PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 16 April 1962 vol 239 cc651-774

2.48 p.m.

Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS)

My Lords, before I move that the Report be now received, it may be helpful if I refer briefly to our discussion a week ago. The House then decided that more time was required for consideration of the Amendments to the Bill, and it was subsequently agreed through the usual channels that the Report stage should be taken to-day. I am glad to be able to say that in the meantime we have been able to consider further a number of points which have been raised by noble Lords on the Bill and to put down Amendments to meet them. I would mention, more particularly, the Amendment to modify the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, in its application to certain orders under this Bill, promised by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and also the Amendments designed to take up points raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in relation to the clauses aimed at avoiding damage or obstruction of access to a pipe-line. These were points which I said last week the Government had not fully considered. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is satisfactory that we have now been able to put before your Lordships proposals for dealing with them.

We have also put down a number of other Government Amendments. Most of these deal with points raised in Committee, but in some instances we thought it might be convenient to the House if we suggested alternatives to Amendments put down by noble Lords where these appeared helpful in the intention but, for one reason or another, were not quite suitable, as they stood, for inclusion in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree, therefore, that the extra time for consideration decided upon last week has been usefully spent and that the Report should now be received. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Mills.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for the statement he has just made. I have just been consulting with my noble friends who have watched the Bill more closely than I have, and they are satisfied that the noble Lord has done his very best, through the usual channels, to meet the situation, and we shall be able to deal with these matters in the course of the discussions that will take place on this Report stage.

On Question. Motion agreed to.

Clause 1:

Cross-country pipe-lines not to be constructed without the Minister's authority

Control of Construction of Pipe-lines

1.—(1) It shall not be lawful for works to be executed in land for the construction of a cross-country pipe-line except under an authorisation in that behalf (in this Act referred to as a "pipe-line construction authorisation") granted by the Minister, or otherwise than along the route delineated on the map annexed to the authorisation or within such limits of lateral deviation from that route as may be specified in the authorisation; and if works are executed in contravention of this subsection, the person executing them shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

(2) The Minister, on an application for a pipe-line construction authorisation, shall have power in his discretion to grant the application or to refuse it.

(4) If, after a pipe-line construction authorisation has been granted, the execution of the works whose execution is authorised thereby has not been substantially begun at the expiration of twelve months from the date on which it was granted, or at the expiration of any extension of that period which the Minister may allow, the authorisation shall become of no effect, except as regards works previously executed.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

moved to insert as a new subsection (1): (1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we make no apology for returning to the subject contained in this Amendment. As my noble friends Lord Morrison of Lambeth and Lord Silkin are both for the time being abroad, I felt it was only fair to the House that I should take some part in this myself, because they have taken a very prominent part in the particular issue covered by this Amendment.

This Bill has gradually emerged, from the rather scanty reports in the Press, as being of the high importance, which was indicated not only by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, but also by my noble friends who have been taking part in the Second Reading and Committee stage debates. It is a vastly important Bill. Having regard to what one has already observed of the progress of this new method of transport, especially in the United States of America, with one pipe being divided and taking six, seven or eight different grades of a commodity, or different commodities, by long distance transport, it is a system which will have such general effect upon the transport systems of the country as to make it necessary for this Bill to receive very special consideration indeed.

I think it was my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh who bore in mind, when he was speaking at an earlier stage of the Bill, something that both he and I learned from the great former leader of my Party, Philip Snowden, as to what ought to be our attitude on such matters as this. He would often say, in that rather dry way of his, "I do not think we should be getting too excited about nationalising what is even a national service if it is at the dying end of its career. When any new era in industry is being commenced which is going to affect the lives of the whole of the community and possibly interfere with the existing industries being carried on, then is the time for it to become, in the public interest, the possession of the nation, the guidance of the nation being exercised in the first researches. A decision on which end of development is best in the national interest should be made not upon the desires of private enterprise companies wishing to exploit a particular commodity, a particular area or a particular service, but upon what is in general keeping with the requirements of the whole nation."

It seems to me that the Government have once again slipped up on this matter. It is not as though they are inherently bound to oppose nationalisation. It seems like a disease with them to which they must react. Here is a very great and important stage in the development of the community of which we have always been proud to be a part. This ought to be done primarily on a national basis, under national direction and national control. It ought to be comprehensive in its set-up. It ought to be able to provide full consultation with existing industries, with the final veto of the Government upon whether policy A, B or C should be adopted according to the national interest, and not according to the local exploitations that can be carried out by a separate area scheme.

How far our transport requirements and transport problems in this crowded country will follow in the wake of the United States of America, I do not know. Certainly the Government must have recognised that there is a pretty big drive coming on in this matter, or else they would not have taken what we regard as limited public interest in the matter. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, can turn to us and say, "In this Bill we are not leaving everything entirely to private enterprise. We are setting up certain requirements that will have to be met and we are retaining Government rights of interfering." But, after all, what we want is a nationally owned system in which the national interest is at the basis of the constructive proposals, and not merely a set of negative powers which are being taken by the Government in this Statute.

Therefore, I feel that the Government have really missed a great opportunity for having full control, not only in the details of any particular scheme submitted to them from a negative point of view, but also in the thinking and the construction of the matter, on the basis of the whole national interest. In this, apparently, the Government have entirely failed, because they have this "bug" in their minds against anything that could possibly be called nationalisation. When you think of the concurrent Passage through another place of the Transport Bill, in which similar powers are being sought for the limited areas of the routes by rail or canal controlled by the Transport Commission, it seems an extraordinary thing that at such a time as that, when they come right into the picture, the Government should choose to go on with that foolish policy which they have already started with regard to our great transport system, of helping to lead to the destruction of this or that or the other existing transport industry without any real remedy being provided.

I want to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mills, that the railway system of this country was bound, and proved itself bound, to come to disaster. It was known to all of us, when we were discussing it in the Parliament of 1921–22, what could be done about the railways; and how foolish it had been to leave a whole national requirement of railway transport in such a broken up, dreadful state that there were 146 or 147 competing companies, at a time, in 1919, after the war, when, until there was a railway strike, the railways could afford to pay only a minimum wage of 17s. a week to a railway fireman—an absolute scandal—let alone the fact that, of course, as soon as we had a war such as we had in 1914–18 the railways immediately became a great charge on the State, as they did in the last war.

The legislation which followed led to a reduction of the actual railway companies concerned to about four or five (I forget which it was), and we had immediately the recognition by a capitalist Government that you had at last to safeguard especially the passenger interests. Although you would not have imagined it was possible, the railway companies were given powers to run buses on the roads in an effort to combat the competition which had already arisen by privately owned transport covering the same ground and routes as the railways were already covering.

Nobody now disputes that you had to take over the ownership of the railways in this country. But after a Labour Government had provided a really integrated system of nationally owned transport, what did the Government do? Again, in their hatred of the word "nationalisation", they broke up the integrated transport service, and although apparently they could not get rid of all the road transport they had to dispose of, they let all the nice juicy bits go to private enterprise; with the increasing handicap of terrific loss of revenue to the Transport Commission, ever since, involving extra costs to the taxpayer while increasing profits go into the hands of private transport owners. This is the blessed doctrine of private enterprise which they have adopted and promoted and to which they are sworn.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount a question, as I am not sure whether some of his speech is relevant? Is there anything in the Bill to stop the British Transport Commission running a pipe-line?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

If the noble Lord had studied the Transport Bill at the same time he might be able to answer that question himself.

LORD HAWKE

Do we not then want an Amendment to the Transport Bill?

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Not at all. I want an Amendment here giving full control of this scheme to the nation now. I think that the noble Lord had better think again. I think I made that perfectly clear at the outset of my speech. If I may say so, we have seen in many other directions the same spirit working, which is one of the reasons why the Government, at the end of ten years of Tory finance, have added to their difficulties in costs and losses at the present time.

I hope that before this Bill gets through Parliament there will be a change of outlook. We have not in the past been very happy about the treatment which has been given in another place to Bills which have entered their Parliamentary discussion in this place. Large and important Bills such as the Shops Bill and the Weights and Measures Bill, on which we spent hours and hours, and even weeks, in this House never even reached discussion in another place. I hope that that is not going to be the fate of this Bill. I hope that, before it gets through the other place, there will have been a re-assessment of what is the real requirement from Parliament in dealing with this new, great phase of what I say deliberately will be a new era in the transport arrangements of this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert— (" (1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred, shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain.").—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

3.4 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble Leader has said. I think perhaps we have not given the Government the credit to which they are entitled in abandoning, to some extent, their dislike of controls. They have been forced by the march of events to introduce this Bill to give them powers for what they call an orderly development of the system of pipe-lines. We give them credit for that, but we do not think the Bill goes far enough.

The Government claim that they have powers under Clause 8 of the Bill, and elsewhere, to prevent unnecessary duplication of pipe-lines, unnecessary waste and extravagance, waste of resources and capital investment, the monuments of which we see all around us in redundant railway lines stemming from unrestricted competition. Even within some of our lifetimes the Great Central Railway was built with a terminus in London with the aim of competing with some of the other lines, "tapping" some of the traffic from the Midlands. So it did, and what was the result? I believe (I have not checked this, but I have been told) that the Great Central Railway never paid a dividend; and certainly its competition contributed to the appalling state of our railways in the middle of this century. I hope that any Minister will be sufficiently farsighted to use his powers under Clause 8 of this Bill to prevent something like the Great Central Railway debacle happening again over pipe-lines.

That is all very well, but that is a purely negative power. What power are the Government taking under this Bill to allow them to give a positive stimulus to development in any part of this country? They have set up the National Economic Development Corporation, which presumably will be charged with the duty of planning our industry. If this means that transport is to play its part in the revival and resurgence of British industry this Bill could give the required stimulus, if it were amended. But, as it is, the Government appear to have set their face against assuming any powers of control of the economy. I wonder if they have ever looked across the Channel? They are very anxious, apparently, to take this country into close association with Europe, but what sort of situation will they find in the transport world if they do? My information is that all over the Continent transport is very closely controlled, nationally or, indeed, supra-nationally. People on the Continent of Europe long ago gave up the idea that a section of the economic life of a country such as transport could be left to the free play of private enterprise.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, I am in some difficulty, and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would help me. We are considering the first Amendment, which says that The British Transport Commission … shall have power to construct and operate pipelines in Great Britain. I have understood from the Minister in charge of the Bill, right the way through the debates we have had on Committee stage, that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the British Transport Commission from laying and operating pipelines on their own property without let or hindrance, and that there are provisions in this Bill which would empower them to construct other short-length lines in order to link up one of their pipe-lines with another.

It appears to me that the noble Viscount's argument, Which he has put forward with so much force, really relates to the second Amendment. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House or the wish of the mover of this Amendment to discuss both Amendments together, but, as I understand it, and as I understood the interjection of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, it is the second Amendment which allows the British Transport Commission to be the arbiter of who shall or who shall not have pipe-lines. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for being, with that blunt honesty which we always admire, so forthright, and for saying that, in his view, this means the complete nationalisation of pipe-lines.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

That is what we want.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That is what the noble Viscount wants. That is the second Amendment, I think, with great respect, and not the first. If it is for the convenience of the House I will speak on that one.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I may just point out to my noble friend that we are perfectly clear where we are on the matter. I did refer to the Transport Bill which is passing through another place, and it is perfectly obvious that, although the powers which the noble Lord refers to are there, they will be strictly confined to something which can be done on land the Commission already own and nothing else. They will have no wider voice, unless our Amendments are adopted, in the general purposes for which this Bill is intended.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I would not claim to be a Parliamentary draftsman. I would support the noble Lord, Lord Hawke: let us address ourselves to the question which the noble Viscount has raised when the Transport Bill is before your Lordships' House. I find it difficult to attempt to legislate about a Bill of which I have not the slightest knowledge as a Member of your Lordships' House. We have no knowledge of what is happening in another place until it gets here.

I would address myself to the noble Viscount's main argument. To me this is a simple problem. If the noble Viscount had been addressing his very strong argument as to whether the Minister in charge of the operation and the administration of pipe-lines in this country should be the Minister of Transport and not the Minister of Power, I could have understood that better, because I quite agree with him. The Minister of Transport is the Minister to weigh the pros and cons of this country's transport economics as between one form of transport and another, I can only hope that the noble Viscount will be as strong in his support of the Amendment which I think is going to be moved later on as he is on this one. Honesty compels me to say that I cannot agree that at the present time it would be in the national interest to nationalise the whole of this new form of transport. The British Transport Commission at the present time are struggling and struggling against great adversity to bring the present system of transport in this country to something like economic reality.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Against Government action.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

We can all recriminate. I do not think it pays very much. I would not say who was to blame from 1947, who was responsible for rectifying the errors and omissions that marked the 1947 Act—and there were a great many. Do not let us forget that although in one part of the 1947 Act, we told the British Transport Commission, "You have got to run your industry at a profit, as a commercial undertaking, taking one year with another," in another part of that Bill we put in a clause which prevented them ever afterwards from getting near doing that thing. If we are going to job backwards we can spend all our time in vilification of one Government and vilification of the other Government. I am quite prepared to go all the way with the noble Viscount that the chief culprit in recent years has been the present Government, in their interference with the British Transport Commission, for political reasons, preventing them from ever carrying on the job properly. I am perfectly prepared to admit that. But the strange part about it is that when, at long last, we have a Minister of Transport who intends to run the transport of this country without political interference we have a host of protests about the increases of fares to make it a profitable proposition.

Let us take the position as it is to-day. I have some regard for the Minister of Transport. I know noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have not that high regard. I have a great regard for the brains of the man at the top of the British Transport Commission.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

And his salary, I expect.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I have great admiration for that too, because I believe in paying the rate for the job. Do not let us get into that argument. What has he said? He has great difficulty in finding the top managerial brains in order to carry out the task which has been given to him. He has to face a total deficit of £500 million. I understand that it has been said that this year the deficit on British Railways alone will be about £127 million, and about the same in 1963. Does it really add up to common sense, business sense, in a Bill like this, to saddle the British Transport Commission or the taxpayer—that is what it means in the end—with the huge speculative capital expenditure which will have to be put into transport by pipe-line?

Let us allow the British Transport Commission to enter this field, if they so desire, and if it is profitable. I, for one, would always commend the British Transport Commission and their top management for putting profitability first in their consideration. The Commission have lost enough of the taxpayer's money up to date anyway. I do not think it would be a fair thing to do, it would not be in the taxpayer's interest, it would not be a business proposition, to put on the Transport Commission the task of being responsible for running pipe-lines except on their own property, entering into huge capital commitments for the acquisition of land and all that cost of speculation which this new form of transport must entail.

I am a wholehearted supporter of giving to the Minister of Transport the authority of controlling this project on behalf of the State. I think it should be the Minister of Transport who should have control over all forms of transport so that he can weigh them and balance them one with another. I think that at this present juncture it would be the height of folly for the Government to put on the British Transport Commission, as a national responsibility and a national duty, outside their carrying on of pipe-lines in the interests of their own business, the responsibility, financial, organisational and managerial responsibility of going in for this new form of transport. When the British Transport Commission can come to the Minister of Transport and say "We are now in a financial position, with built-up reserves and surpluses, to take over some of this", then I shall hold a different opinion. That is my view to-day, and I sincerely hope that the House will take it into consideration in debating this Amendment.

3.20 p.m.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

My Lords, I do not think I quite agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken in his interpretation of either the first or the second of the Amendments on the Marshalled List. The first Amendment states, in effect, simply that The British Transport Commission or any Board … shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain. As the noble Lord has just said, the Bill itself may empower people to do something on their own property; but, so far as I can read into it, the Bill gives the British Transport Commission no power on or off their own property. The second Amendment referred to by the noble Lord who has just spoken does not create nationalisation of pipe-lines. As I read it, all the second Amendment states is that the Minister may, after consultation with the British Transport Commission, grant a pipe-line undertaking to anybody.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? But as to whether he is right in his interpretation of the first Amendment and I am wrong, I was basing my statement on many statements which the Minister has made throughout the passage of this Bill: that there is power in the Bill for the British Transport Commission to apply to run pipelines for linking up purposes on land which does not belong to them. In regard to the second statement he has just made, I asked the Leader of the Opposition whether he wanted nationalisation, and he said, "Yes, that is what we want."

