PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 3 April 1962)

HL Deb 03 April 1962 vol 239 cc98-140 98

§ 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.

101

§ 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.

108

§ 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 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 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 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.

117

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.

119

§ 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 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.

120

§ 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.)

121

§ 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.

124

§ 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 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 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 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: