I have not been able to think of very many from my own experience. Most of them come under the definition of sewers or drains, or some are for carrying water or water vapour, which are already excluded. I know one of my noble friends has a small series of pipe-lines on his farm for conveying whey. But as I am not trying to "get away" with anything, perhaps it might be as well if my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite would care to have a short conversation outside the House later on, and if they put something to me which seems reasonable to consider and needs doing, I shall be glad to consider doing it.
LORD STONHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am sure we shall be able to follow his advice.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend, because it may be that he is willing to accept something at long last.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 55 [General interpretation provisions]:
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on the group of Amendments Nos. 32 to 37 which your Lordships earlier accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 18, at end insert ("'carriageway' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (1) of section two hundred and ninety-five of the Highways Act, 1959").—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in the definition of "cross-country pipe-line" to substitute "five" for "ten" [miles]. The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, standing in my name and the name of my noble friends, which seeks to alter the definition of a "cross-country pipe-line", the present term for a line that exceeds ten miles in length, to one that exceeds five miles in length; and, of course, our object in moving this Amendment is to shorten the maximum length of a local pipe-line. We feel that a pipe-line up to ten miles in length which can, as the Bill now stands, be
126
called "local" might well go from a port, for example, through the area of several local authorities. It might be one of quite vital significance; yet as matters now stand it would be a "local" pipe-line not in any way subject to the same kind of restrictions as to approval as a cross-country pipe-line.
I know that in discussing these definitions, and deciding where the dividing line should be, if we start arguing down from ten miles to five miles it is easy to cite a similar set of circumstances in which a line only two miles long might connect up two areas and cross a number of boundaries. Nevertheless, it seems to me that a distance of ten miles in many localities is not very local; not what most of us regard as a purely local area, in this present sense of the term with which we are dealing. Therefore we seek to amend the definition of the cross-country pipe-line to one of a maximum of five miles, so as to limit, and seriously limit, the danger that a local pipe-line might be so long that in some areas the promoters would be able to have a much easier run and come much less under the Minister's jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 27, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD MILLS: This Amendment seems to be an alternative to previous Amendments which sought to remove altogether the distinction between local pipe-lines and cross-country pipe-lines. The present Amendment would have the effect of bringing a far greater number of pipe-lines under the full authorisation procedure described in Clause 1. I dealt with this problem when I was dealing with Amendment No. 2 on March 26 in your Lordships' House. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 55) col. 786]:
"We have been accused, both on Second Reading and again to-day of giving no thought to this matter. But in fact, although I said that ten miles was an arbitrary figure; it was by no means a figure 'out of the blue'; it was the result of full inquiries. Some people thought it ought to be a mile, others two miles, and so on; and after full consideration of all the evidence we could gather we selected ten miles as the best."
That remains the position to-day. We inquired fully into this question, and I think the figure in the Bill as it now

127
stands represents a sensible compromise. I do not feel that we can accept somebody else's point of view of what the figure ought to be when the matter has had a very careful examination, and we came to the conclusion that ten miles was the right figure.
LORD SILKIN: I am very sorry that I was not available when this Amendment was called, but I have heard sufficient from the noble Lord. He says that this has been considered and that ten miles is right. My noble friend gave reasons why he thought five miles was a more appropriate figure. Would the noble Lord tell us how his figure was chosen? I am quite prepared to believe that it was not a number drawn out of a hat; that it was probably arrived at by some process of reasoning, good or bad. But could he say by what process? Why did he fix on ten miles rather than five? There seems to be some reason for limiting the distance to five miles because it avoids, in many cases, going over the area of a number of different authorities and so saves a certain amount of con usion in administration. But if there are good reasons for sticking to ten miles I think the Committee ought to know what they are. It is not a thing I should wish to fight to the death about; but let us hear what the reasons are. The noble Lord is asking us to rely on the judgment of somebody unknown who has considered this point, but is not telling us any of the reasons which prompted him to arrive at this figure.
LORD MILLS: I am not sure that that is a correct interpretation of what I said or conveyed. I have made it quite clear that my right honourable friend the Minister made inquiries into this subject. He had all kinds of proposals before him and there were many cases where it was apparent that there would be no need to bring the pipe-line under this procedure where it was between five and ten miles in length. Having studied the subject and looked at all the evidence he had, my right honourable friend the Minister came to the conclusion that ten miles was the right figure. Of course, he also had in mind this problem of more than one local authority being concerned; that was not overlooked. In his judgment, and I think it should be
128
accepted, ten miles was the right figure; and so I am sorry that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept some other figure.
LORD SILKIN: We are asked to rely on a judgment without being given reasons. I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister, or those advising him, considered a number of different distances and arrived at the figure of ten, but we still do not know how he arrived at it, by what process of reasoning.
LORD MILLS: How could the noble Lord be satisfied, if he doubts the Minister's conclusion, unless I brought here and placed before him all the examples that were examined, the recommendations that were made, and the Minister's conclusion? I can only assure him that the Minister made that examination.
LORD SILKIN: If we are obliged to accept everything that the Minister decides upon, there is not much point in discussing this Bill at all; but I am not a believer in the infallibility of Ministers. I have had personal experience; I know that I made a great number of mistakes, and I have no doubt that the Minister responsible for this Bill is making mistakes, and this may be one of them. It would help us if we knew by what process of reasoning he arrived at this figure. However, the noble Lord is evidently not prepared to give it, and I suppose we must leave it at that.
LORD MILLS: I am sorry that the noble Lord has taken that kind of line, because what we are trying to do is to set the dividing line as high as reasonably possible in order not to interfere with industry more than we must. I can only say that the figure that was put in the Bill was what seemed to be the best figure to carry out that desire.
LORD STONHAM: Though we are not highly satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, I am sure that he has told us all he could tell us. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in the definition of "Minister", to leave out "Power" and insert "Transport". The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I think is important. It concerns the Minister who should be responsible for

129
the administration of this Act. We think it should be the Minister of Transport, and we take that view because we regard this whole problem of pipe-lines as a transport problem. It is a means of transporting goods. We do not think that the Minister responsible should be decided according to what these pipes will in the first instance carry. A few moments ago we were told that these pipes may at sometime carry milk and even beer. If you are going to decide upon that basis the Ministry to be responsible, then let us suppose that in the years to come they were mainly used for the transport of milk. In that event I suppose you would give the responsibilily to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If they were going to carry beer I do not know who would be responsible—perhaps the Home Office, who seem to be the residuary legatee of all sorts of things.
At any rate, I submit that the test as to who is to be responsible is not what the pipes are going to carry but the fact that this is a new form of transport, and we think that from the very beginning the Minister of Transport should be responsible. I need not elaborate because right through the passage of this Bill we have discussed the question on that basis. We have had the railways; we have had the canals and the roads; and now this is a new form of carrying goods, which is an alternative to using the roads. So I do not wish to elaborate; I think that the case I have made is quite unanswerable, that right from the very beginning, and in recognition of the fact that we are entering into a new era of transport, the responsible Minister should be the Minister of Transport.
I understand that one of the reasons given for what is proposed in the Bill (I do not know whether it was given publicly or privately) was that the Minister of Power had not enough work to do at the moment or was not as busy as the Minister of Transport. That I fully believe. But as my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth pointed out, there are some duties of which the Minister of Transport might very easily be relieved, particularly those in connection with publicity. I think he might quite usefully be required to get on with this particular function for which he has been appointed as Minister of Transport,
130
and I think this would be a very useful job for him to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 6, leave out ("Power") and insert ("Transport").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the first place on the general national position that he has outlined. He is quite right; what we are dealing with in this Bill is a new form of transportation, something that may well, in the years to come, revolutionise the transportation of liquids and solids. It could well upset the whole of this nation's transport economics. It is a fact that if we are to avoid what the noble Lord, Lord Mills, I think so graphically stated, turning this country into an over-loaded plate of spaghetti, then we must have these pipe-lines under some Ministry which is also responsible for the transport avenues of this country.
I can go back to the days when I was at the Ministry of Transport and this was in our minds then. If your Lordships can carry your minds back to the passage of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, you will recall that we then thought in terms that the highways of this country should carry all the public utilities, the Post Office cables, drains—every mortal thing—upon the verges of our great trunk roads. On the question of national economics, I take, as an example, the M.1, and the highway up to Preston, in the heart of Lancashire. That will be perhaps the shortest cut for these pipe-lines, along the verges of that highway—not across country, ploughing up good agricultural land and having to find their own devious ways around built-up areas.
To me it is nonsense to put a revolutionary form of transport into the hands of any Minister other than the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for the transport economics of this country. In this Bill there is nothing, so far as I can see—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—to prevent the British Transport Commission from running its own pipe-lines, so long as it runs them on its own land. It may well be that, with a dynamic personality at the head of the British Transport Commission—I might almost say "at last"—the British Transport Commission will not be averse to exploring the avenues of this new form of transporta-