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Or the best we can get out of this Tory Government.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am not arguing about what the noble Viscount would like. His reason for putting down these Amendments is to give the Commission the right of veto on all pipe-lines, whoever lays them.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

No.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That is what I understood. I understood that he wants complete nationalisation of pipe-lines. If I am wrong, I am sorry.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

After that gentle interjection, I revert to what I said previously: that all the first Amendment does is to give the Trans- port Commission the right, if all the conditions are fulfilled, to construct a pipe-line—no more. The second Amendment simply states in effect that the Minister must consult with the British Transport Commission. But then the Minister has the right to grant or refuse. So there is no question here of nationalisation. Whatever the Minister may have said, whatever my noble friend the Leader of the Party may have said, does not alter the words of the Amendment or the words of Clause 8. If I may say so, in as few words as is necessary, both these Amendments together do nothing about nationalisation. That is a myth. I hope that noble Lords opposite who are as strong in their anti-nationalisation feelings as is the Minister in charge of the Bill, will not be misled into believing that either of these Amendments has anything at all to do with nationalisation. Indeed, unless I utterly misunderstand the words on the Marshalled List, all we ask is that the British Transport Commission shall be in the same category as any private applicant—neither more nor less.

I listened to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill during earlier debates on this measure. He was most frank. I admire him for it. He said, "We believe in private enterprise. We do not welcome nationalisation. Therefore we are satisfied that the Bill as it stands, is right." One can understand that. That is all that the noble Lord has said: "No nationalisation; private enterprise for ever. Amen." It seems to me that this ideology of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill is standing in the way of what might be, and ought to be, sound common sense. As my noble friend the Leader of my Party has stated, it is grossly unfair that people in one section of the community, if they can fulfil the conditions, may construct pipelines ad lib., but that the one operating service in the country which may make sound use of pipe-lines here or there, for well-defined and specified purposes, should be given no chance to do so. As I see it, that is neither good business nor common sense.

Here is one of the greatest services in the country, the railways, losing money hand over fist, largely because of what the Conservative Government did several years back by disintegrating an integrated service. They are losing large sums of money; they are highlighted in the Press. Here is an opportunity—I do not say a certainty—in what looks like becoming a new transport service, for the British Transport Commission to join in. They own a good many miles of land where pipes could be laid alongside the railways. That is perhaps where most of them ought to be. They have a chance to resurrect what died when the Conservative Government came back into office in 1951.

I should have thought that every noble Lord in this House, looking at public service and good sense, could not fail to appreciate the intention of these first two Amendments, and would accept the request of my noble friend the Leader of my Party to help the British Transport Commission in regard to this matter of pipe-lines, so that the field is not left completely open to the "big boys" to get in at the early doors, to "scoop the pool" and have all the facilities available to them, leaving the tag ends, as it were, for generations to come, to the British Transport Commission when nothing will be worth having. To do that is not only anti-good sense, it is anti-nation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that there is something to be said for these two Amendments which simply put the British Transport Commission in the same position as individuals or companies. I hope that he will start thinking on those lines.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, your Lordships will remember that this Amendment was fully considered during the Committee Stage and was then defeated on a Division. I have listened carefully to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, have said, but my view is not altered that this Bill is dealing with the problem of controlling pipe-lines in the right way. I described it when we debated this matter earlier, as "nationalisation by the back door." The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has in his honest forthright way made it quite clear that this is what we are considering. He said that what we need is a nationally owned system, which should be dealt with on a national basis under a national control.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

These Amendments do not say so.

LORD MILLS

No, but the Leader of the Opposition has made it quite clear what is behind these Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, appealed to noble Lords behind me and said that he hoped they did not share the anti-nationalisation feelings of the Minister in charge of the Bill; he said that I did not welcome nationalisation and that for me it was a matter of "private enterprise for ever". Well, I have never expressed myself in such terms. I have had a great deal to do with the nationalised industries. I realise the mistakes which the Opposition made—

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

And the Government!

LORD MILLS

—at the time they were the Government in dealing with this problem of nationalisation. That does not mean I have ever expressed myself as being against any kind of nationalisation in any circumstances, which was what the noble Lord attributed to me. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has said that this is not what the Amendment says. Amendment No. 1, as it appears, is merely superfluous because there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Transport Commission from applying for what powers they like. This Bill does not deal specifically with the powers of the Transport Commission. Any limitation or extension of those powers will be found in the Transport Bill, which is shortly to be discussed in your Lordships' House. But if we take into account Amendment No. 2, which prohibits the Minister from granting any application for a pipe-line without first consulting the British Transport Commission, it is quite obvious that the intention of the Amendment is to make the real authority the British Transport Commission and not the Minister.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, does that not mean we shall have to wait until Statutory Orders or Regulations are made by the Minister for the exact Regulations he will issue in regard to this? Nobody knows what will happen. But let there be no misunderstanding about this. I think the Minister will admit that in his previous speeches he has clearly reckoned to be dealing with the question of national ownership. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 55), col. 773]; … the Government do not think that public ownership is desirable at this stage. Those words were repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. That is, in fact, the very thing we fear: that you put private enterprise on this alone at the start, you take the cream off the milk, and then, when they get into trouble, you are willing to nationalise. I say that that is reprehensible.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I do not withdraw a single word of what I said, but that does not give to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, the right to say that I am against nationalisation in any circumstances and in any conditions. I was dealing with this Bill and with the question of pipe-lines.

The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, was quite right when he said that there was nothing in this Bill dealing with the powers of the British Transport Commission. The Transport Bill, which is shortly to be considered by your Lordships, enables the Commission to construct pipe-lines for their own purposes, or where the line is to be mainly on the property of the Commission; and it enables them to enter into agreements with other persons for the construction or operation of pipe-lines by those other persons. That appears to be the right approach to the matter.

I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who put his finger on what is a very practical point which I suggest noble Lords opposite are apt to ignore: that, in view of the financial position of the British Transport Commission, and in view of the call upon its energies or those of its successors, it would be folly to saddle it with a responsibility for the financing of pipelines which would mainly be required by private enterprise for the conveyance of their materials.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, may I just put this to the noble Lord? He talks about the financial position of the Transport Commission. Have not the Government contributed to that in large measure by taking away a good portion of their revenue from the roads? And, in the other direction, does this Pipe-lines Bill not seek to derogate from their present revenue by taking traffic away from them?

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I am not going to be tempted to debate the position of the railways. The right time to debate that is when we consider the Transport Bill in this House.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

But this affects it.

LORD MILLS

I repeat that it would be folly to saddle the British Transport Commission with this operation. I think the powers that will be given to the Transport Commission in regard to pipelines under their own Bill are right and proper. I think it is right in this case to leave the development of pipe-lines to private enterprise, always provided that there is public control on a recognised plan and pattern. And I suggest to your Lordships that this Bill does provide that. I am sorry, but I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, we have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, make a most unsatisfactory reply. If he were associated with any business whatever one would have thought that, as one responsible to a board of directors, he would never have made such a statement. We have to face the fact, in a changing world—and we are fortunate, I think, to live in times of change—that as one industry rises another falls. Railways came in when the stage coach went out of business; the motor car came in as the horse and carriage went out. Surely here we have a form of transport which is likely to develop and which one can develop only by taking traffic from road, rail and inland water transport.

There are two forms of transport under the British Transport Commission, inland waterways and the railways, and both will lose a considerable amount of traffic. Surely, if they are a declining industry it is good business for them to take the alternative traffic through their own service. One would have thought that anybody associated with ordinary industry, when in this changing world their business was going to decline and a new line of commodity arise, would automatically change their industry's operations in order to take advantage of the new advances in technology. I think that is only good business on the nation's part.

In regard to the financial position of the Commission, the Government have given Dr. Beeching an impossible task. There is no human being in this country who, on the basis of even the revised capital structure of the British Transport Commission, can make the railways pay, unless in fact you are going to ruin the general economics of the country as well. In order to make them pay, you would have to cut out commuter services and all sorts of other things, such as social services. But here is an opportunity, with a developing form of transport, for them to undertake it and, in fact, to cut some of their losses on the normal operations which they have; in fact, they will be put further "in the red" if they do not undertake it. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be supported.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I do not think it will be very, very long before we finally learn of the proposals of Dr. Beeching, which will mean the continuance of railway services which are paying, and of those which can be made to pay. I think it will then be found that the cuts in the railway services which will then have to be made, to exclude other categories of traffic, will be socially intolerable and will mean that, with the agreement of all political Parties, the Government will have to decide on those public transport services which will have to continue and on how they will be financed. In other words, certain traffic, which is bound to lose money and cannot avoid losing money, will have to continue for social reasons, and as taxpayers we shall have to pay for the losses on such traffic.

It therefore seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government are stubbornly resisting the attempt which we are making to give British Railways a better opportunity of earning profits on pipe-lines. That does seem to be a very sound proposition from the business point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that he did not think it was right that the British Transport Commission should be saddled with the responsibility for developing pipe-lines on a large scale. But he is quite happy to saddle private enterprise with this responsibility, and it is absolutely certain that no one in private enterprise will build a pipe-line, or seek to build a pipe-line, unless he is pretty certain that he is going to make a profit. In other words, in seeking to protect the British Transport Commission from responsibility for building pipe-lines, the noble Lord is at the same time seeking to see that they do not make a profit out of this tremendous and potentially great service.

I think it was absolutely incorrect of the noble Lord to suggest that my noble Leader, in advocating nationally owned pipe-lines, was in fact referring to these Amendments; he was saying precisely what we should like to do if we had the political power to do it. Then, again, the noble Lord said that Amendment No. 2 would make the British Transport Commission the authority, and not the Minister. It would do nothing of the kind; it would mean that, if a service were required, the Minister would consult the British Transport Commission, who would advise him whether in fact they thought the new pipe-line service was necessary. In other words, they might be able to convince the Minister that that particular traffic was being adequately and properly carried by an existing service; or they might be able to convince the Minister that they should have an opportunity of erecting that pipe-line themselves. We should be putting a publicly owned service first, or giving them the first crack of the whip. That is a very different thing from saying that they would then be the authority.

There is a complete cleavage between us, and I think it is a cleavage of ideologies. We on this side of your Lordships' House generally take the view that, if an industry is owned in common by the nation as a whole, that industry should be given an advantage, if there is an advantage to be given, in the way of business to be done—which seems to us to be sound, practical common sense—rather than to do what the Party opposite have done, for example, to hand back the profitable road haulage industry to private enterprise, and then to ask the taxpayers to go on paying £100 million or more per year to finance the deficits on the railways, which have been created by just such a policy. That seems to us to be utterly daft, and certainly not in the interests of the public as a whole. I would submit that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, is now advocating, with regard to the pipe-lines of the future, precisely what the Party opposite did from 1951 onwards and, indeed, what they did in years previous to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, "We believe in private enterprise". Quite frankly, in a number of instances, so do I. But I believe that, in so far as it is possible, where private enterprise and public enterprise are competing they should compete on equal terms. Nobody can pretend that publicly owned railways are allowed to compete on equal terms with the road haulage industry, which is privately owned. Just consider the conditions under which the railways have to operate. They have to own, build, pay for and maintain their tracks. They have to pay for their signalling systems. They have to pay for all their accidents. If the people who run road haulage enterprises had to pay on that basis, they would be paying something like £500 million more than they do at present. So the conditions are quite unequal.

It is quite certain that some home lines, such as the Great Central and other smaller sections of railways, are going to be closed down. Not all of them, but some of them, obviously, will be properties which would be very suitable for pipe-lines. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Mills, to discuss the exact niceties of this Amendment, and of Amendment No. 2, and to say, "British Railways will be quite free to come forward with suggestions as to the pipe-line and to approach the Minister." But the plain fact of the matter is that the Government's opposition to this Amendment—and, presumably, to the next one to which the noble Lord objects even more strongly—makes it very clear that they are opposed to giving British Railways any greater chance of getting into the pipe-line business than the limited one which they will have under this Bill. That seems to us to be wholly sinister, and it also seems that the Government are determined to perpetuate the inequalities under which British Railways labour and have laboured, and that we shall therefore lose the opportunity, which will come if our views are accepted, of British Railways getting into this business and earning a profit out of it.

It is not very often that from memory one can remind the Government that they have been wrong—I did it earlier this afternoon about a matter a few months old—but I say that, if we all

3.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved in subsection (2) after "application", where that word occurs a second time, to insert: subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit to make".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for serving up again this chestnut, which appeared on the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am encouraged by the remarkable amount of recognition which has come from the Front Bench of the points that were made by various noble Lords at that stage into hoping that perhaps this also is a matter upon which their mind is still open and where they may again be prepared to listen to arguments. When this point was discussed in Committee, my noble friend Lord Chesham said that he could think of no sort of modification or variation of the authorisation that was likely to be desired by the Minister except one of route, which,

reassemble in a few years' time and the Government's ideas on this have gone through, we shall again have the unhappy task of telling them that they have made the wrong choice to the bitter cost of the taxpayer.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS
Addison, V.	Faringdon, L.	St Davids, V.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Henderson, L.	Stonham, L. [Teller.]
Amwell, L.	Lindgren, L.	Summerskill, B.
Archibald, L.	Lucan, E.	Walston, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Williams of Barnburgh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Hawke, L.	Milverton, L.
Albemarle, E.	Howard of Glossop, L.	Newall, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Howe, E.	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Auckland, L.	Ironside, L.	Rathcavan, L.
Bathurst, E.	Jeffreys, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bossom, L.	Jellicoe, E.	St. Oswald, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Salisbury, L. Bp.
Cawley, L.	Lambert, V.	Saltoun, L.
Chesham, L.	Lansdowne, M.	Somers, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Long, V.	Soulbury, V.
Denham, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Spens, L.
Dynevor, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Strathalmond, L.
Effingham, E.	Mancroft, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Forster of Harraby, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.	Tenby, V.
Fortescue, E.	Margesson, V.	Teviot, L.
Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Merrivale, L.	Twining, L.
Hampton, L.	Mills, L.	Waldegrave, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

as he pointed out, is already covered by paragraph 5 of the First Schedule to this Bill. I then said that I would be spurred into further thought and research to see whether I thought that to be correct. Having done so, my Lords, I am not convinced that variations of route are the only matters that would be likely to be raised by the Minister at the stage when he is considering granting or refusing an application for a pipe-line construction authorisation.

When the application is made to him, it is made in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule, and one of those provisions, it is true, is that the route should be specified. However, that is not the whole of the matter, because Clause 38 of the Bill, which was inserted by Her Majesty's Government during Committee stage, also requires the Minister to have regard to various amenities—plant life, geological factors, and so on. And there is the further point—I think it is an ancillary matter, but it appears in the Bill—that under Clause 5, when the Minister grants an application for a construction authorisation, he also grants any necessary planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, which may be necessary on account of development involved in laying the pipes, and, I suppose, in building any ancillary works which may go with them.

Therefore, I want to make quite certain that the Minister's powers are suitably comprehensive at this stage. Although the provisions of the First Schedule do not specifically mention the ancillary works to the pipelines at the stage of the Minister's considering the application, none the less I think that, for tidiness and general convenience, those would probably be included so that he could give planning permission for them under Clause 5 at that time, because, as I understand the Bill, that is the only time at which he could give planning permission. If any development were proposed at any other time, it would have to be dealt with by the other procedure under the 1947 Act. The whole of the pipe-dine and its ancillary work seem to me to fall for the Minister's consideration when he looks, in the first instance, at the application for an authorisation.

He might want to alter the route of the pipe-line, and that, as I said, is covered; but so far as the ancillary works are concerned, he might want to do other things. For example, he might want to say that a pumping station, which is, in some cases, a fairly large structure, should not, for one reason or another, be in the position proposed, but that it should rather be somewhere else; and there are no doubt other things which could be thought of. Even if they cannot be thought of now, they may crop up in practice. As I understand the way the Bill is drafted, the Minister could not, with his present powers, require any such modifications to be made. He could modify the route, but that is all. Any other matters, such as the positioning of pumping stations, would, if they were unsatisfactory to him, have to be refused, and with them the whole of the application. He could, perhaps, say that he would he prepared to consider a new application which fell in with his wishes, which he might at that stage indicate. If that were to be the common practice, then a pipe-line owner would have to go through the whole rigmarole again, and would have to send in his application for the preliminary stage under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule, for the veto powers to be exercised or not, as the case may be. The whole matter would become immensely complex and long-winded, and I believe quite unecessarily so.

Therefore, I am asking Her Majesty's Government if they will again think about this and see whether they have sufficient powers in the Bill for the Minister to make a comprehensive survey of the whole scope of the application when it first comes before him, so that he can deal with it in line with all the powers laid on him by the Bill, and particularly in regard to the amenity provisions in Clause 38. I am not convinced that this is covered, and I note that noble Lords opposite appear to share my view, since they have put down Amendments very much to the same effect as mine. With that weight of feeling in the House behind us, I hope that noble Lords on the Front Bench will be able to give us some satisfaction in this matter, although I now raise it for the second time. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, after ("application") insert (", subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit to make,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I think that my noble friend has made out a very good case. It seems to me that he could have gone even a little further, because whereas Clause 18 provides that the Minister shall have regard to safety and to the material from which the pipeline is constructed, I cannot see that it necessarily provides that the Minister must be satisfied as to the size or capacity of the line. Having regard to future development plans of his own Department, the Minister might very well require that the pipe-line should be rather larger than the promoter wished it to be. Moreover, the Minister will alone have cognisance of the strategic reasons. He can, of course, under the Bill as it stands, order the pipe-line to be routed in a different way; but, as my noble friend said, the question of putting pumping stations in one place or another might very well require to be considered from a strategic aspect. I should have thought that this was a very harmless provision and might be very useful, and I hope that my noble friend will accept it.

4.7 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we discussed the next following Amendment, which is mine, at the same time as this one, because, as the noble Viscount has said, we have been thinking on parallel lines on this question, both in the Committee stage and now. On looking at my previous Amendment, I think that that was preferable to the one I have put down now, if only for the faat that it consisted of four words instead of about fifteen; but the intention is the same. However, I note that I have used another word, the word "conditions", and I suspect that there may be trouble over the precise meaning attached to the words "modifications" and "conditions".

First of all, it seems odd that in subsection (2) of the main direct clause describing the Minister's powers and duty, Clause 1, the Minister should be empowered only to accept or to reject the application. It is only common sense that he should be empowered to modify it, and, if that is so, surely this is the place to say it, and to say it quite plainly. The kind of modifications or conditions in my mind were these. It is true that the same thought occurred to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as occurred to me—namely, that the precise location, appearance, and so on, of the above-ground associated equipment might need modification by the Minister before he could feel that he could approve it. But other considerations have also occurred to me. Suppose the Minister had an application for a pipe-line from point A to point B, and that just beyond point B there was an industrial area the development of which the Minister particularly wanted to assist. Suppose a factory or dockyard, or something like that, was situated beyond the place where the applicant intended to stop. Surely the Minister should be able to say: "Yes, you can have your application, provided you extend it five miles beyond in order to fufil another useful purpose." Or it may be near the start of a pipe-line, where the Government propose to build a refinery which they would want to link up to the pipe-line. It seems to me that it should be within the powers of the Minister to impose a condition such as that. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Viscount on this Amendment, even though we are looking on the problem with slightly different emphasis.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, if I may step in the same footsteps as the noble Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to ask your Lordships to devote consideration to Amendment No. 5 as well, and to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 refer to the same point. I thought that I had tried to be fairly helpful about this matter on the last occasion and I feel a little disillusioned by what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, because evidently I did not succeed. In Committee, in response to Amendments moved by my noble friend and the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, I undertook to see whether we could make the matter any clearer

Evidently there was some misconception about the power of modification. I referred to paragraph 5 of the First Schedule and indicated that there was the power to modify. But on looking at this, as a consequence of the complaint that that was not very clear, I have put down Amendment No. 5 in order to clear up the point. On consideration, it did not seem to me to be necessary to go any further than this. I had not supposed that the matter would be raised again in exactly the same manner as it was in Committee. I make no complaint about that. But I do not feel that the arguments put forward by noble Lords to-day make me any more inclined to accept the point.

I would criticise the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, because of the implication it contains that the Minister should be able to modify anything, if it seemed good to him to do so. That goes too far, because otherwise the Minister does not have power to do that. As I said last time, his power of modification is restricted to route. I think that it is important to have planning in mind when considering whether modifications or conditions are desirable. With regard to the difference of definition "between" modifications" and "conditions", I think that it could reasonably be said that the argument is equally good for one as for the other.

My noble friend, who was worried about this planning matter, is really under a misconception. I have sought the best advice I could find since the last stage and I am assured that the Minister has just the same powers under the planning section (Clause 5) as has the Minister of Housing or the local planning authority, if they are doing it. I know, because we had a private argument earlier, that the noble Earl remains unconvinced on this matter and perhaps I had better go into a little more detail. If it was a question of a pipe-line which the Minister was prepared to agree, except for the position of one or two pumping stations—the example which my noble friend put forward—we could consider it in exactly the same light as that in which it would be considered if the local planning authority were dealing with the matter in the normal way. If the local planning authority or the Minister wanted the position of a pumping station moved, they could do one of two things: either turn down the whole application or, what I feel would be more likely, grant the application with the exception of that part relating to the pumping station whose position they wished to move and ask the applicant to put in a new application for the pumping station alone on a different site. That is how it is done now.

That certainly creates a certain amount of trouble, as things always do when they do not go the way an applicant wishes. But the amount of trouble which my noble friend alleged it would create is rather exaggerated, if I may say so. I think that the amount of trouble they will have to go to is little different from that which is gone to by an applicant for planning permission for any other kind of development. The essential point is that the Minister has just the same powers when he is granting a deemed planning permission as the local planning authority, and it would not really be desirable to "mess about" in this Bill with the powers under the Planning Acts and give the Minister different planning powers from those which are available to the Minister of Housing and the local planning authorities, particularly when the planning powers would then be different in the case of a cross country pipe-line and a local one. I do not think this Bill is the place in which to make such changes in planning powers. The position in this matter is really quite clear.

The noble Viscount particularly mentioned the duty on the Minister and, of course, on the applicant to pay due regard to amenity and so on. But the Minister is merely required to have regard to amenities in taking action under Clause 1 or Clause 5, as is clear from the Bill; and I think the position is adequately covered. As regards the dimensions of pipe-lines—if I may refer my noble friend Lord Hawke ahead to what will come in on the new Clause 8, which will be moved a little later on, and if I may be allowed to anticipate that your Lordships will be good enough to accept it—he will find his point is quite well covered there.

To return to the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, it did not seem to me that the conditions he said he had in mind were anything which could not be dealt with by means of the Bill as it stands at present. Could we just look at what might happen? Restoration of land, for instance, is covered by Clause 39. The noble Earl mentioned, with some unease, like my noble friend, tile powers of the Minister to attach conditions to the granting of planning permission under Clause 5. I hope I have dealt satisfactorily with that. This, after all, will cover such questions as burying the line, replanting trees, hedges and so on, and the external appearance of such buildings as pumping stations. Conditions as to multiple use and non-duplication, if I may so call it, may be imposed under Clause 8. I say quite seriously that I do not think there is any necessity for either of these Amendments. I hope that noble Lords concerned will not wish to press them, in view of my explanation, but, on the other hand, will accept Amendment No. 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, when we come to it and I move it formally.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, before my noble friend decides whether to accept or reject the noble Lord's invitation, I should like to ask two questions arising out of what the noble Lord has said. Both Amendments, Nos. 3 and 4, have been tabled in the belief that the Minister could either accept or reject an application and could not modify. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in his speech, said that Amendment No. 5 which he will later be moving is to meet that point. But if, as he then subsequently said, there is no need for these Amendments at all, I am wondering why there is any need for Amendment No. 5, because that does not appear to do what either of the other two Amendments are intended to do. It appears to be governed by the provisions of the First Schedule only, and, therefore, could effect only modifications which might come under the First Schedule. It is impossible for anyone to say that other modifications will not be necessary in respect of particular schemes which come outside the First Schedule. Could the noble Lord answer those points?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised a query on something I have said, I take it that I am in order in speaking again. The noble Lord has not quite gathered what I did say, probably because I did not make it clear enough. What I said was this. He was perfectly right in saying that the Government Amendment No. 5 refers to the existing modifications, and I tried to explain at the beginning that what I had undertaken to consider was whether the matter was left too vague in the drafting of the Bill for ready comprehension by a normal, ordinary person trying to read it, and whether it could be modified and, if so, how. I thought there was a point there and that a drafting Amendment to clarify the matter was indicated, which is Amendment No. 5, as are Nos. 23 and 24 when we get to them. That is as far as I went, and I hope it is now clear. So far as the other two Amendments are concerned, there is that difference: this one is drafting for clarity, while the others do something which I have been trying to indicate to your Lordships.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, could I, with leave, ask the noble Lord this question? I do not think he answered the point I made as to whether under the Bill the Minister has power to insist on a variation of the route asked for.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am, I am afraid, playing ducks and drakes with the Rules of Order by speaking again. I cannot remember the noble Earl asking it, but I have no doubt that he did. I think the gist of his query was: does it make clear that there is power to modify the route asked for?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

On the Minister's initiative.

LORD CHESHAM

I thought that was made perfectly clear in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to draw the attention of people to the fact that that power to modify exists. I think that is the answer to the noble Lord's question.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, the last thing I should wish to do would be to suggest that I am not appreciative of any Amendment that is put down by Her Majesty's Government to meet points that I made on the Committee stage. I entirely appreciate what my noble friend has said about his Amendment No. 5, and I applaud it, because it seems to me to be quite admirable that where a power to modify is to be in a Schedule and not in the body of the Bill an Amendment should be put down by the Government to put it in the correct place in a substantive clause and show that it exists. This my noble friend has done, and I am grateful to him. It is, however, as he said, only part of the substance of the discussion we had in Committee on the point. The other half related to the powers of the Minister which the First Schedule did not provide. I have listened with great care to what my noble friend has said this afternoon and, if I may say so, I think he has made a useful speech in clearing this matter up. It is quite true that the order to modify the route exists in paragraph 5 of the First Schedule. By that I would expect that the Minister would not have power to force it to be elongated or varied in such a way that it was, in fact, a different pipe-line altogether from that for which application had been made. It may be that the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, would not be met purely under that modification of route, but what I think my noble friend has established is that where the Minister is not satisfied with the application as it is made to him, and cannot cure the defect in it by imposing purely planning conditions under Clause 5, then in practice he will refuse it and tell the applicant to go back and think again and produce something more acceptable to him. I cannot see how he has powers under this Bill as drafted to grant part of the application, as my noble friend suggested, and to refuse part, because the application stands as one and the power is only to accept or refuse it. Nevertheless, a great deal of light has been shed by my noble friend upon what would be the procedure under this Bill. I accept his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LUCAN had given notice of his intention to move to add to subsection (2): "or to grant it subject to such conditions as appear to him to be expedient." The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have discussed this Amendment, and I think the points about which I still have doubts can be raised on Amendment No. 64.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, we have also discussed this Amendment, and I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, after ("applications") insert ("and to any modifications subject to which they may be granted").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

4.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "twelve" and insert "six" [months]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point came up in the Committee stage; it was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill." His point was that it was unfair to the property owner that there should be a pipe-line authorisation hanging over his head for a long period. Perhaps I may explain my object in moving this Amendment, which would change from twelve months to six months the period within which the applicant must begin work on his pipe-line. What is there in the Bill as it stands to stop a possible abuse of the procedure by an undertaker who wishes to go into the pipe-line business putting in applications for a number of different pipe-lines? He might stake out claims in all sorts of directions, especially those likely to be profitable, holding on to them and not starting work, and indeed, perhaps having only the resources to start work on one, though still keeping his authorisation for another. It seems to me that if there is a rather shorter time limit, and if the Minister, as my following Amendment indicates, has to scrutinise rather carefully the grounds upon which extensions are asked for, that is likely to prevent any such abuse of the procedure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2. line 7, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I think the noble Earl answered his own question. The Minister, of course, is there to see that any provisions in the Bill are not abused. We have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl in what he is seeking to do, because no one wants land to remain with a threat of a pipe-line unresolved for any longer than it must be. But what we are faced with here is: what is the right minimum? We have chosen twelve months. The noble Earl, in his Amendment, seeks to cut it down to six months. Pipe-lines can be very expensive affairs indeed, involving millions of pounds, and the applicant cannot know at the time he makes his application exactly how long it will be before authorisation will be given, if indeed it is given at all. In the nature of things, therefore, he will not always be able to make the arrangements necessary for him to start construction within a limited time. It may be several months before he is able to do so. I think he must be given an adequate period before he is required to start the work. Perhaps your Lordships will remember that in the recent Esso Petroleum Company Act a period of three years was allowed for the acquisition of land or rights, and of five years for the completion of works. It is not necessary to allow that kind of period for pipe-lines constructed under this Bill, because in case of difficulty the Minister is empowered to extend the period of authorisation. Nevertheless, I suggest to your Lordships that it would be wrong to cut down that period to as little as six months.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

LORD MILLS moved to add to the clause: () The Minister shall not allow any extension under the last foregoing subsection of the time within which the execution in any land of the works whose execution is authorised by a pipe-line construction authorisation must be begun unless he is satisfied that notice of the making of the application for the extension has been given to every owner, lessee and occupier (other than tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of the land and that sufficient time has elapsed to allow every person to whom the notice was given an opportunity of making to the Minister written objection to the application. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we have to consider this Amendment together with Amendment No. 12. This Amendment follows an undertaking which I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on March 26, in the discussion on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part." Amendment No. 12 refers to local pipe-lines, while this Amendment refers to cross-country pipe-lines.

The Minister has power under Clause 1 (4) to extend the period of validity of a pipe-line construction authorisation, which would otherwise expire after twelve months. The present Amendment provides that he should not allow any such extension unless owners, lessees and occupiers have first been given the opportunity to make written objections. I suggest that it is sufficient for this purpose to allow the opportunity of written objections, rather than a hearing, because a hearing would involve virtually reopening the whole inquiry into the authorisation, whereas the real issue will be whether or not the promoter has good reasons for not having started work, and whether he seriously intends to proceed. Moreover, to provide for a hearing would require longer notice which it might be unreasonable to require the applicant to give. A similar Amendment has been put down to Clause 2, as I have already said. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 10, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mills.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend for meeting this point. I agree with him that, on balance, written representations probably are enough in this case, but it is very satisfactory indeed that this Amendment and Amend- ment No. 12 are now to be written into the Bill, and I thank him for what he has done.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Local pipe-lines not to be constructed without notice to the Minister

2.—

(2) A notice for the purposes of the foregoing subsection must—

(c) state whether or not the grant of any rights or the giving of any street works consents is requisite to enable the proposed pipe-line to be constructed and to be, during the period during which it may reasonably be expected to remain, inspected, maintained, adjusted, repaired and renewed and, if it be the case that the grant of any rights or the giving of any such consents is requisite for that purpose, specify the rights and consents the grant or giving of which is so requisite and state, with respect to each of them, whether the grant or giving thereof has been, or can be, obtained;

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, in Committee on April 3. It has the effect of requiring a person giving notice to the Minister of the construction of a local pipe-line to state in his application whether or not any river works consents, as well as street works consents, are requisite to enable the pipe-line to be constructed, and whether or not they have been, or can be, obtained. A similar point will be found in Amendment No. 58 and Amendment No. 63 in the First Schedule, referring to cross-country pipe-lines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, after ("street") insert ("or river").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.41 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2) (c) to leave out all words after the second "state" and to insert instead: (i) that each of the rights and consents so specified has been sought, and (ii) whether each such right and consent has been or is reasonably likely to be obtained".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again a point which I raised in Committee, though at that stage, I am sorry to say, my noble friends were unable to do anything about it. It refers to what seems to me to be the cardinal necessity that owners and occupiers of land should know at the earliest possible opportunity that a pipe-line is proposed to be laid across their land. My noble friends said several times that, by inference, this appears to be a requirement upon the pipe-line owner imposed on him under Clause 2(2) (c), the inference being derived from the fact that he has to state to the Minister in respect of each right or consent whether the grant or giving of it has been, or can be, obtained. As a result, it is supposed that the pipe-line owner would have to ask all the people concerned whether or not they agreed to his proposals, and I appreciate that this is so. I have, however, attempted to re-phrase the thing in a slightly more obvious way and to lay upon the would-be pipe-line owner a definite duty to tell the Minister that he has consulted all these people and warned them.