131
tion. Who is going to weigh the national interests of that concern, running its pipe-lines, hiring them out, as it will have every right to do?—because, of course, transportation of liquids, transportation of oil, transportation of petrol, chemicals, coal, or any liquid or solids, is the object of its being in business.
When a Minister has to weigh, as he will increasingly have to do, the economics of transport by road, transport by rail, transport by underground pipe-line, why give responsibility to the Ministry of Power, who, if you search this Bill from beginning to end, has nothing to do with anything. If your Lordships will turn to the First Schedule you will see, right at the start, these words:
"An application for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation must be made … in writing and must

(a) state the name and address of the person …

(b) specify the points between which the proposed pipe-line is to run and be accompanied by three copies of a map "—
et cetera; I will not read it all—

"(c) state whether or not the grant of any rights or the giving of any street works consents is requisite to enable the proposed pipeline to be constructed…

(d) state what is proposed to be conveyed in the proposed pipe-line;

(e) contain such other (if any) particulars as may be prescribed."

Not one of these things, in the wildest of imaginations, has anything to do with the Ministry of Power. In the second paragraph of this First Schedule the Minister of Power has sole rights. That paragraph says:
"Where an application for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation is duly made to the Minister, he shall take it into consideration and shall give notice to the applicant of his decision either that he refuses to grant the application or that the application is (without prejudice, however …) to be allowed to proceed."
He does not have to consult any other Minister. No application has to be made to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is solely charged with responsibility for the proper utilisation of the land of this country, or to the Minister of Transport, who is solely responsible for the maintenance of our highways. Up to that moment they are not consulted at all.
132
I suggest to the Minister that in that lies the inherent weakness of this Bill. I do not think there would have been half the discussion, interesting though it has been, we have had had we followed the usual practice of the shoemaker sticking to his last. I do not expect the Minister to say to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this evening that he will accept this Amendment, but I ask him to give it most serious consideration. I know that on Second Reading the Minister said, "I am not tied to this, and if at any time it becomes apparent that a change in ministerial responsibility is needed, it can easily be made." My political experience has not been so long as that of some of your Lordships, but it has been long enough to convince me that once you let something get into a Bill "all the King's horses and all the King's men" will never get it out again. If the Ministry of Transport is to be responsible for the operation of this Bill, that must be stated in the Bill before it leaves Parliament.
I suggest to the noble Lord that, following upon the discussions we have had on Second Reading and in four days of Committee, we are embarking on something that may well be in the nature of a revolution in the next generation and may have a very great effect upon the economics of transport in this country. I support the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who is ever ready on matters such as this to look at the long-term interests, to do so here, so that at some later stage of the Bill he may be able either to accept Lord Silkin's Amendment or to put one down himself.
LORD DERWENT: May I from these Benches ask my noble friend to consider this point again, to see whether the Minister of Transport is not the right Minister to do this? Obviously, one wants as few Ministers as possible dealing with any pipe-line scheme. In many cases these pipe-lines will start from the docks, for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. It is obviously preferable that, if it can be arranged, a pipe-line should go along an existing artery, either a railway or alongside a canal or a new road. It is obviously better that that should happen so that we can save our agricultural land from being disturbed. It seems to

133
me that the only thing in favour of placing upon the Ministry of Power the duty of carrying out this Bill is that they have prepared it and it would be a pity to do them out of the fun of running it. I am certain that they are the wrong Ministry. I have listened to the Second Reading debate and the speeches on this point on this Committee stage, and I hope that my noble friend will at least say that the matter will be reconsidered.
4.56 p.m,
LORD MILLS: Before I say anything else, I should like to say that I have no idea how the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, got the impression that the Minister of Power had been selected because he had less to do than the Minister of Transport. I have myself occupied the former position and I know full well what the Minister of Power has to do, and that would be the last of the reasons which could be given for this selection. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I referred to this matter on Second Reading and tried to give your Lordships the reasons which had led to the selection of the Minister of Power at this stage to deal with the Bill and to be the Minister responsible under the Bill. It is not true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, that once it is written into a Bill that such a Minister shall administer it, it is impossible or even difficult to change the Minister. I would remind him that the responsibility for the steel industry was removed from the Minister of Supply to the Minister of Power under the procedure laid down by the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946.
The real reason why the Minister of Power was chosen in this case was that we had to take into account many additional factors in what would appear to be mainly a transport matter. We had to take into account history and experience; we had to take into account administrative considerations and the fact that the expertise on this matter rested mainly in the Ministry of Power. But I can assure the noble Lord and other noble Lords who have supported the Amendment that the Government see their point of view and have by no means closed their mind on this subject. I do not propose to accept this Amendment, but I do agree that there is much
134
in what they say. The Government have not a closed mind on it at all. With that statement, I hope that noble Lords will not press their Amendment at this stage.
LORD SILKIN: I personally have no desire to press this Amendment if the matter is, or will be, under consideration, and if we are likely to get some decision in time to enable us to take action if that decision is unfavourable.
LORD MILLS: I should not like the noble Lord to be under any misapprehension as to what I have said. I have said that the Government recognise the force of the argument that it ought to be under the Minister of Transport, but that there are a great many other considerations which at the present time make them feel that it is right to leave it with the Minister of Power for the time being.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord puts me in a great difficulty. If the Government had been sufficiently impressed with the case which has been put forward to make them feel that they would like to think about this matter again, I should gladly withdraw the Amendment and give them an opportunity of so doing. But if the noble Lord says that, having heard the arguments, he is convinced that his view is right and that the Government are not going to change their view, at any rate during the passage of this Bill, then I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I do not know what is the exact view the noble Lord is taking about this matter. Is it that the Government will reconsider it, or that they will not?
LORD MILLS: I thought I had made myself quite clear on this point.
LORD SILKIN: No, not to me, at any rate.
LORD MILLS: Well, I have tried to. What I have said is that there are certain considerations which make it necessary, in the view of the Government, that the Minister of Power should start this thing off; that he should be the Minister responsible for the time being. I have explained to your Lordships that it is quite easy administratively to change the responsible Minister and that the Government appreciate the point of view