There is a second point which I did not mention on Committee but which occurred to me when I thought about it again. It would probably be very difficult for a pipe-line owner to certify, as it were, categorically to the Minister, that any grant or consent can be obtained. At this stage he might not have gone very far with his negotiations and some of the matters might be in some doubt. If he were to be completely honest there would be occasions, I think, where he had high hopes of obtaining the consent but could not honestly say that they could be obtained in these particular circumstances. Again, I have attempted a small redrafting to say that he should be required to say only whether or not he would be "reasonably likely" to obtain the consents. I hope that these two small points may be helpful, and I suggest that they should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("state") to the end of line 46 and insert the said paragraphs.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, our noble friend is, of course, right that this point was raised on Committee, and I did say at the time that I would undertake to consider it further. That, my Lords, I have done, and I have come to exactly the same conclusion. I am sorry to say to my noble friend, as I came to the first time. I really do not see that what my noble friend proposes does anything to the Bill, although I do not want to go through all the argument again. He even summed it up very clearly himself, I thought: that the pipe-line operator or applicant cannot state what he is required to state by the Bill unless he has sought the necessary consents. One can boil it down to the fact that if I were to accept my noble friend's Amendment it would amount to nothing more than that there was a certificate that the applicant for the pipe-line authority was not a teller of untruths, and that is about all it would add, because I think it must stand the argument under subsection (2) (c) regarding the necessary information, which is quite specific. He has to state whether or not the grant of any rights is required, to specify what they are and to state in respect of each whether or not the grant has been, or can be, obtained. He could not go along and do that unless they had been sought. I submit to your Lordships that that really covers the point very well.

As for my noble friend's second thought and his draft, while I appreciate what he is endeavouring to do, I cannot entirely agree with him as to the value of his form of words because I should have said that his Amendment, if I accepted it, would add length but no greater certainty. In fact, the position would be less certain, because his proposed words, certainly in the second part of his Amendment, rather water down the obligation on the applicant and rather weaken the case. The position is that the Minister wants to know about what compulsory purchase orders are likely, so that he does not waste a lot of time considering an application which is unlikely ever to come to anything. I think that the combination of "sought" and "whether each such right and consent has been or is reasonably likely to be obtained" does bring in too much element of the applicant's opinion about the consents, rather than the more positive, if slightly more difficult, words in the Bill, whether it "has been, or can be, obtained". While I understand what my noble friend is getting at, I would ask him to agree to leave the words of the Bill as they are and for your Lordships to leave it like that, too.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. I still cannot understand why he will not write into the Bill the requirement that the landowner should be told at an early stage. However, this is the third time I have tried and each time I have been rebuffed. So far as the second point is concerned, "can be" of course imports just as much a matter of opinion as does "reasonably likely". The only way to cut out the matter of opinion on the part of the pipe-line owner would be to use the words "has been", but as my noble friend considers that "can be" is the right form of wording I will not go further, except to say that if the pipe-line owners are really honest, as I am sure they will be, when they make their applications, the Minister is bound to be left in a greater state of uncertainty with my noble friend's wording than with mine, because nobody can honestly say that a consent can be obtained unless his negotiations have got so far that the matter is virtually a certainty; and if he cannot say that it "can be", the only thing he can say is that it "may be". Therefore, I think the Minister would be very much worse informed as a result of my noble friend's wording than he would be if mine were accepted. However, it is a small point and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (c) to insert: (d) state that any requisite permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 has been granted, specifying any conditions which have been imposed on the permission.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another point which arose rather incidentally on the discussion in Committee on the point about which I have just been talking. The noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked whether or not on the occasion of a notice being served under subsection (1) of Clause 2 for a local pipe-line, the Minister would be in possession of the details of the planning consent which would be necessary for the pipe-line before it was constructed. Although there is nothing, I think, in this Bill which requires planning consent to be granted, of course it would have to be granted under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, because laying a pipe-line would be development. Conditions would probably be imposed by the local planning authority on the laying of a pipe-line, and it seems that the Minister ought in every case to have the maximum information before him at an early stage when he is considering what he should do with his powers under later clauses of the Bill.

It may well be that most of the conditions imposed under the Planning Act will be as to clearance of buildings on the surface, or landscaping, or such like; but, on the other hand, I can foresee that some conditions would have a bearing on the safety regulations and other provisions which the Minister has power to deal with under later clauses. Therefore, I think he ought to be in every case in possession of the planning consent that has presumably been granted and that he should know any conditions the local planning authority have seen fit to impose, so that in the first place he may not duplicate them, and secondly, that he may fit in any conditions he himself lays down, so that they do not conflict and are complementary. I hope my noble friend will think slightly better of this Amendment than of my previous Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 46, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I hope my noble friend Lord Mills will not see fit to accept this Amendment, which I must confess I feel is somewhat unreasonable. I say this for two reasons: first, because I believe it will add considerably to the length of time which will elapse before construction work can start on a local pipe-line; secondly, because it seems to me quite unnecessary for an intending pipe-line developer to obtain planning permission before giving notice to the Minister. As the normal notice period is sixteen weeks, surely an application for planning permission could be made con- currently with the notice of intention to the Minister; in other words, the two could go together. During the Committee stage, I stressed the grave inconvenience which would be caused to industry in their day-to-day operations by this lengthy notification period of sixteen weeks, to which the noble Lord replied that this period was necessary so that the Minister could impose safety restrictions. He added that the Minister had powers to allow a lesser period in particular cases. I feel that if this Amendment were accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, or the House it would mean a further unwarranted delay before the pipe-line operator could start construction, and it may be for a pipe-line which may be only a few hundred yards long.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Viscount wishes only to help the Minister in arriving at his conclusions, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that it would be wrong to require the applicant in all cases to obtain planning permission before giving notice to the Minister, because that would only impose an unnecessary delay. There is no reason why the granting of planning permission should be regarded as a necessary prerequisite to the notice to the Minister under Clause 2. The giving of notice to the Minister, which is required on safety grounds, and the application for planning permission are two quite separate things. There is nothing to prevent their proceeding concurrently. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said, the fact that sixteen weeks' notice has to be given to the Minister before the pipe-line can be constructed is for safety reasons, and the period can be shortened. The period of notice in no way enables the Minister to override the local planning authority's decision. Equally the granting of planning permission and any conditions attached to it would not affect anything that the Minister has to do upon receiving notice.

The whole reason for including the safety provisions in Clauses 18 to 22 of the Bill was that the necessary measures could not be imposed by way of a condition attached to a planning consent. There is therefore no danger of any conflict between what the planning authority does and what the Minister does. I should think in almost all cases the Minister would learn of what the planning authority does. I hope the noble Viscount will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Yes, my Lords. I appreciate the point the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has made. It is, incidentally, I think only fair that he should have an opportunity of criticising one of my Amendments quite as harshly as I criticised some of his on the previous stage of the Bill. I see that point. I think it should, however, be a matter of administrative policy that the Minister should have the planning consent, at whatever stage it is granted, before him at some stage when he is considering safety regulations, because although I agree the two will probably not conflict on many occasions, there may be some times when there would be advantage in having the two co-ordinated. I hope some sort of procedure can be thought of by which the Minister will always be able to have available to him planning consent at the right time. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this is the parallel Amendment to Amendment No. 8 dealing with local pipe-lines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, at end insert— ("(4) The Minister shall not allow any extension under the last foregoing subsection of the time within which the execution in any land of the works to which a notice given for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section relates must be begun unless he is satisfied that notice of the making of the application for the extension has been given to every owner, lessee or occupier (other than tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of the land and that sufficient time has elapsed to allow every person to whom the notice was given an opportunity of making to the Minister written objection to the application.").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3 [Diversion of pipe-lines]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is the first of five drafting Amendments, the others being Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17, which are consequential on the Amendments that have been made to Cause 1. I beg to move No. 13.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 9, leave out ("Subsections (2) to (4)") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (5)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 19, leave out ("Subsections (2) and (3)") and insert ("Subsections (2) to (4)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 33, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (4)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 34, leave out ("the reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 35, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4:

Power of the Minister to secure the removal of works executed in contravention of section 1 or 2

4.—

(2) if a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection fails, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice was served, or such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow, to comply with the requirement imposed by the notice, the Minister may enter and remove the works in question and may recover from the person in default, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the expenses reasonably incurred by the Minister in so doing.

5.1 p.m.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, this clause gives the Minister power to require, and, if necessary, to carry out, the removal of works which may have been constructed in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2. However, it seems to me that it does not cover the possible similar contraventions under subsection (1) of Clause 3. The object of these Amendments is, therefore, to give the Minister power over constructions coming in the latter clause as well as the former clauses. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 39, leave out ("or").—(Lord Faringdon.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I think that Amendment No. 17A has to be taken in conjunction with Amendment No. 17B if it is to be properly understood. The Amendments seek to make it clear that anyone who either constructs a cross-country pipe-line or a local pipeline, or diverts an existing pipe-line, without proper authorisation is liable to be required to remove it again. But the Minister already has adequate control over diversion of pipe-lines. Clause 3 (1) provides for him to authorise, or to be notified of, proposals for the construction of diversion pipe-lines. If a pipe-line owner wishes to construct a diversion pipe-line and he does not approach the Minister through the procedure of Clause 3 (1), then the procedure in Clause 1 (if his diversion is a cross-country line) or Clause 2 (if his diversion is a local pipeline) will apply. So I suggest to the noble Lord that there is no real need for this Amendment.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assurance. I confess that I had read this clause rather differently. It did not seem to me that the Minister had the power to call for, or cause, the removal of unauthorised works under Clause 3 (1). But if the noble Lord can assure me that I am wrong, I accept his word and, with the permission of the House, would withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "period" to insert "not exceeding twelve months from that date". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down following an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee, and I hope it will be thought to meet the point. To understand its full effect it is necessary to refer ahead, to Amendment No. 19 which I shall be moving in a moment, although I shall have something separate to say about it when I come to move it. In a sense, the two Amendments are linked. What my noble friend wanted was that where there has been a contravention of Clauses 1 or 2 and a notice had been served to remove the pipe-line, the period in which it must be removed should automatically have been extended. I argued that it was thought that that would be undesirable, because works constructed in contravention of the Act should, of course, be removed as soon as possible. We have tried, by specifying a limit of twelve months to which the Minister may agree, to meet his point by bringing it about that works should be removed at a time of year which would cause the least interference with agricultural activities.

This is where the Amendment links itself with Amendment No. 19, because at any rate the first part of it says that an operator who has to remove his works shall not do so until he has consulted with all the owners, occupiers or tenants concerned. Whereas in the normal way six weeks might be the right period, it might be better for them to be removed at once, before a sowing started or something of that kind; or it might be better to remove them later on, after the harvest, or whatever it may be. Therefore, it seemed to us best to put a limit of a year on the matter—with a normal period of six weeks and a limit of a year as the maximum extension that may be given. Your Lordships will probably have noticed that the extension will still be on the application of the operator who has to remove the works. That makes sense, because if he consults with the owner or occupier of the land, finds that he cannot agree but still goes ahead, then, of course, he is rendering himself liable for heavy compensation in damages. That is the second part of Amendment No. 19, which introduces another new matter to which I shall be coming in a moment. I hope that my noble friend will feel that his point is met, and that your Lordships will see your way to accepting this Amendment, which I beg to move.

Amendment moved—— Page 4, line 44, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding twelve months from that date").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I shall on the next two Amendments express my gratitude. But I cannot quite see that Amendment No. 18 meets the point that I raised, because I was trying on Committee to change the six weeks to twelve months, and the noble Lord convinced me, quite rightly, that that was an impossible change to bring about. In this case, the Bill as it stands refers to such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow, which allows the Minister discretion to give five months, twelve months or fourteen months. I cannot see why it is necessary in this case to limit the Minister's discretion. I tried on the Committee stage to extend the time which was allowed for clearing out the work.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, if I can put it in a fairly simple way, we decided that we wanted to keep the six weeks because in the normal way these things must be removed quickly. There is no reason why they should not be removed in any other way. The idea is that the operator should go along to the Minister and say: "I have consulted Mr. X, the occupier of such-and-such land, and I wish to have three months longer, because of his harvest", or something to that effect. To that the Minister will agree. The idea of the twelve-month limit on the Minister's discretion is to prevent a wily operator—because, for all I know, there might be one—coming along with a series of indefinite excuses; that he has had to send his excavator to Glasgow to he serviced and that it will not be back for a year; or that it has got lost on the railway, or got bogged down in Cornwall, and so on and so forth, the kind of excuses that could be made so that the job might be spun out. That is the reason for this Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (2), to insert: ( ) A person shall not begin to remove any works in any land in compliance with a notice under subsection (1) of this section, and the Minister shall not enter, or begin to remove any works in, any land in exercise of the power conferred on him by the last foregoing sub- section, except after seeking consultation with every owner, lessee and occupier of the land (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month). (4) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement to remove any works imposed by a notice under subsection (1) of this section or of the exercise of the power to enter and remove any works conferred by subsection (2) thereof, a person, other than the person who executed the works, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the person who executed the works, or, where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the person who executed the works, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I come to another of those moments with which one is sometimes faced, when explanation is considerably more complicated than substance; because, in moving Amendment No. 19, I must draw your Lordships' attention to Amendments Nos. 30, 39, 40, 50, 52 and 60, as being very much wrapped up in the operation of No. 19. If your Lordships will allow me, I propose from now on to refer to this group of Amendments as "The 19 Group". Amendment No. 19 (which follows an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee) falls into two parts. The effect of the first is to ensure that a pipeline operator acting in accordance with a notice from the Minister, or the Minister himself, if he is acting in default, shall not enter land except after seeking consultation with the owner, lessee or occupier. The purpose is to meet my noble friend's point that the minimum disturbance and inconvenience should be caused.

The other part of the Amendment also fulfils an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, on the point which he raised that there was no compensation payable when pipes were removed in the case of contravention. Subsection (4) provides the compensation which seemed to be necessary. The next Amendment No. 30 is consequential. Perhaps I had better speak to later Amendments when we come to them, but I might point out here that there are two others, Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, where notice can be given to remove a pipe-line and where provision for compensation in an exactly similar way was necessary. I have put those in, and will mention them briefly when I come to them. I think it is not necessary for me to say more now. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 49, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment, which, as we have been told, deals with the question of notice, to ensure that the minimum damage is done to the land, and also with the question of compensation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting those points.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may" and insert and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may jointly The noble Lord said: This clause would take planning control out of the hands of the local authority and give it to the Minister of Power. None of us has yet had any experience of how this new enterprise of pipe-lines is going to work, but it seems to me that the views of the Minister of Power upon a pipe-line might differ greatly from those of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Not only will pipe-lines be involved, but there will almost certainly be pumping stations whose design and siting will be matters of direct concern to the local authority, or at any rate to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, rather than to the Minister of Power. As I say, the attitude of the Minister of Power would be likely to be quite different from that of either the local authority or the other Minister I have mentioned. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that, at any rate in the first period, it would be very desirable that the two Ministers should be in accord on this basic question of planning, rather than that it should be handed over to a Minister whose attitude might be somewhat different. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("and the Minister of Housing and Local Government may jointly").—(Lord Faringdon.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, Ministers are empowered under various enactments to grant deemed planning permission, without being required by the Act under which they operate to act jointly with the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To insert a provision of this kind in the Bill would seem to be quite inconsistent with the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. In practice, of course, the Minister would naturally consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government (or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be) before reaching his decision on these matters. But, as I explained to your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, it is inappropriate to put into a Bill provision for consultation between Ministers. I suggest to the noble Lord that a provision of this kind would be quite unprecedented, and it is therefore not acceptable.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt better informed than I am as to the precedents in this matter. He assures me that it will be quite a new departure to give a joint authority in this matter, and I have to accept his word for that. I myself should prefer planning control to be under the Minister of Housing and Local Government rather than under the Minister of Power. However, I do not intend to press the Amendment, and, with the leave of the House, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 [Provisions for avoiding construction of multitude of pipe-lines between same points]:

5.20 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mills has been kind enough to ask me to deal with this Amendment, which anticipates the new clause which is Amendment No. 21, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will deal with the matters together. The new clause replaces the present Clause 8 in the Bill. It does not alter the main purpose of the clause which, as your Lordships will remember, is to avoid unnecessary multiplication of cross-country pipe-lines, by enabling the Minister, where appropriate, to require that a line is built of sufficient capacity to accommodate other pros- pective users, and it is then shared by them. It has been put down following undertakings given in Committee by my noble friends Lord Mills and Lord Chesham on March 26, and it gives effect to an Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Stonham.

Because of the multiplicity of Amendments that are before us, I would remind the noble Earl that I refer to the Amendment in his name which was dealt with in Hansard, Vol. 238 (No. 55), Columns 821 to 826. It also gives effect to an Amendment of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in columns 829 to 832; and it increases the penalties following criticisms made in Committee on March 26 by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye and other noble Lords, which are in columns 832 to 834. Finally, it also takes account of criticisms of the drafting of the original subsection (1), made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.

First of all, the Clause as now revised breaks up subsection (1), so that it meets the point of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Secondly, it enables the Minister to take action where he is satisfied that further pipe-lines will follow substantially the same route or any part of it, which meets the point of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. Thirdly, it provides for the recovery by the pipe-line owner, from the persons who will be sharing the pipe, of payments in consideration of the right to do so, which point was raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. Fourthly, it increases the penalties for failure to comply with a requirement imposed by the Minister under subsection (2) to ensure the sharing of the line, from £100 for an initial offence and a further £20, to £500 and £25 a day.

It does not take effect of Marshalled List Amendment No. 19 on the Committee stage, to replace "may" by "shall", which was moved by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, at columns 827 to 829, and which would have obliged the Minister to impose requirements as to the size of pipe to be constructed whenever the necessary conditions were satisfied, instead of leaving this to his discretion. The acceptance of the Amendment moved in the Com- mittee stage, to empower the Minister to take action when he is satisfied that further pipe-lines will follow substantially the same route or any part of it—I repeat "or any part of it", because that was stressed so much in the last stage of the Bill—makes it even more important, in my view, to preserve the Minister's discretion to administer this clause in a flexible way.

It is perfectly possible that the Minister might be satisfied that there would be a future demand for a pipe-line following only a mile or two of the route proposed in the application before him, but I submit to your Lordships that it would be quite nonsensical to force the applicant to construct a bigger pipeline on that account. Even where two pipe-lines were proposed following substantially the same route for the whole of their length, it is conceivable that the particular circumstances of the case might make it desirable to authorise the construction of separate lines. For these reasons, the new clause retains the word "may", and empowers the Minister to take action at his discretion according to the circumstances of the individual case.

I gave very careful consideration to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the penalties should be raised and, of course, my noble friend Lord Mills undertook to consider the point further than he had done. I just want to say one or two things on that, because I want your Lordships to know that we have considered the matter. I think one has to bear in mind that there should be a proper relationship between the penalties prescribed and the penalties under various enactments for comparable types of offence. In spite of the great weight which I always attach to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whenever the word "planning" comes into our discussions, I still think that the offence created under this clause is broadly analogous to planning control offences, and for this type of offence provision for imprisonment upon conviction on indictment is not considered so appropriate as it is, for example, in the case of contravention of safety requirements, which your Lordships will see if you look at the penalties prescribed in Clauses 18 to 21 of the Bill.

Given, therefore, that an offence under this clause should be punishable by a fine on summary conviction, the question is: what should that fine be? It is always difficult to get exact precedents or exact analogies, but the original figures of £100 and £20 were in line with the penalties for failure to comply with an enforcement notice under the Town and Country Planning Acts. I think it was my noble friend Lord Mansfield who argued in the Committee stage that these were out of date, because they were the penalties of 1947. I think it escaped my noble friend's memory for the moment, that the penalties under the 1947 Act were £50 and £10 a day, and the £100 and £20 were substituted only two years ago in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act. Another precedent of recent passage is the Public Health Act, 1961, which provides in Section 4 for fines of £100 plus £10 a day. One had to consider that, but I also considered, as was said, that offences under Clause 8 of the Bill might often be different in scale from those under the Town and Country Planning Acts or the Public Health Act, and larger penalties might be appropriate.

But one comes to another point, that there is a real difficulty in placing too heavy penalties for imposition by a magistrate's court. The highest maximum penalty is usually £100. Exceptions have been made in special cases. In one case, the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, a maximum of £500 has been provided. This penalty, in Section 6, can be imposed if an aircraft is used on any flight without an air operator's certificate or an air service licence. I ought to say that, of course, that section provides also for imprisonment, because it has a safety background, which is not the case here.

To impose a higher initial fine than £500, as the Amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye proposes, would be out of line with powers granted to magistrates in other cases. I was going to remind my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, because we were colleagues in the war-time Government—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh, will remember this—that when we imposed these very big penalties under the Defence Regulations we had some difficulty in getting even lesser penalties imposed, and the noble Lord will remember that in one Regulation we had to put in a provision for minimum penalties, which is something that I dislike very much because, of course, it is a great limitation on the courts. But that shows the difficulty; and that was a matter that one had to take into account.

On the question of deterrence, apart from the increase I feel that most of these companies, which are large and influential, would be affected by the conviction and the continuing penalties. I will not go into other methods that might be used, but I think your Lordships, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, will have them in mind. I think it is not a good thing for a Lord Chancellor to make pronouncements off-hand of possible methods of taking legal proceedings, but they are, I think, apparent to those who have studied the matter, and I say nothing more about that.

I am sorry I have taken so much of your Lordships' time. I think the House will agree that we have really tried to meet the points that were made to us; and in the case of the only one where we have not there seemed to us very good reasons for not doing so. But, on the whole, we have met the points, and I hope your Lordships will feel not only that we have done so but that the contributions which your Lordships made so interestingly on Committee stage have borne good fruit. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

5.33 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment. I take it that we are speaking to the new clause as well as to the deletion of Clause 8. It seems to meet to a great extent the points which most of us had in mind. I confess to being somewhat disappointed that the Government are not considering increasing the penalties to the extent suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. His argument is, of course, unanswerable: that a fine of £500 and £25 a day is negligible to a concern with the financial resources that are necessary to anybody who is going into this business. As the Minis- ter has already told us, it is an expensive business and those entering it are bound to be financial concerns of the largest scale. Nevertheless, I would never question the Lord Chancellor's view on the technical difficulty, from the point of view of administering the law, of raising the scales of financial penalties above a certain limit, and so I would not myself press that point. It seems to me that the new arrangement is going to make a much better instrument in the hands of the Government for the orderly control and development of pipe-lines than was the previous one, and I thank the Government for it.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, it is, I think, most agreeable that we are no longer to see the present Clause 8 in the Bill, suffering, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, described, from defects of verbosity and lack of punctuation, and that in its place there is to be a new clause which meets a variety of substantial and important points which were introduced into the Bill by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I welcome this new clause, and I think it will be a much better clause than the one it replaces.

On the matter of the penalties, which my noble and learned friend has just outlined to your Lordships, I was charged by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye (who wishes to apologise to your Lordships for being abroad on this afternoon) with dealing with his Amendments to the Amendment, and it seems to me that the noble Lord will probably not wish me to move these this afternoon. In the first place, when my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye left the country my noble and learned friend had not altered the Amendment by putting in the amounts which now stand in his name. As it was first put down, it did not contain these increased penalties. Secondly, I think that it is most important that magistrates' powers to fine should be kept within recognisable limits, and that they should not be given a penalty to impose which is quite outside the bounds of what they normally recognise as being available to them. In any case, it is perhaps quite possible that they would not use it.

Be that as it may, I think my noble friend would be satisfied with the new amounts that have been put in, particularly in view of the fact that there are powers in the Bill, in Clause 45, where an offence is committed under this particular new clause, for the directors, managers, secretaries and other similar officers of the company to be prosecuted and fined as well. That ought to be a very salutory power in the hands of the magistrates and those who prosecute, and between the two of them, and possibly with the other expedients to which my noble and learned friend referred, this will meet what I believe to be quite a serious consideration in this particular context. However. I do not propose to move the Amendments standing in my noble friend's name, and I support both the omission of Clause 8 and the insertion of the new clause.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I should like to add my word of thanks to the Government and also to the draftsman for having so sensibly improved this clause, which was in a pretty sorry state when we first had it. On the question of penalties, though, I wonder whether the Government could possibly consider, whilst the Bill is going to an-another place, the question of the "refresher" penalties, the daily penalties. It seems to me that Lord Balfour of Inchrye was on a very valid point with regard to these penalties in relation to the very high capital cost and the probable high income to be derived from these pipelines, and that once a firm has been fined £500 for an offence of this kind, the £25 a day refresher fine might well be derisory and only a fraction of the earnings they might derive each day. Whilst fully cognisant of the difficulties of this matter, which the noble and learned Viscount has explained, I wonder whether consideration could be given to that particular point. Perhaps if the offence continued after a stated number of days the daily fine might then be very substantially augmented, or something of that kind. Then, I think, we should all be satisfied with the clause.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies, may I ask for some clarification with regard to the penalties aspect of the new clause? I mentioned on Second Reading, and I gather other noble Lords did subsequently, that I found the daily fine rather low, especially when one considers the tens of thousands of gallons of fuel or oil which would be going through such a pipe-line. What I should like clarified is this. In the past it was estimated that a fine of £100 for an offence was sufficient, and that one-fifth of that amount was the appropriate amount for daily continuance of the offence. I fail to understand the logic why, with a daily continuance of the offence, it should now be considered that one-twentieth of the initial fine should be the appropriate amount. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, in his earlier remarks, referred to a proper relationship between the amounts of fines, and I cannot quite see the logic, if previously one-fifth was the right amount, why one-twentieth should now be the appropriate figure.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, first of all, may I thank your Lordships for the cordial reception you have given to this clause? On the question which Lord Stonham has raised, which is connected with what my noble friend Lord Merrivale has just said, I think it is important to have a daily penalty imposed, because that shows that the person is continuing to commit an offence. As I say, I am always rather chary of giving what really amounts to advice to other people on other remedies, and I will certainly see that my right honourable friend the Attorney General and I look at this matter carefully before it goes to another place. But what I think is really important is what is likely to be the grounds for a different procedure for stopping the offence. As I say, I think this would be sufficient grounds. I think it would really meat Lord Stonham's point if one were satisfied that, in the case of somebody who was being really difficult, the matter could be stopped.

My noble friend Lord Merrivale raised a point of pure arithmetic which I find fascinating. As he spoke, I worked out what it would cost per year at £25 a day. In years other than Leap Years, I made it £8,725 by the time you reached the end of the year, though no doubt my noble friend will work it out for himself and correct me if I am wrong. But it is very difficult to get everything absolutely in line. As I have told your Lordships, these penalties are higher than most daily penalties. We raised the first one rather further than has been imposed in cognate and analogous matters to meet the feeling in the House. I think that if my noble friend Lord Merrivale were to do some research, he would find that it would be very difficult to get a greater daily penalty imposed, even though it seems rather out of scale. However, I assure him that we paid great attention to everything which has been said, and we have discussed the matter fully and have come to the conclusion that we think this will meet the problem. Once again may I express my gratitude to your Lordships, and ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendment?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, in view of the statement of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross to the effect that he is not going to move the Amendments to this Amendment, I think I can formally move this Amendment myself and ask your Lordships to agree to it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8 insert the following new clause.

(Provisions for securing that a pipe-line is so constructed as to reduce necessity for construction of others

A voidance of Construction of superfluous Pipe-lines

.—(1) Where—

1. (a) application is made to the Minister for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation for the construction of a pipe-line to be designed for the conveyance of a particular kind of thing or of things of a particular class, and
2. (b) the Minister is satisfied that there is evidence of demand existing or likely to arise for the grant of such authorisations for the construction of further pipe-lines to be designed for the conveyance of that kind of thing or as the case may be, things of that class, and
3. (c) the Minister is also satisfied that the routes to be taken by the further lines will severally be, as to the whole or any part thereof, the same or substantially the same as the route or any part of the route to be taken by the line to which the application relates,

he may, if he grants the application, grant it subject to the condition that the line to be constructed pursuant to the application or any length of that line specified in the authorisation shall be so constructed as to be capable of conveying, during such period as may be so specified, not less than such quantity as may be so specified of the kind of thing in question or, as the case may be, things of the class in question.

(2) The Minister may at any time, by notice served on the owner of a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing subsection, impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,—

1. (a) securing to persons other than the owner of the line the right to have conveyed by the line or, as the case may be, by any length of it specified in the authorisation by virtue of that subsection, the kind of thing specified in the authorisation or, as the case may be, things of the class so specified;
2. (b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line or, as the case may be, by that length thereof, on behalf of persons other than the owner of the line of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;
3. (c) securing that the exercise of a right secured by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection is not prevented or impeded.

(3) A notice served under the last foregoing subsection on the owner of a pipe-line may authorise him to recover, from persons to whom a right is secured by the notice by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, payments of such amounts as may be determined in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the notice, being payments in consideration of that right's being secured to them.

(4) Where a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of subsection (1) of this section is constructed without conformity to that condition, the works for the construction of the line shall be deemed, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act, to have been executed in contravention of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.

(5) If the owner of a pipe-line fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice served on him under subsection (2) of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds; and, if the failure continues after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable, in respect thereof, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each day on which the failure continues.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause

Provisions for securing that a pipe-line is so used as to reduce necessity for construction of others

" .—(1) An application with respect to a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation may be made to the Minister by any person other than the owner of the line who seeks the right to have conveyed by the line on his behalf a particular kind of thing or things of a particular class, being, as the case may be, the kind of thing or things of the class which the line is designed to convey.

(2) Where an application with respect to a pipe-line is made under the foregoing subsection to the Minister he shall serve on the owner of the line and the applicant notice of the time (being some time not less than twenty-one days from the date of the service of the notice) at which the question of conferring on the applicant the right sought by him will be considered by the Minister, and the owner and the applicant shall be entitled to be heard when that question is so considered.

(3) If after taking the question aforesaid into consideration the Minister is satisfied that the line could, without prejudice to the proper and efficient operation thereof for the purpose of the conveyance on behalf of the owner thereof in the quantity required by him of the kind of thing, or things of the class, which it is designed to convey, be so operated as to permit of the conveyance thereby on behalf of the applicant of the kind of thing, or things of the class, the right to the conveyance of which is sought by the applicant, he shall declare that he is so satisfied.

(4) Where the Minister makes under the last foregoing subsection a declaration with respect to a pipe-line he may by notice served on the owner of the line impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,—

1. (a) securing to the person whose application resulted in the making of the declaration the right to have conveyed by the line the kind of thing to which the application related or, as the case may be, things of the class to which it related;
2. (b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line on behalf of that person of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;
3. (c) securing that the exercise of a right secured by virtue of paragraph (a) of this subsection is not prevented or impeded.

(5) A notice served under the last foregoing sub-section on the owner of a pipeline may authorise him to recover, from the person to whom a right is secured by the notice by virtue of paragraph (a) of that subsection, payments of such amounts as may be determined in accordance with provisions in that behalf contained in the notice, being payments in consideration of the right's being secured to him.

(6) If the owner of a pipe-line fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a notice served on him under subsection (4) of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred pounds; and, if the failure continues after his conviction, he shall be guilty of a further offence and liable, in respect thereof, to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds for each day on which the failure continues."

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this second new clause follows an undertaking by my noble friend Lord Mills, given in Committee On 26th March last [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 55), cols. 834 and 835], and it gives effect to the substance of the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in the Marshalled List, Amendment No. 22. The purpose of the clause is to enable the Minister to compel the owner of a cross-country pipe-line who is not using it fully to share it with some other person. The Minister must first be satisfied, after hearing representations from both the owner of the line and the applicant who wishes to share its use, that the line could be so used without prejudice to its proper and efficient operation for the purpose of the conveyance on behalf of the owner thereof in the quantity required by him of the kind of thing, or things of the class, which it is designed to convey.

In other words, he must be satisfied both that it is technically feasible for the line to be shared, and that the owner will not be prevented by sharing from using it to the full extent that he himself wishes. These powers will enable the Minister, by ensuring that existing pipe-line capacity is fully used, to reduce the need for the construction of new pipe-lines. The clause is therefore supplementary to the new clause which I have just moved in the preceding Amendment, which can be applied only at the time a pipe-line construction authorisation is being granted. There are many fascinating by-ways into which one could go at this point, including the history of the United States, its legislation, and its litigation over the past nearly 60 years, but I do not think the moment is quite appropriate to do that. Therefore I will spare your Lordships those extra words, and, I beg to move.