135
that at some time it may be advisable to change over to the Minister of Transport. I have not gone any further than that.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The Minister has said that it is comparatively easy to change over from one Minister to the other. In theory I agree; in practice I do not agree. The case he cited of the change of ministerial responsibility for the steel industry was done at the time of a major change in Government and national policy—on the denationalisation of the steel industry.
LORD MILLS: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I would point out that the noble Lord is quite wrong. It was done in 1957, and that was some time after denationalisation.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: But it was done as a consequence of the denationalisation of the steel industry when the present Iron and Steel Board was set up. I had much sympathy with the argument put up by the Opposition Front Bench when we were discussing the question of the five and ten miles, and if, after having heard the very strong opinions expressed—opinions not refuted by any other noble Lord—that there are overpowering reasons why the Minister responsible should be the Minister of Transport, the noble Lord comes to your Lordships' House and says that there are equally overpowering reasons for the responsibility to stay with the Minister of Power, I think this House has at least the right to expect that the Minister will state what those reasons are, rather than leave this House suspended in a vacuum and in the position of having to take the Government's word without question.
I shall be interested to see whether the Minister does come back at another stage of the proceedings on this Bill to say that the Government are still convinced that there are overpowering reasons why the Minister of Power should be the Minister responsible for this Bill. I cannot conjure up in my mind one reason, but I am not the possessor, of course, of all the wisdom possessed by the Government. I think we have a right to expect him, if he does say that, to tell us why, because I believe that the House—in the absence of any argument to the contrary—would
136
be in favour of the Amendment that has been proposed by the noble Lord. Lord Silkin.
LORD MILLS: The noble Lord possesses a great deal of wisdom, as I know—but the noble Lord does not listen, and is often not prepared to listen. I told him quite clearly that the change of Ministry concerned with the steel industry had nothing whatever to do with the change in Government policy, but he pooh-poohed that and went on and repeated the same thing. I can only repeat that it is quite simple, under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act, 1946, to change the Minister. I also explained that there were many factors to be considered which must be taken into account by Ministers who are trying to settle what is the right thing to do at this time. I said that we must have regard to administrative considerations; we must have regard to the fact that the knowledge of the history of these pipelines resides in the Ministry of Power. They have the expertise which no other Ministry possesses. For those reasons—it is quite wrong to say that I did not put forward any reasons—it was, in the view of the Government, desirable at this time that the Minister of Power should be the responsible Minister; but they have not closed their minds on the subject and they see the force of what noble Lords have said in regard to the Minister of Transport.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said that the Government have not closed their minds to changing this Bill from one Ministry to the other. Surely, after speeches from both sides of the House, would not the correct thing be for Lord Mills, if he could bring himself to do it, to take it back and acquaint his right honourable friend and the Government with the feelings of this House? I do not see how that can harm anyone, and I am sure it would bring gratification to a great many Members of this House.
LORD MILLS: I certainly will tell my colleagues what noble Lords have said in this House. We have not tested the feeling of the House yet. The point I was trying to make was not so much who was the Minister mentioned in this Bill, but that for the time being we

137
thought it better that the administration of the Act, if and when it is passed, should be in the hands of the Minister of Power.
LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble Lord will acquit me of desiring to be discourteous to him personally; that is the last thing in my mind. I am bound to say that in all my experience of the Committee stage I have never come across a Minister who has so dug his toes in on everything and been so unwilling to respond to the feeling of the Committee. It may well be that the Government have taken a certain view, but, if the Committee stage of a Bill is to be of any value at all, the Government must respond and take some notice of what the Committee feels on the subject. It is not sufficient to say, "This is what we think, and we may change our mind one day: we have not closed our minds to the possibility of changing our minds in years to come." That is not good enough; that is not what the Committee is asking the noble Lord to do. It is asking the Government to reconsider it now in the light of what I regard as the strong feeling of those who have expressed a view on this subject.
The noble Lord said that the views of the House have not been tested. I have no doubt that he has his battalions all ready for a Division. and no doubt he would win a Division. I expect there are many noble Lords outside who have not heard the debate but who are ready to do their duty and support the noble Lord, so that he can say, "This is the feeling of the House". If we could have a Division on the basis of those who have heard this debate, I have no doubt at all what the result would be. I am not going to ask the House to divide on this Amendment, because I believe that there are probably sufficient battalions outside who will do their duty. The noble Lord has said that he will discuss this matter with his colleagues, and I am going to rely on him, without dragging from him an assurance that he will reconsider it. We propose to bring this matter up again at the next stage, and we hope that we shall have better news then.
LORD MILLS: I have no personal feelings about what the noble Lord has said. He accused me of "digging my toes in" and sticking there, but I think he has only to examine the records of
138
this Committee to see that we have, indeed, taken notice of noble Lords on many, many subjects and in many places.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment—
LORD SILKIN: I am not going to do so.
LORD MERRIVALE: —I must say that I for one, in my humble way, am perfectly satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has accused him of "digging his toes in", which he has done in the past; but in this case I think he has gone far to show that the Government have kept an open mind on this subject. I really cannot see how, or in what way, the Minister of Transport can have any particular expertise with regard to the conveyance of, say, coal in the form of slurry, of methane gas, of crude oil, or of petroleum products. I should have thought that, at least for these products, the Ministry of Power was a much more appropriate Government Ministry to be involved, than the Ministry of Transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that it would be an easy matter at a later date, if circumstances warranted it, to change from one Ministry to the other. But I cannot see, as things stand at the moment, what advantage could be gained from having the Ministry of Transport concerned with a Bill which deals with commodities completely outside its province. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that administrative facilities existed within the Ministry of Power and did not exist within the Ministry of Transport: and also that there was greater expertise within the Ministry of Power. I should have thought that those were sufficient grounds for keeping things as they are at the moment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.14 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: This is a comparatively minor Amendment, concerning the term "statutory water undertakers". This is mentioned once or twice in the Bill, notably in Clause 34, but, so far as I can see, it does not appear in the list of definitions. I am proposing that these words should appear in the list of definitions, in the same way as the term

139
is defined in the Water Act, 1945. That is all I wish to say about this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 9, at end insert—
(" "statutory water undertakers" has the same meaning as in the provisions of the Water Act, 1945, other than Part II of that Act").—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD MILLS: I thought that this Amendment was consequential on the noble Lord's previous Amendment, which was not carried. But if statutory water undertakers are mentioned in the Bill (I am not sure that they are), then we will accept this Amendment.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much. They are mentioned in Clause 34.
LORD MILLS: In the clause to which the noble Lord refers statutory water undertakers are already defined. Therefore, the Amendment is not necessary.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention to that point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHESHAM: This is a drafting Amendment, pure and simple. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 19, leave out ("carried out"). —(Lord Chesham.)
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [General application to Scotland]:
LORD CHESHAM: Earlier in the Bill, when your Lordships accepted Amendment No. 31 to leave out Clause 12 dealing with registration, I mentioned that there was a Scottish point which required covering, whereby registration was dealt with. This Amendment covers that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 42, at end insert—
(" ( ) As soon as may be after a compulsory rights order has become operative under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, it shall be recorded by the Minister in the Register of Sasines; and any order revoking
140
a compulsory rights order in whole or in part shall be so recorded.")—(Lord Chesham.)
LORD HAWKE: Could my noble friend tell us exactly what is the Register of Sasines?
LORD CHESHAM: No.
LORD HAWKE: This is the first time that a Minister has come with a peculiar phrase like this in a Bill, without having discovered what it meant.
LORD CHESHAM: I am sure that some of my noble friends, who are sitting behind my noble friend, would not regard that as a peculiar term at all. Perhaps they would also save me a little trouble by whispering into my noble friend's ear exactly what it is. I am told that some people pronounce this charming word as "Sanes", but that is wrong. I think it corresponds roughly to Registry of Land Charges.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 57, to insert the following new clause—
Saving for law of nuisance.
" Nothing in this Act or in a compulsory rights order shall exonerate a person from any action or other proceeding for nuisance."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in the same sense as the one withdrawn earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, whereby the original question of dealing with nuisance, which was confined to works in streets, is made of general application. It is made clear that any person executing pipe-line works is liable for nuisance arising out of those activities in general. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 57 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
First Schedule:

APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT OF PIPE-LINE CONSTRUCTION AND DIVERSION AUTHORISATIONS

  PART I
  1. An application for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation must be made to the Minister in writing and must—
  (c) state whether or not the grant of any rights or the giving of any street works

  141
  consents is requisite to enable the proposed pipe-line to be constructed and to be, during the period during which it may reasonably be expected to remain, inspected, maintained, adjusted, repaired and renewed and, if it be the case that the grant of any rights or the giving of any such consents is requisite for that purpose, specify the rights and consents the grant or giving of which is so requisite and state, with respect to each of them, whether the grant or giving thereof has been, or can be, obtained;
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD BURDEN LORD BURDEN moved, in Part I, paragraph 1 (c), after "street works consents" to insert "or the giving of any consents by any river board". The noble Lord said: Anyone with a knowledge of the work of river boards will be aware of the constant struggle which river boards have to prevent or minimise the evils arising from the pollution of our rivers by industrial wastes and matters of that kind. Many of these evils arise from the fact that it was not foreseen early enough that this pollution would occur. Now the river boards are very anxious that, in connection with this new development in transport—what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth has described and quite rightly described as a revolutionary development in transport—the mistakes which were made in the past during our industrial development, which have led to the shocking state of many of our rivers, should not be made worse by the ignoring of any of the statutory provisions or the by-laws of river boards in the construction of pipe-lines.
  In effect, the Amendment brings the river boards right into the picture at the beginning instead of at some later stage. If one reflects upon it one will see that, unless they come in at the beginning, mistakes and trouble may easily arise. I am sure it will be to the advantage of both the Minister and the promoters of a pipe-line to get the matter properly cleared up, understood and worked to right from the outset of the plan of development. For these reasons, I beg to move the Amendment and trust the Minister will accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 20, after ("consents") insert (" or the giving of any consents by any river board ").—(Lord Burden.)
  LORD MILLS: I can accept this Amendment in principle. I should like
  142
  to look further at the exact wording, but this or something like it will be acceptable.
  LORD BURDEN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: Amendment No. 70 raises very much the same point as did Amendment No. 10, with which we dealt early last week. I was told then that No. 10 was unnecessary, and I should no doubt be told that this one is unnecessary. I therefore do not propose to move it.
  5.23 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucan. Paragraph 1 of Part I of the First Schedule sets out the matters which must be contained in an application for the grant of a pipe-line authorisation, and it sets out five different pieces of information. There seems to me to be an omission, and that is that the application contains no provision for information as to the kind of pipe which is to be constructed. The Amendment asks that the application should
  "state to what recognised British standards the proposed pipe-line and its associated equipment is to be constructed".
  It may be that that is a little vague, and I am not sure whether or not the Amendment itself can stand up; but what I think is quite definite is that there ought to be some information supplied by the proposed undertaker as to what kind of a pipe-line he is proposing to lay. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, even if he does not accept the exact wording of this Amendment, will be able to ensure that some information of this kind is contained in the application. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 31, at end insert—
  (" ( ) state to what recognised British standards the proposed pipe-line and its associated equipment is to be constructed;")—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry to say —and the noble Lord has given me a lead for saying it—that the Amendment of itself would not, in fact, stand up.

  143
  Perhaps he will not expect me to go further into it than that and will not mind if I go on more to the principle of the matter that he has raised. Of course, there cannot be any dispute about the desirability and the need to ensure that pipe-lines are constructed from the proper kind of material and in the proper kind of way, but the Bill already provides for that since the Minister is empowered to impose requirements as to the construction of pipe-lines, the method and the materials, and it would certainly be his intention, where standards of some kind existed, to impose them if they were appropriate. The question of the construction of a pipeline would normally come a little later than the original application, when there would be discussion between the applicant and one of the Minister's inspectors.
  It would not make very much difference, even assuming that there were the necessary British standards, because every application would have to be examined in that way just the same in order to make certain that the standard, whatever it might be, was suitable for the actual operation that the pipe-line operator had in mind. I think that there is no need to alter that in the Bill. The Minister has power to make sure, and I do not think there is anything particularly to be gained from making it a necessity that the actual specification of the construction should be stated in the application.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I apologise to the Minister for my absence when the Amendment was called. I should like to say that I am disappointed with his reply. When I put down this Amendment there was more than one consideration in my mind. I thought it only natural and to be expected that, when somebody was applying for permission to build a pipe-line for a certain purpose, he would say what sort of pipe-line he was going to build. He is asked to say what it is proposed to convey in the proposed pipe-line. It matters a good deal whether it is to be milk or whether it is to be some explosive, some highly dangerous chemical; and so it seems the normal and natural thing that, in making an application of that sort, the proposer should state it.
  Then, if you do not state it you can, I think, as the Minister told us at an
  144
  earlier stage, rely on sub-paragraph (e), where it is lumped together with
  "… such other (if any) particulars as may be described."
  That seems to be rather unsatisfactory and rather hard on the proposer. He will not know what information he is supposed to produce. Then, if you delay submitting this information until it is asked for, and wait until the Minister exercises his powers under Clause 20, is that not adding to the load of bureaucracy and creating unnecessary office work? The Minister has to consider the application, and then he has to write and ask the proposer of what material he is going to make his pipeline, so a considerable unnecessary addition to the burden of administration seems to be involved in this business.
  Finally, I thought that without some mention such as this in this Schedule, the Government do not convey any sense of importance to the safety question. If there is no mention of it, or if it is merely brought in under another sub-paragraph, or merely asked for at a later stage, it seems to me an indication that the Government do not attach very great importance to the safety aspect of the proposal. In fact, it indicates to me that they regard it as a secondary consideration altogether, and for these reasons I am extremely disappointed that the Government cannot meet this proposal in any way.
  LORD CHESHAM: I am sorry that the noble Earl is disappointed, because I thought I had been trying to explain to him that the Amendment, to a considerable extent, had been met. In the process of what he was saying, he said again, as noble Lords opposite have kept on saying, that the Government are paying no attention to safety, or very little regard to it, and he said that without having adduced to prove that statement one shred of evidence which I can find in any way convincing. It may be true that that is what noble Lords think; maybe it is the policy of the Opposition to think that; but they have not supported it very well, to my way of thinking. However, I do not want to argue about that point. I am concerned merely that the noble Lord should think that this matter is not as loosely covered as

  145
  he apparently thinks is the case. The wording is:
  " (e) contain such other (if any) particulars as may be prescribed."
  It gives the Minister a discretion, if he so wishes and finds necessary, during his consideration of pipe-line authorisations, to prescribe that the details shall be given, and he can do the same in any other respect. Therefore, that argument merely emphasises what I said before, and that is that the Minister is adequately empowered to deal with the point which the noble Lord has raised.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  5.33 p.m.
  LORD AMULREE: This Amendment follows on the part of the Schedule which deals with applications for a pipe-line, and I should like to suggest that, in addition to notice being served and publication given where the Minister directs that it should be given, it should at the same time be published in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette, as being a general publication whereby the British Waterworks Association and similar bodies can learn of the proposal to make a pipe-line. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 9, at end insert—
  (b) a like notice must be published by the applicant in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette or, in the case of an application relating solely to England and Wales or to Scotland, in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette as may be appropriate;").—(Lord Amulree.)
  LORD CHESHAM: I think that the noble Lord's proposal, putting forward the fact that cross-country pipe-lines may differ from other comparable kinds of development, in that they may concern third parties outside the localities which are immediately affected, is a proposal of some merit. There are a number of people, other companies, for instance, who may wish to know about the proposal and national societies who may wish to safeguard amenity, and so on. Therefore, perhaps the noble Lord will be satisfied if I accept his Amendment in principle, and I will look at its drafting and its implications with a view to putting down a Government Amendment at a later stage.
  LORD AMULREE: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for meeting me so far, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AMULREE: The Schedule says that a notice must be served upon every local planning authority, but I should like to have one served at the same time on the statutory water undertakers, because, for reasons I have given on more than one occasion in the past, these undertakings are particularly liable to pollution from pipe-lines. Therefore I feel it would give them rather more security if they could be informed by the applicant, and not merely have to rely on the Minister's hoping or expecting that they will be informed. I should like to know whether this proposal could be put in the Schedule in this form, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 11, after ("area") insert ("and on all statutory water undertakers within whose limits of supply").—(Lord Amulree.)
  LORD CHESHAM: We had a certain amount of discussion on a point very similar to this in earlier Amendments, and I do not think I need detain your Lordships by repeating all the arguments. If I may summarise, your Lordships will recall that I argued that it was not desirable to include in a Schedule a list of statutory bodies and other people who are to be consulted, because such a list would be long, and would either have to include a number of people who might well not need to be consulted in a particular instance, or, alternatively, in certain circumstances, omit someone who needed to be consulted. It would be necessary to draw up a Schedule which would cover all possible people in all possible circumstances, and that would be an extremely difficult thing to do. The present position is that the Minister can direct that notices must be served on the appropriate people in the appropriate case. That is the way in which we feel it is better done. The noble Lord will remember that on Clause 34, which is the one which looks after the interests of statutory bodies, I earlier gave an undertaking to consider whether there is a case for giving them earlier notice of the construction of pipe-lines; and if the