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

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am really delighted that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to put this clause into the Bill. It seemed that as the Bill orginally stood there was a considerable gap in the Minister's powers, in that he could impose these sharing arrangements only if he thought about them in time to impose conditions at the stage when the pipe-line was first constructed. He had at that time no power to impose sharing arrangements at a later date if it became clear that this should properly be done. Now that this clause has come in to fill the gap, I am very pleased indeed to see it. I think I may say the same as regards the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye as I did on the previous occasion: I do not think that he would wish me to move them, so I will confine myself to welcoming wholeheartedly this now clause.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that the addition of this clause is an advantage, and it gives the Minister more powers. However, I wonder whether the implications have fully been worked out. It seems to me that, if the provision is to be of any use, it means that the Minister must have information in his possession before giving an authorisation to the initial applicant, because if the work has been begun, as things are in the Bill at present, the plans cannot be altered short of digging up the whole pipe-line and relaying with a pipe of a different size. This seems to presuppose a very efficient economic intelligence service, that will really be able to tell the Minister what are the needs of industry for transport of this nature and what they are likely to be in the future. Under an earlier clause, the Minister certainly has power, but unless he has full information, it seems to me that this power cannot be of as much use as it might be.

Moreover, there is the question of common carrier obligations. When he is told to provide a pipe of sufficient size to carry his own goods and goods of other people, can the original applicant confine himself to carrying his own goods or is he bound to carry other people's goods in his pipe-line? It occurs to me that the cost of a pipe-line will be such that, unless it is in use 24 hours a day, it might easily not be financially sound. An applicant may be reluctant to enlarge the diameter of his equipment if he thinks there is any danger of there not being sufficient traffic to keep his line fully occupied. These are the sort of considerations that seem to arise and which I feel have not been explained in connection with the Bill. I wonder whether the Government have these points in mind.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, again I am grateful for what has been said. With regard to the noble Earl's first point, I suppose that those who want to share the line and make application would probably be able to learn from the output and service whether the pipe-line is being used to capacity or not. Then it would be a question of deciding whether it was being used to capacity or not, and whether the new user would affect the efficiency of the first user.

On the noble Earl's point about common carrier obligations, I want to make clear that the purpose of the clause is to minimise interference with other people's land by reducing the need for new pipe-lines. It is not the intention to enable the Minister to impose common carrier obligations on the pattern commonly applied in the United States, because these obligations would require the owner to accept traffic from other persons whether he has spare capacity or not, and that is quite a different matter. I said that I would spare your Lordships the history of the United States from the Hepburn Act of 1906, but may I just say that it deals with specific commercial problems according to the geography of the United States, with very much larger transport links than we have. I do not think that I need go into the particular commercial disputes. I am sure that the noble Earl is familiar with them, as I am. We are dealing here with a separate and more limited problem, where a person thinks that there is room in a pipe-line, wants to use it and makes an application. I am sure that this will be a useful provision and ask your Lordships to agree to the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Orders for compulsory acquisition of land for pipe-line construction]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, earlier your Lordships accepted Amendment No. 5 in order to clarify the modification that could be made. If that was necessary in Clause 1, it is also necessary in Clause 9. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 32, after ("applications") insert ("with respect to any modification subject to which such orders may be made").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Orders for compulsory acquisition of rights over land for pipeline construction]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is the same point in Clause 10. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 10, at end insert ("or of any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, in Committee, I gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, to put down an Amendment to ensure that compulsory rights orders should not authorise the disregard of any by-laws made by river boards. This Amendment completely covers the point; indeed, it goes further, by applying to statutory instruments as well as to bylaws. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, is not personally present to receive his "lollipop", but I hope that I shall learn that he is content with it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 10, at end insert ("or of any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)

THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE

My Lords, I am very grateful for that assurance about the river boards, and on behalf of the River Boards Association I thank the noble Lord.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Burden, I would thank the Government for having given him an even larger "lollipop" than he asked for.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11:

Compensation in respect of compulsory rights orders

11.—

(2) Where in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation in respect of that loss from the person in whose favour the order was made, or where the owner of the pipe-line is not that person and the right in the exercise of which the loss was suffered was exercised by that owner, from that owner.

6.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1) to insert: ( ) For the purposes of assessing any compensation to be paid by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, sections fourteen, fifteen and sixteen of the Land Compensation Act, 1961, shall apply as if the interest in land depreciated by the making of the compulsory rights order had been compulsorily acquired under the provisions of that Act. ( ) In the application of the foregoing subsection to Scotland, for the reference to the Land Compensation Act, 1961, there shall be substituted a reference to sections two, three and four of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act. 1959.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a matter which I regard as of considerable importance in the field of compensation for compulsory rights orders. As your Lordships will know, compensation for compulsory purchase orders under Clauses 9 and 10 will be dealt with in accordance with the code which is laid down in the Land Compensation Act, 1961, for England and the Town Planning (Scotland) Act, 1959, for Scotland. That particular code, however, does not apply to the purchase of compulsory rights, and so far as I know the full provisions for compensation in that case must rest in the provisions of this Bill as they now stand and, in particular, Clause 11.

In cases of compulsory purchase of land, rather than of rights, Parliament has seen fit to lay down a very complex code which gives to the owner of the land which is being compulsorily acquired compensation for various future planning possibilities which might have brought him a greater amount of money for his land than if it were to be considered merely in the light of the conditions existing at the time of the notice to treat. Among other things, the provisions of the 1961 Act now provide that notice is to be taken of such matters as are in the development plan, and of the types of development which are specified in the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—small matters of rebuilding and 10 per cent. increase in size and such things. Notice is also to be taken of the situation which can arise if the land in question forms part of the comprehensive development area. All sorts of things might be put on the land; for instance, shops, offices and houses; or, indeed, on a particular part it might be a whole street. None the less, account is taken of the potentialities of the new area that will be created after comprehensive development.

In the case of a compulsory rights order the surface of the land is sterilised and no development of any sort will be allowed on it. Therefore, although the land is not compulsorily acquired, it comes to the same thing, so far as the owner is concerned, because whatever planning permission were granted to him, if it were not for a pipe-line, he could not take advantage of that and could do nothing whatever with his land except to leave it a vacant site.

I am seeking in this Amendment to give the landowner, where it is only a compulsory right which is required from him, the same sort of protection, code and compensation as would apply to him if there were a compulsory purchase order for the land itself. I hope that this course will commend itself to the Government: otherwise, what I foresee happening is not so much that the man over whose land compulsory rights are acquired will not get his compensation, but that there will be endless arguments between the experts on both sides before the Lands Tribunal, the cost will be enormous and the time wasted prodigious. It seems to me that it would be better to put in this Bill the same code as applies to the compulsory purchase order and so clear up the matter and make it plain. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 19, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has grounds for the fears which he has expressed. If he will look at the words on page 9, line 16, he will see that they are: … proves that the value of his interest is depreciated by reason of the making of the order. The essential question that my noble friend has raised is whether account is taken of any reasonable prospect of development in the same way as is done where the land itself, as opposed to the rights only, is compulsorily acquired. I believe that any question of preventing development which could reasonably have been expected at the time the order was made will be taken into account under the Bill as it stands and that the Amendment is unnecessary.

The value of a person's interest in land (for the depreciation of which he will receive compensation) means market value, and in assessing this account will be taken of the possibilities of future development. I am sure that my noble friend is more familiar than I am with all the intricacies of the Rajah's case and the other notable pieces of litigation which surround this charming field of the law. But what has to be determined by the Lands Tribunal, in measuring depreciation, is what is the effect on the value of land subject to a compulsory rights order of the limitation on its use effected by the right to place a pipe-line therein. This is a question of fact into which all such considerations as the effect on future development must, as a matter of common sense, enter. It is very unlikely that a landowner seeking compensation would fail to bring such considerations to the attention of the Lands Tribunal.

My noble friend said, with an air of regret, that it might mean the production of plans and so on. I would only tell him, to cheer him on his legal path, that I remember well that in almost the first of these valuation arbitrations which I did, a long time ago, I was appearing for the person whose land was being acquired, and the reply of the acquiring authority was that I was really asking not for compensation for the value of the land but for the value of the most interesting and imaginative plans which my own architect had put in for its use. However, I can assure my noble friend, in order to encourage him, that that had not the slightest effect, and we received a considerable slice of money which was due compensation for our loss. I hope that he will not press this Amendment. I am sorry, after meeting him on so many points, that I cannot meet him on this, but I do not think his Amendment is necessary.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, in view of my noble and learned friend's charming reply, I will not press this Amendment. I may add that, so far as I can see, I was being entirely altruistic in moving the Amendment at all. I think that some difficulty might arise. I agree that in the normal simple case there is unlikely to be any difficulty, but the point of the provisions of the Land Compensation Act has been to take care of some of the much more difficult cases, such as the comprehensive development areas, where, of course, it is not possible in the normal way to say what the actual piece of land is likely to be used for, in view of the complete redevelopment of the whole area; and in such cases provision is made for compensation to be paid on the pretext that some building of a certain class—shops and offices, for example—would be erected on that site. This is the sort of thing which is very valuably controlled by the provisions of the 1961 Act and with which it would be almost impossible to deal were it not for statutory provisions of that sort. I wonder if my noble and learned friend would have one further look at that, because I think it is a difficulty which I do not think can be met, apart from statutory provision. However, in view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment has been put down as the result of an undertaking given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford, who had complained in Committee that Clause 11 (2), as drafted, was difficult to follow. It was, my Lords. It will not be now.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 20, after ("in") insert ("consequence of").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am grateful for this Amendment. It was not merely that the subsection was difficult to follow; as it stood, it did not make sense. I am glad that this Amendment, which makes sense of the subsection, has been put forward. Curiously enough, almost the exact words of the Amendment occurred both to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and to me, but we both lacked the confidence boldly to assert it. I am glad the matter has now been put right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.12 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "order" (where that word first occurs) to insert: or in consequence of the exercise of a right over land granted by any other person to the owner of a pipe-line to construct and use a pipe-line,

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is another point on compensation, and it arises from what seems to me to be the most extraordinary anomaly in the Bill as now drafted. If there are two owners of land, and a pipe-line is constructed through the land of one of them, it would depend purely and solely upon whether that line is constructed under a voluntary agreement or as a result of a compulsory rights order whether the other man, upon suffering some damage from the pipe later, will have to prove negligence or not, As the Bill stands, if it has been necessary to take a compulsory rights order to take a pipe through neighbouring land and then, as it so happens, the thing blows up or there is some damage caused to the neighbour's land, there will be an absolute liability for damage to chattels and the pipe-line owner would have to pay automatically. If, however, the man through whose land the pipe is put has been so accommodating as to allow the pipe-line company to have a voluntary agreement, then if damage occurs to his neighbour, that neighbour would have to prove negligence before he could recover any damages whatever. This seems so illogical and extraordinary that I have attempted to put down an Amendment to meet the point.

It may be that it should be dealt with in a separate clause, but, nevertheless, dealt with I am sure it must be because it has nothing whatever to do with the neighbour whether the right is taken compulsorily or by voluntary agreement. He has no say in the matter. Indeed, he probably knows nothing of it, and yet he is liable to be seriously pre- judiced if as a neighbour he is an accommodating and charming man who allows the pipe-line company to go through without difficulty. I believe that this is a point which Her Majesty's Government ought seriously to consider before allowing this Bill to go any further, because otherwise I am sure that injustice is likely to be done. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 21, after ("order") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I can appreciate what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is trying to achieve for the neighbour of an owner of land through which a pipe-line is going. But there are one or two points on which I should be most grateful to the Minister for some clarification. First of all, if this Amendment is agreed to, would it have any retrospective effect? In other words, would it undermine the basis on which past agreements have been negotiated, and also would it give a further opportunity to an owner of land through which a pipe-line goes to reopen negotiations with the owner of a pipe-line? In other words, what I am sincerely hoping is that, if this Amendment is agreed to, it only looks forward; that is to say, it does not affect any agreements which have already been reached, and it would not give a second opportunity to an owner of land through whose land a pipe-line goes, to re-enter into negotiations with regard to that pipe-line.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I will try to explain the position as clearly as I can to my noble friend Lord Merrivale, because I think he has put his finger on some of the difficulties which this Amendment raises. I would start by reminding your Lordships that subsection (2) of Clause 11 provides that where, in consequence of the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation from the pipe-line owner. The Amendment would provide, in addition, for compensation to persons who suffered loss in consequence of the exercise of rights under a voluntary wayleave granted by somebody else. The Amend- ment does not seek to protect the landowner who actually grants a wayleave, because it must be assumed that he acts advisedly and ensures that his own interests are covered. It merely seeks to protect the position of third parties. Our difficulty is that to admit the principle of the Amendment would imply that there was some justification for giving special protection to third parties who might be affected by the construction or operation of a pipe-line as distinct from any other form of industrial development. That, I am afraid, I cannot accept. As my noble friend Lord Mills explained in Committee, the Government decided against introducing the principle of absolute liability generally in the Bill, and the same arguments apply here.

I come now to the point which Lord Colville of Culross put with such force; that subsection (2) will protect third parties where compulsory rights are taken, and that the same should apply in the case of voluntary wayleaves. The answer to my noble friend is that the clause is intended primarily to protect landowners affected by a compulsory rights order and persons having chattels on their land, for example, tradesmen's vans and the like. These are the people whom a landowner negotiating a voluntary wayleave would also normally protect, if only to ensure that he himself was not liable. It is doubtful how far subsection (2) would protect adjoining landowners, because the courts would probably hold that the words in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order are aimed at damage done in laying or altering a pipe-line and could not be construed as covering more remote results. As my noble friend will appreciate, it would be very undesirable to change the wording, because this would cast doubt on the corresponding provision of Section 18 of the Land Powers (Defence) Act.

Surely, the short answer is this. If someone were giving a compulsory way-leave, he would normally protect the third parties who were covered by the Amendment in the negotiations. He would say, "Well, you must protect me and you must take the responsibility for third parties". And if he does not do that he is a very silly man. But I do not think that we can go tearing up the agreement he makes and substituting something for it. I think that would be a wrong course to take. We must rely on the good sense and acumen of landowners to see that they cover that point.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am a little puzzled by one thing that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his last speech. Do I understand that he thinks that the liability imposed by subsection (2) applies only (if I may express it thus) to accidents caused in the laying of the pipeline in pursuance of a compulsory rights order, and does not cover damage caused by any subsequent accident to the pipeline, such as an explosion? Is he convinced that the subsection has that limitation?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I do not go so far as that. I said that it was doubtful how far it would protect the adjoining landowners, because one would have to look at the construction which the courts would place on the words "in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order". How long it would take for the damage to show will always be a question of fact. But the point I was making is that I think it is at any rate doubtful whether the courts would hold further than I indicated. I do not think it affects our main point, and if my noble friend considers it further I believe that he will see that it is a general point which ought to be borne in mind.

LORD CONESFORD

I was only wondering what would be the position of the landowner. My noble and learned friend said that no doubt he would be able to cover certain risks by insurance. If I understand the position now correctly, where there is a compulsory rights order, without insurance he will be covered for damage, so to speak, at the initial stage of the laying of the pipeline; but if he wants to cover himself subsequently against accidents caused by, say, an explosion, he will have to look after that and cover himself by insurance; for the owner of the pipeline will be under no sort of obligation to insure against such an accident to third parties.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think that in that last statement my noble friend has over-simplified the question of causation, but I shall certainly look into what he has said. But one comes back to the original point: that if somebody grants a voluntary wayleave he ought to exact, as one of the conditions of granting it, that the same liability will be covered by the grantee as will be done in the case of compulsory acquisition of rights. That is really the point of the matter.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

My Lords, might I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor whether, in the case quoted by the noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, if any such transaction did take place, the right of way given by one person to another, such a gift could be offered and accepted without first going to the planning authority to decide whether the piece of land in question could be used for other purposes? Would that not be likely to cause a very highly complicated situation? We should have the planning authority's considerations side by side with the kindly offer of one person to another of some rights over his land.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I think the answer to that is that before the owner of the pipe-line, the person who wants the wayleave, can obtain permission to put the pipe-line there, he must satisfy the planning aspect, as well as every other aspect. However, we are dealing with a hypothesis where he has satisfied the planning aspect, and we then come to the narrower question of whether the owner of the pipe-line obtains the right to lay it by agreement with the landowner or by compulsion. Where my noble friend and I join issue, for once, is that my noble friend says there ought not to be the position in which if the pipe-line owner has to resort to compulsion then there is protection against third parties, but that if he does it by contract there is not. I say that if the pipe-line owner makes his contract he ought to ensure the same protection for third parties as would be given if it were a compulsory transaction. That is really the difference between us. My difficulty is that if I abandon that position I am accepting a much wider degree of absolute liability than would otherwise be the case; and that I cannot do.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I find my noble and learned friend's reply profoundly disquieting. It seemed to me that we had reached a stage in Committee when it had come clear that a third party, when a compulsory rights order had been made, had got something in the nature of absolute liability. My noble and learned friend now says that is not necessarily the case; and, indeed, that he does not know whether the courts would so interpret the Bill. My noble and learned friend further says that he is not sure how far the protection under Clause 11, subsection (2), would extend to cover a person through whose land a compulsory rights order goes; and my noble and learned friend further agrees with me that the anomaly to which I pointed is, in fact, a true one.

As I understand his argument, there are two difficulties in his way. First, he does not wish to impose any further form of absolute liability than at present exists; and, second, that if he were to change the wording in this clause to make it clear what the law was intended to be, he would in some way prejudice Her Majesty's Government's position under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, 1958, by which Government pipe-lines are laid and for which compensation, I believe, is provided for in the regulations made by the Treasury under that Act. This Bill is meant to lay down a code for pipe-lines which are to last, presumably, for a very considerable time, and the code is intended to cover every possibility and every eventuality that may crop up. Yet here, enshrined in the only part of the Bill which lays down the rights of compensation on compulsory rights order, is this complete obscurity, which not even my noble and learned friend can explain; and your Lordships are asked to pass this Bill to another place without even knowing what the compensation is to be for.

I must say that I find this state of affairs very disquieting, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government ought to look at this again. It might be that they would prejudice their own case to some degree under the Land Powers (Defence) Act, but if this Bill is intended as a book of rules for pipe-line construction in the future I think it is monstrous that this clause should be passed without anybody having the faintest idea what it means and what protection it gives to anybody. I do hope that Her Majesty's Government will do something about this, otherwise, as I say, it will be a disgraceful state of affairs.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should just like to make clear to my noble friend, which I am afraid I have not done, that nothing that I said was intended to derogate from the protection that has generally been assumed to be given by the Bill. I would again remind your Lordships of the words of subsection (2) of Clause 11: Where in the exercise of any right conferred by a compulsory rights order a person suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled to compensation … from the pipe-line owner. I want to affirm that. There is no question of any doubt about that. All I said—and this is what my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford asked me about—was that when one comes to consider the words, "in consequence of the exercise of any right", that is a matter on which the courts might take a more limited view. I thought it only fair that that point should be made. But there is no derogation at all from that position, that the person who suffers loss by reason of damage to or disturbance of enjoyment of land or chattels is entitled to compensation from the pipe-line owner. We start from that.

I still say that the only point between my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and myself is that he wants to extend that to persons who suffer loss in consequence of the exercise of rights under a voluntary wayleave granted by somebody else. That is really the difference between us, and I think he will agree with me (and I would ask him to look into it again) that to admit the principle of the Amendment would imply that there was some justification for giving special protection to third parties who might be affected by the construction or operation of pipe-lines, as distinct from any other form of industrial development. He is asking for the compensation to apply in the case of a voluntary agreement negotiated on equal terms between two people, and I am saying that compensation should apply only where there is compulsory action. That is the position between us. I think he will on reflection see that to depart from the position I have just stated in acknowledging the case of voluntary agreement, would be making a departure in principle. And I think he is underestimating the ability and common sense of the ordinary landowner who is giving a voluntary wayleave to think he will not provide for this position in his arrangements with the pipe-line owner. I am always ready to consider what my noble friend says, but I hope he will consider my arguments because I think on reflection he will find they are not deserving of such vitriolic words as he used a moment or so ago.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is really a lawyers' picnic and it is terribly difficult to understand. Do I understand that the subject of compensation is this. Assume a case where the owner of land has made a voluntary agreement to allow a pipe-line to go through, and some other owner of land into which the pipeline may not necessarily go at all claims that he has received some damage by reason of his neighbour's acceptance of that pipe-line. My noble friend wants compensation for that man and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack refuses to give it to him. Is that the point?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, it is much subtler than that. The Bill gives compensation to Lord Hawke's third party if there has been a compulsory acquisition of rights; but if the first landowner has voluntarily agreed to allow the pipe-line to go on his land, then it does not give compensation unless he has provided for that in his agreement. I hope I have stated it fairly. That is the subtle distinction between us. I say it can only happen where compulsory powers have been taken; my noble friend wants it to happen where the landowner makes a voluntary agreement.

LORD HAWKE

The position, frankly, does not seem to me to be equity.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I quite agree with my noble friend. Of course, I will consider my noble and learned friend's arguments. I had no intention to be vitriolic, but it does seem to me injustice. It is possible that the man through whose land the voluntary wayleave goes may make provision for the pipe-line owner to pay compensation for damage to his neighbour, but this is remarkably little comfort to the neighbour, because he is not involved in the negotiations, is not a party to the agreement, does not necessarily know the agreement is being made, and, indeed, his next door neighbour may be his bitter enemy and would not in any circumstances make an agreement with the pipe-line owner for his protection. It is not so much from the point of view of the man through whose land the pipe goes that I am worried; it is for the neighbour who might be prejudiced purely by the fortuitous circumstance of his neighbour's giving a wayleave voluntarily or having it taken by compulsory rights. I see the noble Viscount is in some difficulty of principle, but he is giving the neighbour absolute protection where there are compulsory rights, and he must have differentiated a pipeline to that extent from other forms of industrial activity; so to some degree he has already breached his own principle.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am worried in the same way as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but I am worried too about the position as regards chattels. Suppose sometime afterwards (I have given the example before) there is an explosion in one of these pipe-lines, which causes damage to somebody invited by the landowner through whose land the pipe-line goes. An explosion, perhaps a considerable time after, causes damage to the chattels of this third party. I do not know what the Government's intention is about this, whether this is supposed to be an insurable risk, whether the landowner has got to warn all invitees to his property that "There is a pipe-line under my land which I suppose might explode"; and if it does and does damage to the invitee's property, is the invitee to claim by a lawsuit that he has been invited on to dangerous property?

I should have thought the case differed from a great many other forms of industrial activity, because the risk may not be visible at all to the third party. I mentioned this at an earlier stage and it is probably out of order on this Amendment; but I hope that my noble and learned friend and the Government will carefully consider whether this is not a case where persons who are either damaged themselves, a thing not covered at all, or whose property is damaged, ought to have the same right against the person bringing a dangerous thing on to the land or under the land as is given by the well-known case of Rylands v. Fletcher, and that type of liability. I honestly believe that this merits further consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I hesitate to intrude on your Lordships again—this is the Report stage and not a Committee, and therefore I am asking for your Lordships' patience—but I want to ask my noble friend Lord Conesford to consider this. What is being asked for in this Amendment is that, if a landlord makes voluntary grants of wayleave of a pipe-line on his land, then the third party may have an absolute right. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross is distinguishing entirely—it was this basis that we discussed—between an absolute right and a right under Rylands v. Fletcher, because as my noble friend Lord Conesford will remember, Rylands v. Fletcher is subject to the three defences, if my memory is right, of act of God, contributory negligence and the act of another third party. If the hypothetical person to whom both my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and I refer can bring himself within Rylands v. Fletcher, he recovers at once. There is no question of his being barred from Rylands v. Fletcher. All he is being barred from is the absolute right if the defences that are applicable to Rylands v. Fletcher would not apply. That is as I understand the position.

If my noble friend Lord Conesford considers that, I think he will see that the position is not so bad as he thought, because in his last speech I think he thought that the person was in fact deprived of being able to recover damages even if he could get the assistance of the ruling in Rylands v. Fletcher. I think we have had a hearty lawyer's aperitif in this discussion, and that we ought universally to apologise to the non-legal Members of the House. Of course, I will have another look at this as my noble friend feels strongly about it. I have tried to give the explanation, but I will look at it again. It is a most technical point. I hope he will not press it to-day.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive a fourth speech on this Amendment, I gladly accept my noble and learned friend's assurance. I believe it is something that ought to be looked at again, and I hope that something may come of it as a result of his considerations. But at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is the second Amendment in what I call the "nineteen group". In this case it is consequential on Amendment No. 19 which your Lordships have already accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 28, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Power to place pipe-lines in streets]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am informed that the term "highway" has a different significance in Scotland from that in England and Wales, and these Amendments are necessary to ensure that Clause 13, which gives power to place pipe-lines in streets, is applied in exactly the same way in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 1, leave out subsection (11) and insert— (11) In the application of this section to Scotland—

1. (a) references to a street which is a highway shall be construed as references to a street over which there is a public right of way;
2. (b) the expression "carriageway" means a way (other than a cycle track) over which the public have a right of way for the passage of vehicles;
3. (c) the reference in subsection (6) to the Minister of Transport shall be construed as a reference to the Secretary of State;
4. (d) in subsection (7), the words from "and, where" to the end of the subsection shall be omitted;
5. (e) the reference in subsection (10) to the Minister of Transport shall be construed as including a reference to the Secretary of State.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18:

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

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

1. (a) prohibit, as regards works for the construction of the line or of any length thereof specified in the notice, the execution of the works (so far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice) otherwise than in such a manner as may be so specified;
2. (b) prohibit, as regards any length of the line specified in the notice, the construction thereof (so far as it falls to be constructed after the service of the notice) except of such materials as may be specified in the notice or the incorporation therein in the course of the construction thereof (so far as it falls as aforesaid) of component parts of a class so specified that do not comply with such requirements as may be so specified;

(2) If a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection serves on the Minister, before the expiration of twelve weeks from the date on which the notice was served, a counter-notice objecting to the notice, the Minister shall afford him an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, and if the first-mentioned person avails himself of the opportunity, the Minister shall, before the expiration of twelve weeks from the date on which the hearing is concluded, consider the objection and the report of the person appointed to hear the objector and by notice served on the objector either quash the notice objected to, or confirm it without modification, or confirm it subject to such modification as appears to the Minister to meet the objection.

6.47 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in sub-section (1) (a) to leave out (So far as they fall to be executed after the service of the notice)".

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to this question and for not letting go of the bone, because I think that the safety provisions in this Bill are still insufficient. The particular point raised in this Amendment is also the point of Amendments Nos. 33, 35 and 36, to which I should like to speak. The clause is headed " Safety of Pipe-lines " and it empowers the Minister to do certain things if he considers it necessary in the interests of safety. In subsection (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) deal respectively with the manner of execution of the works, the materials of which the works are to be constructed, the component parts and the depth below the surface at which the pipe is to be placed.

As at present drafted, the Bill states that the Minister may prohibit any such length of pipe-line as in his opinion does not come up to a proper standard, and there are penalties for promoters who go ahead with construction and do not comply with the standards. But there is a strange gap in the Minister's powers, because it will be seen from the words in parenthesis, which I propose to leave out, that the Minister has no power to enforce his requirements in such parts of the pipe-line as have already been constructed. So if his inspectors have failed to warn him in sufficient time of the plans of the promoter, and the promoter goes ahead with building his pipe-line in an unsafe manner, or of inadequate materials, or with the wrong component parts, or at too shallow a depth, the line of pipe-line that has been laid before discovery of the fault cannot be disturbed if the fault is rectified. And as, by definition, the Minister serves a notice only when it is unsafe for the line to be laid in the way he complains of, it seems to me that the Minister is going to condone the existence, in a number of parts of the country, of a highly dangerous object, an underground pipe conveying inflammable or explosive substances and built in such a way as is not adequate for safety. I therefore suggest that this loophole should be closed.

It may be said that once the thing has been built, laid, buried and completed it would be too much to expect a promoter to go to all the expense of digging it up and relaying it to the required standard. My Lords, is it too much to expect of a promoter? You expect him to build his pipe-line to such a standard as the Minister considers safe, and presumably that is a more expensive standard than a less safe one would be. You are imposing additional expense on the promoter, if one likes to put it that way, by insisting on standards at all; but if it is in the interests of the public that these standards should be preserved it seems to me that there is no argument whatever for allowing such lengths as have escaped the Minister's observation to be allowed to remain. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 11, leave out from ("works") to ("otherwise") in line 12.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, these four Amendments, 32, 33, 35 and 36, seek to remove the limitations in Clause 18 (1) (a), (b) and (c) which restrict the Minister's power to impose requirements on the mode of construction, materials and depth at which a pipe-line is to be placed, to work not yet carried out at the time the notice is served. The provisions of the Bill dealing with safety, Clauses 18 to 22, were based on the broad principle that the Minister should be empowered, before the pipe-line is constructed, to specify how it should be constructed, the materials and the component parts of which it should be made, the depth and the manner in which the work should be carried out; and, after the pipe-line has been constructed, to impose requirements as to the maintenance repair, et cetera, of the line and the pressure at which it should be used in order to ensure that it is, and should remain, safe in operation.

The Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would mean that, so long as a pipe-line is still under construction, the Minister would have the power to impose requirements not merely on the construction of that part of the pipeline which has not yet been laid, but on any part including the part that has already been laid. It is, in fact, improbable that such powers would ever need to be exercised in practice. Pipe-line technology is a well-established branch of engineering, and there is no real risk that a pipe-line which has been properly constructed in accordance with up-to-date practice will suddenly be found to be totally unsafe.

But, in examining this matter further in view of the noble Earl's suggested Amendment, we have come to the conclusion that if the Minister's power is to be extended in this way, perhaps the noble Earl would agree with us that it would be better to go the whole hog and to give the Minister power to deal also with any pipe-line which may have been completed. If the noble Earl would agree with that, I would propose to have a Government Amendment prepared to deal with the whole problem. I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied on that.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, at a convenient time we will take Amendment No. 34.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, this might be a suitable moment to adjourn until eight o'clock.

[The Sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven and resumed at eight o'clock.]

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved in subsection (1) (b), page 15, line 17, after "materials" to insert ", and with the inclusion of such safety devices,". The noble Earl said: I hardly dare to have another shot: I may get another bulls-eye. This is to give the Minister power to insist on certain safety devices in the pipe-line system. Presumably, any firm undertaking a construction like this would observe sound engineering practice and would install all necessary safety devices. But, after all, all legislation is designed to guard against failures of judgment, care and precaution, so it seems to me that it is worth while to strengthen the Minister's powers in this direction.

To give an idea of the kind of safety devices that are thought necessary, I should like to quote a few lines from an account of the pipe-line that has been operating in France from Le Havre to Paris for a number of years. There are not only safety precautions in the pipeline itself; the material used and the construction of the relief valves have the same regard for safety which prevails in the stations and terminals. The safety and control devices are many. Some apparatus is equipped with recorders to show the slightest trace of any untoward incident, or even operate the safety or alarm systems. Contact monometers in the fluid, detectors of hydrocarbon vapour near the motors and temperature registers on the working parts of motors and pumps can stop the working of the appropriate parts when they reach the critical value. That gives one an idea of the kind of complexity and elaboration of devices, needed to guard to the maximum extent possible against accidents. That is what should like to see the Minister empowered to insist on when granting an authorisation. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 17, after ("materials") insert (", and with the inclusion of such safety devices,").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MILLS

The noble Earl proposed his Amendment carefully, giving the impression—I am sure he is right—that he has thought a lot about this. While I am of the opinion that the clause, as drafted, should be adequate to enable the Minister to secure that adequate safety devices are included in the line, this Amendment puts the matter beyond any doubt, and I therefore accept it.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, this puts into the Bill what I should imagine is a matter of normal engineering design: that, before you decide the materials of which you are going to make your apparatus, you must know at what pressure it is designed to work. I do not know whether this proposed subsection is suitably drafted, and I see that the Minister has set down two later Amendments that seem to achieve the same object. But perhaps, to clear the matter, I should move this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, at end insert— (" (d) prohibit, as regards any length or lengths of the line specified in the notice, the construction thereof except to such dimensions in relation to the maximum working pressure at which it is intended to operate the line as may be so specified.")—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment is intended to enable the Minister to specify the dimensions to which each section of a pipe-line must be constructed in relation to the maximum working pressure at which it is intended to be operated. A subsequent Amendment will be proposed to the First Schedule—Amendment No. 64 in the Marshalled List. There is no corresponding Amendment proposed to Clause 2, but I take it that that is merely an oversight.