  147
  noble Lord feels that what he is putting forward could equally well come under that umbrella, I hope he will accept that and withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD AMULREE: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and in view of the explanation he has made I think the point I have down in my Amendment will be covered. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.40 p.m.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS
  moved, in paragraph 3, to add to subparagraph(1):
  "(c) A like notice must be served by the applicant on each owner, lessee and occupier of land on the route of the pipe-line proposed in the application."
  The noble Viscount said: Whereas my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney said that he was satisfied that an Amendment upon the lines of the one which I am now moving is not necessary, I am afraid that I am not so sanguine about this.
  My noble friend Lord Chesham has just said that there would be considerable difficulty in including in the Schedule a list of everybody who might at any time have to be given notice beforehand that a pipe-line construction authorisation was coming up to the Minister for his attention, and with that I entirely agree. On the other hand, I should have thought there was no doubt whatever that there are certain persons and bodies who must on every occasion be told when such an authorisation is to be considered, and in the first rank of these people, I consider, would be the landowners and occupiers of the land which will be affected by the pipe-line. I cannot see how anybody can possibly avoid that particular point; nor do I think that Her Majesty's Government have done so. Because, if I understood correctly what my noble friend told the Committee when your Lordships were discussing Clause 2 of the Bill, it is implicit in the drafting of the Bill that it should be a requirement that the proposed pipe-dine owner must seek out all owners and occupiers, and everybody else interested in the land, to find out whether or not they will be content to let
  148
  the pipe go through their land. This is clearly so, and I think that paragraph 1 (c) of the First Schedule does, by inference, require a pipe-line owner to do so.
  As the First Schedule will presumably be read by the general public, it passes my comprehension why, if Her Majesty's Government are going to require pipeline owners to tell the owners of the land before they go to the Minister for authorisation, this cannot be stated, in black and white, in the Bill. I do not understand 'why Her Majesty's Government insist upon relying on inferences to be drawn from a rather long and obscure sentence in a sub-paragraph, and why, if they intend that the owners should be told, it should not be stated in the Bill in clear English. However many reassurances we may have, I hope that my noble friend, who I am sure agrees with me in principle, will look at this again and see if this cannot be written out in a simple way, so that everybody can see what Her Majesty's Government intend.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 13, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to second the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. If one looks at the paragraph which he is seeking to amend, it says—and perhaps I may quote it:
  "… there must be published by the applicant… a notice stating that application has been made to the Minister.…"
  So far as I understand the word "published", it means "made generally known". Yet the paragraph goes on to describe a notice in the singular. Presumably that means a notice in some obscure legal jargon that the ordinary public—certainly I myself—do not understand, pat up at a town hall or published in the London Gazette. It appears that the Government are going to look into the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, but what is really required is a direct notice to everybody who may be affected by a pipe-line. Otherwise, the Bill, as at present drafted, seems to me to smack of bureaucratic arrogance. I think that that is the last impression the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, would like to give, but that is the impression which I feel is given by the present wording. All an applicant has to do is to put up one

  149
  notice somewhere, and to put another in an obscure column of a daily newspaper, or possibly in the London Gazette, which none of the general public reads. What is really required is an individual notice sent to everybody whose land will be affected. If you are going to have a pipe-line going through your back garden, the least you should expect is a courteously posted notice put through your letter box from the person who is going to do it. That. I think, is what should be provided for in the Bill.
  LORD MILLS: This Amendment is exactly the same as Amendment No. 70, which again was similar to No. 10, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, which I promised to look into. That examination is not yet complete, so I am not in a position either to accept or reject this Amendment. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to give us a little longer to decide this point.
  LORD CONESFORD: While fully expecting that my noble friend will be willing to respond to the request that has been made, I hope that I may be allowed briefly to support my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the principle of his Amendment. It seems to me that, whatever might be the possibility of an owner or lessee of land ultimately hearing of the application, there would be great advantage in his hearing of it at a suitably early stage, perhaps at the same time as the Minister hears of it. My noble friend's Amendment has, prima facie, everything to support it, and therefore I very much hope that the consideration that is being given will lead to the result which I believe the Committee desire.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Mills, and regret that I had forgotten that he said that this was a point he was going to look into. Of course, I entirely respond to the invitation he has issued to me. Nevertheless, I hope that, when he comes to look at it, he will find that there is some perfectly easy way of drafting this so that there can be no doubt whatever, both in this Schedule and in reference to local pipe-lines, under Clause 2, that, as my noble friend Lord Conesford said, the landowners, or the occupiers or
  150
  lessees of the land, will know at the earliest possible stage what is proposed to be done to their land. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 3, to add to subparagraph (1):
  " ( ) A like notice shall be served on every council of a county, county borough, county district, metropolitan borough, town (in Scotland) and parish through which it is proposed that the pipe-line shall pass, and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph 'metropolitan borough' shall include the City of London."
  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment deals with a somewhat similar point, though not perhaps exactly the same. This Bill is intended to replace the procedure under which pipe-lines have hitherto been laid—that is to say, the Private Bill procedure in Parliament. There is no doubt that, under the Private Bill procedure, where a would-be pipe-line owner wishes to place a pipe-line in certain land, he would have to give notice to all the local authorities listed in this Amendment. Harking back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Chesham, I agree that it is impossible, and probably undesirable, to try to list all the people who, for one reason or another in any specific case, may need notice, and I am sure that it is right in any particular case to leave the Minister a residual power to specify extra people whom he thinks ought to have notification at an early stage.
  None the less, I cannot imagine a cross-country pipe-line (and that is the matter with which this First Schedule deals) being laid in circumstances in which the local authorities would not be told as a matter of course in time to appear at any public inquiry under the First Schedule. That is what the Amendment seeks to ensure. Of course the local authority will be told if any land owned by them is affected, and I hope that they will be more specifically told when my noble friend Lord Mills has finished his consideration of the point I have just made. But even if they do not own any land, a local authority are certain to be interested in the route that a pipe is going to take through their area, and that applies from the county council, who, as local planning authority, will be told in any case, down to the parish

  151
  council, who probably know all the small points of the countryside, like the position of wells, and so forth, which may be affected, and who in most cases will be very interested in having a say about the route of the pipe. These are the people who wish to be reassured that they will in any event be told in good time that the authorisation is being sought by a proposed pipe-line owner. I feel that, whatever my noble friend Lord Chesham may say, there is good reason for putting into this Bill the lists of local authorities that I have quoted, in addition to the local planning authority who are already included in the Schedule. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 13, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
  LORD MILLS: I do not disagree with what the noble Viscount has had to say on this matter, but again I have to plead for time to consider it. I want to see what all this means. The addition of various authorities is proposed, and I should like to look at the whole problem. I see the force of what the noble Viscount says, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it. I am not accepting the Amendment at the moment, but I should like time to consider it further.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I thank my noble friend. I know that when he says that, the matter will be given the fullest consideration possible. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD AMULREE: This Amendment has been put down to ensure that, should a statutory water undertaking object to a pipe-line, their objection should have as full consideration as the objection of a local planning authority would receive, from the point of view of a local inquiry. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 23, after ("area") insert ("or any statutory water undertakers within whose limits of supply").—(Lord Amulree.)
  LORD CHESHAM: I am bound to admit that I thought this Amendment was consequential on the noble Lord's other Amendment. What I should like to do, if the noble Lord is agreeable, is to give this point the same consideration
  152
  that I have already offered to give to the other point.
  LORD AMULREE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question: Whether the First Schedule shall be agreed to?
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I ask your Lordships' indulgence to raise on this question a matter of some importance. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that when this Bill was read a second time in your Lordships' House, which would have been the proper time to raise this subject, I happened to be out of the country. Further, I did not have time to put down an Amendment on the two points in the First Schedule and a similar point in the Second Schedule that I want to raise, and if I had had the time I should not have done so, because what I really want is for the Minister to consider these points, which are of the utmost importance. I gave the Minister notice that I would raise them; I also took the liberty of giving the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor prior notice, and I am grateful to him for sparing the time to come in and listen to what I have to say.
  My points have reference to the procedure of public inquiries that are going to be held in consequence of objections to the grant of a pipe-line construction under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule. Your Lordships will see that it there says that
  "the Minister shall in no event grant the application without either causing a public inquiry to be held with respect to the objection and considering the report of the person who held it …"
  In paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule there is similar wording dealing with the objection to a compulsory purchase order.
  We are seeking in this Bill to do something novel: that is, to give statutory authority to a private concern to acquire compulsorily rights over private property, and I feel that we should be most careful that the interests of the owners of property are properly safe-guarded. Nothing is said in the Bill as to the nature of these inquiries and how

  153
  they are to be conducted. I am apprehensive as to the wording of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule and paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule, which is very narrowly drawn, in that it says that the inquiry is into the objection. The Franks Committee had something to say on this matter. In paragraph 271 of the Franks Committee Report it is stated:
  "Although the statutory requirements are merely to hear and consider objections, it must surely be true that an objection cannot reasonably be considered as a thing in itself, in isolation from what is objected to. The consideration of objections thus involves the testing of an issue, though it must be remembered that it may be only a part of the issue which the Minister will ultimately have to determine. If so, then the case against which objections are raised should be presented and developed with sufficient detail and argument to permit the proper weighing of the one against the other."
  I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mills, if he will consult his noble colleague the Lord Chancellor, who now sits next to him, upon this very involved point. The Council on Tribunals have just issued a Report, which is in the Press to-day, on the Chalk-pit case and the question that was worrying your Lordships about additional evidence and the evaluation of evidence already given. I am not going to raise that issue now. What I propose to do is to draw your Lordships' attention to one of the things the Council say in this Report. They say in paragraph 3 (a):
  "If the public is to have confidence in the procedure laid down by Parliament, it must be made clear that inquiries are not just an incident in the administrative process."
  I think that is most important. I do not expect the Minister to tell me at this juncture whether I am right or wrong, because this is an involved matter, but I have thought that these two paragraphs could be interpreted so as to reverse a procedure that is at present one of the accepted procedures of public inquiries, and reverse it in a manner against the interests of the landowner.
  I know the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me here. An owner of land is entitled to enjoy its use, and he has a right to object to the proposals of a private company to take that use away from him. In other words, in my view the burden of proof
  154
  as to whether the case has been made should be put upon the applicant. But it appears to me that in this Schedule the burden of proof is put upon the man who objects, which is surely wrong. If I may quote the Chalk-pit case—if it does not send a cold shudder down the backs of those now sitting on the Government Front Bench—I would point out that in that case the burden of proof was on the applicant who wanted to work the chalk, to prove that it was not against the amenities of those in the immediate vicinity. In other words, the burden of proof was upon the applicant, and that is just the reverse of what I see in paragraph 4 of the First and Second Schedules. It appears to me that the burden of proof lies upon the objector, whereas I think it should be upon the applicant.
  What I should like to ask the Minister is this. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is exceptionally busy at the present time producing new rules of procedure; and I, for one, do not envy him his task. But because of the Chalk-pit ease, because of the Ironstone case in North Oxfordshire, and because of one or two other things that have come to the Lord Chancellor's notice during consultation with the Council on Tribunals, a whole new set of rules of procedure is now being drawn up and it will eventually, we hope, come to your Lordships' House. We have had many debates upon that question and I do not intend to raise it now. But as this is a new departure, I want to ask the Minister 'whether or not the Lord Chancellor intends to consult the Council on Tribunals upon this very important matter in order to ensure that rules governing these public procedures are adequate.
  I have not the legal knowledge involved and I do not know what the new rules of procedure are going to be. Of course, if the Lord Chancellor is going to make new rules, then I think I am right in saying that he is required by the Act to consult the Council on Tribunals. I would suggest to the noble and learned Viscount that he would be serving the public interest if he gave this matter some very careful thought. The Minister, whoever he may be, is compelled to have a public inquiry into objections unless he comes to the conclusion that

  155
  a more simple process would be suitable. I should like to know at some time what is the line of demarcation between a matter of importance which necessitates having a public inquiry, and a matter of importance that can be settled by the visit of one of the Ministry's inspectors.
  There is one other point. It is useless to deny that, as the Bill is now drafted, it is the Minister of Power who will appoint the inspector. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will not mind my saying that, in my opinion, public inquiries instituted by the Ministry of Power have not commended themselves wholly to the British public. I am going to suggest that an independent inspector appointed by the Lord Chancellor should be the one to hold a public inquiry of the nature that will be necessary under this Bill, because the results of that inquiry will be very serious for the objector, who will be a private individual. Under present procedure, in all the cases of the erection of supergrids, which concern the Ministry of Power, the applicant has at least been a State-owned concern: the applicant has been a nationalised industry.
  This is not going to be a nationalised industry; this is going to be a private enterprise concern having statutory rights; and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said that it could have the statutory right to a private monopoly. When I raised this question of independent inspectors when the Electricity Bill was debated—and the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will, I hope, recall with as much pleasure as I do those passages of arms which we had—the noble and learned Viscount said, "If I am going to appoint every inspector under the Town and Country Planning Act, then I shall have to appoint hundreds of them." That does not hold Rood in this case, because I should not think that the number of these cases would run into hundreds. It may in time —I do not know.
  I will tell the noble Lord, Lord Mills, quite frankly one of the reasons which I did not state, but which attracted me to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. The reason why the Minister responsible for the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be
  156
  the Minister of Transport is that the inspectors who are appointed under the Transport Act and the Road Traffic Act are all independent and are either barristers or solicitors, people learned in the law. I am going to tell the Committee that I cannot remember—my memory is perhaps at fault—when I was at the Ministry of Transport ever having disagreement voiced by anybody against the holding of a public inquiry under the Road Traffic Act. The decisions of the Minister were not agreed with in all cases, but everybody felt that he was getting a fair and square deal and being properly heard. I would not say that about the public inquiries that are being held by inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Power.
  So I should like the Committee to be told something about the new rules envisaged for this type of inquiry: whether the noble and learned Viscount thinks that the rules that are being made now are adequate for the safeguard of the rights of the individual; whether he thinks that paragraph 4 of the First Schedule and paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule are too narrowly drawn, and whether they allow the scope envisaged and recommended by the Franks Committee in paragraph 271 of its Report.
  If the noble Lord would like me to put down an Amendment on Report stage I will do so in order to allow him to express the view of the Government on this matter, but if he thinks some other way would be better, I am quite willing to fall in with his convenience. I thank the House for allowing me the indulgence to raise this point. I believe that it is one of extreme importance, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, who has this matter very near to his heart, will not mind my raising this point for his consideration in the task he is at present undertaking.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My noble friend, Lord Mills, has asked me to say something at this stage and I am grateful to him for so doing. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for giving me this opportunity of thanking the Council on Tribunals for the work that they have done on this point. As my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth said, the Report has appeared only to-day and will therefore require

  157
  further consideration and consultation. But I should like not only to express my gratitude but also to express my sympathy with the approach of the Council on Tribunals. It is an important stage in the work in this field which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I both have in our hearts, as well as in our minds.
  I should like just to say one or two words on the points about which he has asked. Of course, we are working on the rules of procedure. He asked me whether, when they are completed, they would go to the Council on Tribunals. The answer is that they will, for their consideration; and I should like to assure him that we are well on with work on the rules of procedure.
  With regard to the present procedure, I should like to consider very carefully and to consult others about the difficulty that my noble friend has raised on the onus of proof. I do not think it is conceivable that the Minister would decide whether or not to make an order on the narrow issue of onus of proof. The inspector first of all, and the Minister on consideration, would view the objection as a whole and with all its implications, and consider whether it was a bar to making the order. He has to consider the proposal and then the objection. But if my noble friend had in mind the sort or narrowly-balanced thing of saying that this issue is really decided by the fact that the onus of proof is on the objector and that on this narrowly-balanced issue he has failed to make out his case, I do not really think it would happen like that. I do not want to go further without consideration, but that is certainly my first view.
  The other point that I should like my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to consider is this. He has been concerned—and I recognise the very reasonable grounds for his concern—with inquiries that finish with a final ministerial decision. The two cases that he mentioned finished that way. Of course, we are dealing here with the Special Parliamentary Procedure, Where the making of the Order is not the end of the day. If my noble friend would be kind enough to look at what I had to say on the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Conesford on Special Parliamentary Procedure, he will find
  158
  that I referred to it as providing an appeal against the Minister's decision. Without debating it fully, I should be grateful if my noble friend would consider that point. It does add a new facet to the problems with which we have hitherto been dealing.
  There were two other matters which my noble friend raised. The first was the line of demarcation between the public inquiry and the procedure under which a person may be appointed by the Minister to conduct a hearing. I do not think it will he possible to categorise matters as falling on one side of the line or the other, and I do not think that on reflection my noble friend would want this to be done. It would introduce a rigidity into the procedure which is the last thing that is wanted. But he will appreciate from his ministerial and other experience that there often arises something which is really just a minor point requiring explanation. If somebody can go down and the point is explained, that is the end of the matter. It is very useful to the people concerned and saves them expense which they would otherwise incur on elucidating the point. Again, I will consider and consult about his suggestion, but that is the sort of difference which one has in mind. On the other hand, there are hound to be border-line cases, and that is why I should like to consider that further.
  The other point was the question of the inspectorate which my noble friend and I have discussed so often over the last four years. With regard to this Bill, my noble friend will appreciate that the inspectors to be appointed under Clause 39 of the Bill will for the most part be required to carry out safety functions and not to help with inquiries or hearings. I should like to leave the point like at the moment: that my right honourable friend has no desire to adopt a hard-and-fast rule on this matter. It might be, because of the subject-matter involved (and I hope I carry my noble friend with me in this), that it would be useful to appoint one of his engineering inspectors to hold inquiries into overhead electric lines and power stations. Again, it might be useful to borrow an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I remind my noble friend that although we do not go the whole way, I, through

  159
  my staff, do take part in the appointment of these inspectors. He will remember that point.
  Thirdly, my right honourable friend might well think the subject matter was one on which he should select someone adhoc—someone who is not connected with the Department, or who is retired, or who comes from outside the Civil Service altogether—and appoint him to deal with the inquiry. I can give my noble friend this comfort: that it would be quite possible, according to the subject matter, for the desire that he has expressed to-day to be followed.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Would the noble and learned Viscount mind if I asked him one question which is now in my mind? There can be two inquiries: the first about the order to invade the man's land, and to give the applicant the right he seeks; and the second—and it may be the same objector in both—into the application for a compulsory purchase order. Is it envisaged, or am I stretching my imagination too far, that it could be the same inspector or the same Department appointing the inspector to both inquiries? Because if so, what hope has the man who has lost the first case of doing anything other than losing the second one?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously, as the noble Lord has said, it is not envisaged that the same subject should be examined twice: but frankly, I had not applied my mind to the subtle piece of cross-examination to which he has just subjected me. But I am sure I can say that the desire would be that the objector should have fair play; and that would weigh in the circumstances.
  But the point I was really making was that at the moment, so far as the inquiries are concerned, there are really three possibilities. First a technical inspector might be appointed to deal with a technical subject; secondly it might be right to borrow someone from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in certain other circumstances and in other circumstances again to appoint an independent inspector. I thought my noble friend would be comforted by that, because it means that what he has fought for stalwartly would, in certain cases, come to pass. I have tried to deal with the points. If I have
  160
  not dealt with them fully I hope that my noble friend will forgive me. I finish, as I began, by thanking him for raising an interesting point which will be fully considered.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for going as far as he has done. Might I ask this?—I know that he will acquiesce. Will he consider, when he has the time—because I know that I sprang some of this on him, although I did give him a broad outline of what I was going to raise—my suggestion that in matters of this kind, as we are starting on a new project, he should consult the Council on Tribunals to see Whether they have any views upon What the procedure should be in these particular cases? Because these inquiries will be entirely different from the run of public inquiries that we have had since the Franks Committee Report. If the noble and learned Viscount would do that, I should be most grateful.
  6.24 p.m.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, while I hope I shall not strain your Lordships' patience, I should like to elaborate that point slightly. It seems to me that, while we are discussing public inquiries under the First Schedule of this Bill, there may very well be a considerable practical difficulty arising. It is true that before the matter comes to an inquiry at all the Minister will have given some sort of sanction that there is no matter of public principle against the authorisation which is sought. But I do not understand that at that stage the Minister will have decided upon the merits of the particular case. Therefore the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised on the burden of proof is going to be of some practical importance, because, as paragraph 4 of the First Schedule stands at the moment, it looks as though the person who would start at the public inquiry would be hte objector. This seems to me to be entirely wrong.
  In the first place, the objector will know nothing whatever of the project which is proposed, and secondly, if, as I hope, the Minister has not made up

  161
  his mind on the merits of the case, it should be for the would-be pipe-line owner to promote his whole case and not merely that part of it to which the objector is going to refer. Therefore, it does seem to me that the procedure at an inquiry under this Schedule should be quite different from that under a planning inquiry, for example, where there has already been a refusal and the inspector is hearing an appeal. The pipeline owner himself should start by justifying the proposals he is putting forward. And not only that: there should be some such system as there is in planning inquiries, under circular 9 of 1958, issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, which would give the objector, in advance of the inquiry, an outline of the case the promoter is putting forward. Otherwise, the objector will have no notion whatever of the case he has to meet, and indeed he will have only the faintest clue about what the pipe-line owner is proposing to do. I believe that at these inquiries it should be for the private company—which, after all, is going to be given compulsory powers for its own commercial benefit—to justify its proposals before the local inquiry under the First Schedule, and then at the second stage for the objector to come along with his objection. I am sure it should be in that order. If my noble and learned friend could consider that also, I should be very grateful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I will consider that, but I must warn my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross against driving too far, in these matters, the analogy of a case in court. It is an interesting part of my functions that on the one side I am constantly pressed to make it as like a court as possible; on the other hand, when I ventured to suggest that a pending inquiry should be treated like a case that was pending in court, I was equally severely attacked, not only in this House but in the public Press. Therefore my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will see that there is a balance to be struck here, and I think I should want to look very carefully at the information the objector had, and the procedure by which that is given to him, as well as at the points made by my noble friend. However, I will consider them, because I am most anxious, as are all your
  162
  Lordships, that this procedure should be made as fair and open and sound as it possibly can be.
  May I just give a footnote to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth which I had not in mind when I was speaking before? If he will look at Clause 42 (3) of the Bill, he will see that it is contemplated that the two matters of which he spoke may be dealt with at the same inquiry, because it is provided that that would not be a ground which would vitiate the proceedings. I thought that it would be useful for him to look that up. I will consider these questions. We are all anxious that inquiries should be of the highest possible standard; but we are equally anxious (I think I can speak for my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross as a member of the Bar, as I speak for myself as Lord Chancellor) that a slavish following of court procedure shall not hold up the matter and make the treatment of it too rigid.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
  On Question, First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Applications for Grant of Compulsory Purchase Orders and Compulsory Rights Orders—Part 1: Applications for Grant of Compulsory Purchase Orders]:
  6.31 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph 7 (1), the first being after "statutory undertakers" to insert "either". The noble Lord said: This, and the next Amendment, deal with the same point. This Schedule deals with applications for the granting of compulsory purchase orders. Paragraph 7 lays down the conditions under which the Minister may approve of compulsory purchase orders for the acquisition of land belonging to statutory undertakers and held by them for the purpose of their undertaking. The local authorities are also statutory undertakers, and it may be that many, if not all of them, hold land which might not be considered to be strictly land held by them for the purpose of their undertaking, though it is nevertheless held for the purpose of their statutory function. I have in mind, for example, old people's homes or children's homes or something of that sort, which it seems

  163
  to me might not be considered to be held directly for the purpose of their statutory undertaking. It may be that I can be reassured on this point. If not, I think there is something which Her Majesty's Government should look into. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 42, line 32, after ("undertakers") insert ("either").—(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD CHESHAM: Again, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that frankly I am not too keen to accept his Amendment, because I had not thought that the situation that he described, in fact, arose. I had thought that when sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule, where a statutory undertaker is defined, was taken into consideration, it would be seen that the extra words, "for the purpose of carrying out its statutory functions", were included in the words in the Bill "for the purpose of undertakings"; therefore I did not think that the noble Lord's Amendment was necessary. But in view of what he has said, if he would be content to withdraw the Amendment I should like to look into the matter, to make sure whether or not what he suspects is in fact the case. If some action were needed we could no doubt take it; but for the moment I should like to look into the matter to see exactly what are the implications.
  LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Lord very much for his assurance, which completely satisfies me. I wanted to be sure. With the consent of the Committee I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether the Second Schedule shall be agreed to?
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I apologise for detaining the Committee yet again, but I hope that you will allow me briefly to draw attention to the procedure under this Schedule. I want particularly to refer to sub-paragraph (2). If I might run through at great speed the procedure that is laid down in this Bill for the granting of a pipe-line authorisation and compulsory purchase order afterwards, it starts with the Minister's approval in outline—or his
  164
  veto on grounds of public principle—of the authorisation, before anything else happens. If he does not veto it, it can go to a public inquiry, when the general route of the line is decided upon in the light of any possible objection. Thereafter, compulsory powers are available to the promoters, and in due course, leaving out one stage at the moment, they can come to another public inquiry for the purpose of their particular order; and finally, any objector who has not been satisfied at that stage can come to your Lordships and another place by the Special Parliamentary Procedure.
  However, as the Bill at present stands, after the Minister has authorised the thing in principle, and after he has agreed on the route, and on all the other major points has given his authorisation, he is then given another veto power before the compulsory purchase order comes to a local inquiry. I cannot understand what on earth is the point of this. It seems to me that it will give no extra power whatever. I cannot understand what purpose he can possibly have in turning down a compulsory purchase order when he has already given a grant after a full inquiry; and I cannot see what extra protection it can possibly give to the landowner, who, after all, has had one inquiry and is about to have another upon which he can, if he succeeds, convince the Minister to refuse the compulsory purchase order. And at the end he can still come to Parliament. Therefore, to give such a ministerial power of veto seems to me to be quite useless. It may be that I have missed something of great importance in these provisions which will explain the whole thing. If that is so, I apologise to the Committee for raising it. But I should like an explanation from my noble friend.
  LORD MILLS: The noble Viscount has perhaps not appreciated the fact that in the case of a cross-country line a promoter will normally apply simultaneously for an authorisation and any compulsory powers that may be needed to carry it out. If the Minister rejects the authorisation out of hand, he should also be empowered to reject an application for compulsory powers without first having to go through the whole procedure of objection and public inquiry.

  165
  It should also be remembered that in the case of local pipe-lines there will be no authorisation of a route by the Minister, but merely an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. Promoters may nevertheless seek compulsory powers under Clauses 9 or 10 of the Bill. As these pipeline promoters will be private companies, it is reasonable that the Minister should be able to reject out of hand an application for compulsory powers, if he is not satisfied that a sufficient case has been made out. The position can be distinguished from that of statutory undertakers who are carrying out a public duty. Generally, the power given to the Minister under the Second Schedule to reject an application out of hand is a substantial safeguard to the landowner which will save him the trouble and expense of objecting to applications.
  VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am very grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will allow me to study what he has said in Hansard, so that I may understand its full implications, and perhaps, if necessary, raise it at a later stage.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Third Schedule:

  PROVISIONS FOR RENDERING COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS EFFECTUAL, &C.
  1.—(1) In relation to a compulsory purchase order, the Lands Clauses Acts are hereby incorporated with this Act, with the exception of the following provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, namely:—

  (b) section one hundred and twenty-seven to one hundred and thirty-two (sale of superfluous land);

  (c) section one hundred and thirty-three (promoters to make good deficiencies in rates);

  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in paragraph 1 (1), to leave out sub-paragraphs (b) and (c). The noble Lord said: Paragraph l of this Schedule, for the purposes of a compulsory purchase order, brings into operation the Lands Clauses Acts, which are incorporated in this Bill, with the exception of certain provisions, in particular subsection (b) —which I move to delete—so that in certain circumstances the superfluous land which has been
  166
  acquired by the promoters under the provisions of the Act shall vest in and become the property of the owners of the lands adjoining. Secondly, before the promoters of the undertaking dispose of any such superfluous land they shall, unless such lands are situated within a town, or are lands built upon or used for building purposes, offer it to owners of adjoining lands in succession. Section 133 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, provides that if the promoters of the undertaking become possessed of any lands they shall be liable to make good deficiencies in general rate, until any works be completed and assessed.
  I understand that these two exceptions are commonly made in the case of Bills promoted by public undertakings, but what we are discussing to-day is a private profit-making undertaking. I should have thought that they were not eligible for these particular exceptions, and that these particular sections ought in fact to apply to a pipe-line undertaking. I am hopeful that your Lordships will agree with me on this, because, after all, we have had some rather notorious and disagreeable experiences where lands which have been compulsorily acquired have not been offered back to the persons from whom they were originally acquired, or even to adjacent owners. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, leave out lines 1 to 4.—(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord has, of course, correctly stated the position as to paragraph 1 of the First Schedule. While I am interested in what he says and in the case he has put forward, may I say that in the case of compulsory purchase under this Bill the amount of the land which will be acquired will be in very small parcels. It will be for pumping stations, and occasionally here and there for actually laying the pipe-line, but, on the whole, the pieces of land to be acquired will be very small and it is not easy to see how there will be any superfluous land for sale under the protection which would otherwise be required. Nor is it very clear to see how any deficiency in rates could arise for the same reason. That is why the Bill has been drawn as it is. If the noble Lord feels doubts about the

  167
  matter I shall be very pleased to double-check whether anything is required in this regard. I do not think it is, but I should be very happy, as I say, to double-check it if the noble Lord would like to withdraw the Amendmnt.
  LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Lord very much for his assurance, which I accept. I am not quite happy about what he says. I was already aware, of course, that the amount of land involved was very small, but if the original owner, who will presumably still be the owner of the adjoining land, found later on that for some reason even a very small parcel of land belonging to the undertaker was no longer needed for his purpose and therefore was disposed of, even though the parcel of land was very small, a most vexatious development could take place. I therefore urge that the noble Lord should consider this rather carefully. But with his assurance I am quite content at present. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Third Schedule agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule [Ancillary Rights that may be conferred by a Compulsory Rights Order]:
  LORD CHESHAM: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, leave out lines 21 to 23.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHESHAM: Again, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 34, leave out from ("pipeline") to end of line 35.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule [Provisions for controlling execution, by virtue of Compulsory Rights Order, of works on railway land]:
  LORD CHESHAM: I do not want to detain your Lordships for very long now that we have got through this Committee stage very well, but I think I
  168
  must just ask your Lordships to bear with me long enough far me simply to say that this Amendment is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 47, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("head").—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  ZINC CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  WEST INDIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.