When anyone is designing a pipe-line, he will take as his starting point the physical characteristics of the thing to be conveyed by the line—for example, its viscosity and the quantity to be moved in a given period of time. With these data, he will then consider all the variable factors, such as the internal diameter of the line, its thickness, the materials from which it is to be constructed and the pressure at which it is to operate. He will then seek the optimum combination of these variables in order to arrive at the cheapest method of constructing the pipe-line consistent with adequate safety margins. I think it follows that it would be wrong to require the applicant to state at the outset, before he has completed his design, what the working pressure is to be, and then to impose requirements on the construction of the pipe related to that pressure. As the noble Earl has said, a Government Amendment has been put down, and I think that that Amendment should be adequate to cover the point the noble Earl has in mind.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he help me? There was some concern on the Committee stage about the pipe-lines that might be constructed in some of the built-up areas, such as our ports. I would have thought that the question of pressure in these pipes was a matter of very great importance from the point of view of safety in those built-up areas. It may not be quite so important in farmlands, but in a built-up area I should have thought the question of the safe pressure, as opposed to the materials which are being used in the pipe-line, would become a very major point. Could the noble Lord say whether his Amendment would meet that particular worry?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, when the noble Lord deals with that question raised by my noble friend, I wonder whether he would at the same time cover a related point with regard to subsequent inspection of these lines regarding pressure. The noble Lord will be aware, of course, that boilers and any other kind of equipment which is subject to pressure are subject to erosion of various kinds, where the walls of the container, in this case a pipe-line, become thinner. Therefore, I am wondering whether the noble Lord is satisfied that that point is covered in the Amendment which he proposes to move later. It is not merely a question that the pipeline will be sufficiently strong to do the job for which it is intended at the time it is installed, but that we must be satisfied that there is adequate inspection to ensure that the public is at all times safe, and if it is not, that the pipe-line is going to be replaced.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, perhaps I did not explain fully why the noble Lord's Amendment was not quite suitable, and for that I apologise. What I was trying to say was that the Minister must know all the requirements before he can specify the pressures either of the line or of the different parts of the line. I think he has not only to specify the requirements as to the method of constructing the line, but how all these things vary for different parts of the line. Then once the line has been constructed, the Minister can still exercise the necessary control to ensure that it is safe in operation by fixing the maximum pressure, not only for the line but for different parts of the line, too. If any error has been made at an early stage, safety can still be ensured by specifying a lower maximum pressure if it is found that part of a line is so constructed as not to be able to cope with that pressure.

Although the Amendment as it stands is not acceptable, it has drawn attention to a useful point on which there is scope for improving the Bill. Clause 21 (1) enables the Minister, in the interests of safety, to fix the maximum working pressure at any point in the line. The present Amendment draws attention to the possibility that it may be appropriate to fix different working pressures for different sections of the line, as was mentioned in our discussions in Committee. This would avoid the need to fix an unduly low maximum for the whole line when it is necessary for only part of its length. I think the noble Lord will see that the Amendment I have put down deals with that point.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, speak just before withdrawing the Amendment, I should have thought that before the applicant ever makes his application he must surely have worked out his plains in much detail. He must have had complete drawings and plans in order to be sure that what he was proposing was going to be an economically sound pro- position; and that is why I thought it was reasonable to ask him, when he first makes his application—and, of course, this comes in with Amendment No. 64—to specify all that. However, I would be willing to withdraw this particular Amendment now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.15 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "twelve" and insert "four" [weeks]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. It seeks to reduce from twelve to four weeks the time which the Minister is allowed in which to give his decision after he has held an inquiry into an objection to a notice which the Minister has had served. This point was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Silkin, who pointed out that the objector is given twelve weeks in which to object and at the expiration of that time the Minister has to arrange for an inquiry which, as my noble friend said, will take an unspecified time—perhaps three months. Then, after the inquiry has been held and the inspector, or whoever is appointed to hear the inquiry, reports to the Minister, the Minister has twelve weeks in which to decide whether he will confirm the original notice or terminate it. That means that possibly nine months or twelve months, or even longer, may elapse, while the matter remains in abeyance.

It may be argued that when a notice has been served on a licensee for a pipeline it is right and proper that he should have as much as twelve weeks in order to prepare his objection, but whatever strength there may be in that argument, surely there is no need for the Minister to delay his answer for as long as twelve weeks, having regard to the fact that, when the inquiry has been concluded and the inspector makes his report, all the facts will be before the Minister to enable him to make a decision.

We are dealing here with the question of safety. We are also dealing with a project which has been approved in its initial stages and which presumably everybody desires to go forward. Therefore, it is in everyone's interest that it should go forward without any avoid- able delay. I do not profess to know all the machinery that is necessary before a Minister can give a decision on a matter of this kind. I know that it takes about four weeks to get .a reply to an ordinary letter, but that, of course, has not to go through the machine. I think that in a matter of this kind, it ought to be possible for the responsible Minister, having all the facts before him, to give a decision within four weeks—certainly in less than twelve weeks.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 36. leave out ("twelve") and insert ("four").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I have taken careful notice of what the noble Lord has said about the replies from Ministers. He will have in mind that they have to go through the "pipe-line".

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if I may be allowed, I am not saying anything personal here, because if I had an inquiry to make of the noble Lord I would make it in the adjoining chamber and get an answer at once.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, we will see whether we can increase the pressure all round.

This Amendment arises out of a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in Committee, and it has been given careful consideration since the noble Lord raised it. We understand the desire to reduce the time and avoid delay in a matter in which danger may be involved. But I think noble Lords have overlooked, first, the fact that a notice under Clause 18 (1) relates to a pipe-line (or that part of it) which is not yet constructed and which cannot therefore be a source of danger; and secondly the fact that under the second paragraph of subsection (2) of Clause 18 the quashing of a notice following the consideration of objections does not affect its previous operation. In other wards, if the Minister specifies that a pipe-line, or part of it, must be constructed to certain standards, the fact that the promoter has objected to the Minister's notice will not enable him to construct it to any lesser standards.

It could, of course, be argued that the Minister should reach his decision more quickly, not in the interests of safety but in order to avoid holding up the work of construction for an unduly long time. There is more sense in this, and clearly it would be undesirable to delay work indefinitely. On the other hand, there may well be complicated technical arguments to consider, and twelve weeks is by no means too long to allow as an outside limit. If the issues are clear and the Minister can reach his decision more quickly, there is nothing in the Bill to stop his doing so; but I suggest that it would be unwise to insist upon quick decisions where safety is involved.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I think he made one error in his answer. He quite rightly said that this clause is in respect of pipe-lines not yet constructed; but he also said that it would not affect, as it were, work that has already been done. A little while ago he was good enough, in dealing with Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Lucan, to say not merely that he accepted them, but that he would introduce Amendments which went further. In other words, the clause will be so amended as to cover the whole operations, right from the beginning. That will affect the answer the noble Lord has given me now. I suggest that the brief was prepared without taking into consideration the fact that the noble Lord was going to concede the points he has already conceded to my noble friend.

In those circumstances, I hope he will look at this question again, and even if he cannot accept the period of four weeks suggested in the Amendment, he may accept some shorter time for consideration by the Minister of a report which will contain all the facts and should enable a decision (because that is all that is needed: no further inquiry is needed, but only a decision on the facts, for and against) to be reached by the Minister in a clear way. With respect, I should have thought that this would not need twelve weeks. I hope that, even if no answer can be given now, the noble Lord will take into consideration the fact that his present reply must be affected by the earlier decisions which he announced, and that he will look at the matter again.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the words of my noble friend Lord Silkin on Committee stage, when he said that on matters of safety we seem to be dealing with this clause in a very leisurely way, are still relevant. By the third line of subsection (2) of Clause 18 the person on whom the notice is served has twelve weeks in which to reply. If he allows the work to go quietly forward during those twelve weeks before he complains, there again seems to be a loophole which prejudices safety.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say only that this matter has been very fully considered. We have taken everything we can think of into consideration and have come to the conclusion that it would be unwise to disturb the twelve weeks.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 19 [Enforcement of requirements imposed under section 18]:

8.26 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is the third Amendment in the "No. 19 group". It is rather more substantive, because it is not a consequential Amendment; it is a parallel one. If it was right to provide for compensation for owners where notice had been served to remove the pipe-line for contravention of the provisions of Clauses 1 or 2, it must equally be right to provide for compensation where the pipe-line has to be removed for contravention of safety requirements under Clause 8. That is what this clause does. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— ("(3) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement imposed by a notice served on a person under subsection (1) of this section or of the exercise, in consequence of the failure of a person on whom such a notice is served to comply with a requirement imposed thereby, of the power conferred by the last foregoing subsection, a person, other than the person on whom the notice was served, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the person on whom the notice was served, or, where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the person on whom the notice was served, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21 [Power of the Minister to impose requirements with respect to examination, repair, &c., of pipe-lines]:

LORD MILLS

My Lords, Clause 21 (1) empowers the Minister at any time, by notice served on a pipe-line owner, to require him to operate the line in such a way that the pressure at any point does not exceed a given figure. As I explained in my remarks on Amendments Nos. 32 and 37, this Amendment has been put down to give effect to suggestions embodied in the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren—Amendment No. 47—that the Minister should be empowered to fix the maximum pressure, not only for the line but also for any length of it. This will mean that if for any reason a particular section of the line needs, in order to ensure safety, to be operated at a reduced pressure, the Minister can require this without imposing unnecessarily low pressures on the rest of the line. Amendment 39D goes with this Amendment, and is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 38, leave out from ("interests") to ("such") in line 39 and insert ("by notice served as aforesaid require that the line shall be so operated that (according as may be specified in the notice) the pressure of its contents, or the pressure of the contents of any length of the line so specified, will at no point exceed").—(Lord Mills.)

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for putting this Amendment down. It seems to cover a certain gap in the provisions. The only thing I would suggest now is that the rubric of the clause, instead of being, "examination, repair et cetera," of pipe-lines might be, "operation, examination and repair".

LORD MILLS

I will consider that, my Lords.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) If the Minister is at any time satisfied that, in the interests of safety, a length of a pipe-line which is not capable of being isolated from the rest of the line ought to be made capable of being so isolated, he may by notice served on the owner of the line prohibit the use of that length until there have been taken such steps as are requisite to enable that length to be so isolated.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment No. 39B, was put down following consideration of the Amendments put down to Clause 18 by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren, to strengthen the Minister's powers to impose safety requirements on existing pipe-lines. The Amendment would enable the Minister at any time by notice to a pipe-line owner, to require steps to be taken—for example, by the insertion of additional valves in the line—to make any length of the pipe-line capable of being isolated from the rest of the line. This might be desirable in order to make it possible to limit the extent of damage which could be caused by an accident affecting the line in a particular area—for example, if a new town had been built near an existing pipe-line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 40, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Mills.)

^*On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I regret that I ought not to have moved Amendment No. 39B because of the undertaking I gave under Clause 32. I had not realised that. Perhaps if I may make myself entirely clear here, I do not propose to move Amendments 39B, 39C and 39E because of the undertaking I gave under Clause 32.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but would he just repeat those which are not moved?

LORD MILLS

Nos. 39B, 39C and 39E.

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on No. 39A. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 1, after ("pipe-line") insert ("or a length of a pipe-line").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22 [Power of the Minister to cause steps to be taken for rendering pipe-line, or length thereof, safe on abandonment or cesser or use]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the next Amendment is in the "No. 19 group." If it was right to provide compensation in two sets of circumstances where a pipe-line has to be removed it must be right in the third. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 18, line 30, at end insert— (" ( ) Where, in consequence of compliance with a requirement to do any thing to a pipeline or length thereof imposed by a notice under subsection (1) of this section, or of the exercise of the power to enter and do any thing to a pipe-line or length thereof conferred by the last foregoing subsection, a person, other than the owner of the line, suffers loss by reason of damage to, or disturbance in the enjoyment of, any land or chattels, he shall be entitled, where the loss was suffered in consequence of such compliance, to compensation in respect of that loss from the owner of the line, or where the loss was suffered in consequence of the exercise of that power, to compensation in respect of that loss from the Minister; and the Minister may recover from the owner of the line, in any court of competent jurisdiction, the amount of any compensation paid by the Minister under this subsection.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27 [Power of the Minister to remove deposits imperilling pipe-line]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment is put down following an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who wished at the time to make sure that in the category of buildings, structures or deposits which the Minister could remove, or cause to be removed, if they were within ten feet of a pipe-line, any buildings, structures or deposits made in connection with the work of statutory undertakers should not be included. I undertook to have another good look at this matter, and on examination we came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to amend Clause 23 in respect of such works. It applies to the sort of structures and buildings that normally would be of so temporary and innocuous a nature that they would not fall within that class, or if not of that kind should fall within it. I think the noble Lord would probably agree with that.

On the other hand, it did seem to us that there .was a point to be covered so far as deposits of earth and soil were concerned, and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I should just add, in case there is any misapprehension, that the words it is intended to insert come after the words in parenthesis, after "silage" and not between "silage" and the bracket in the Bill. I say that for complete clarity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 13, after ("silage") insert ("or in the course of executing code-regulated works within the meaning of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950,").—(Lord Chesham.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend could tell me whether the expression "code-regulated" is defined in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950; because if it is not it seems to me a rather unusual expression to find in a Statute and one which perhaps ought to be expanded.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I cannot say offhand. But if it is defined it is all right; and if it is not, I think it is perfectly clear what it means. I do not think it is likely to require definition, even if it is not such an expression as my noble friend might use himself.

LORD STONHAM

Would it make it easier for the noble Lord and simpler for the noble Viscount if he told us which are the works regulated by code?

LORD LINDGREN

My Lords, those who are associated with local government statutory undertakings understand the phrase. Therefore I think this meets the case, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting it in.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 27 to insert the following new clause.

Compensation in respect of restrictions under sections 23 and 27

" .—(1) Where works are executed for the construction of a pipe-line and the value of an interest in land is depreciated in consequence of restrictions taking effect by virtue of subsection (1) of section twenty-three of this Act or subsection (1) of section twenty-seven thereof, being an interest subsisting at the time when those restrictions take effect as respects that land, then, subject to the provisions of the following subsection, there shall be payable in respect of that interest by the owner of the pipe-line compensation of an amount equal to the amount of the depreciation.

(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply,—

1. (a) where land is acquired, whether compulsorily or by agreement, for the purpose of placing therein a length of pipe-line, to land which, immediately before the acquisition, comprised or was held with the land so acquired;
2. (b) to land comprising or held with land over which a right to place therein a length of pipe-line has been acquired, whether com- 742 pulsorily or by agreement (otherwise than by virtue of the acquisition of the land)."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause which has gone in to meet a point raised by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. He wanted compensation to be paid to people whose interest in land was depreciated as a result of the restrictions imposed on the use of land within ten feet of a pipe-line in Clause 23, which affects buildings or structures, or Clause 27, which affects various deposits of earth and so on. I undertook to put down an Amendment, and this is it. I think the Amendment meets the noble Lord's point, but I should add that it also goes some way to meet another point raised in an Amendment put down in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. He argued at the time that operations for the storage of crops, grass or silage, as well as other agricultural operations, should be exempt from the provisions of Clause 27. We still feel unable to accept that argument, and we rejected it in the interests of access to the pipe-line for safety, since silage clamps and the like may be relatively large and may remain in the same place for some time. Therefore, I do not think they should be exempted.

The present Amendment will provide for compensation in those circumstances where the landowner or occupier can show that the value of his interest has been depreciated because of the restrictions and that he could not put his silage clamps and so on where he wished. I would only say that this is an Amendment we thought earlier on we should not be able to put down, but we have, after all, been able to do so. I hope that it will meet what my noble friend had in mind and will he acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 27, insert the said new Clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this clause. It is, in fact, the first fruits of your Lordships' perseverance last Monday, so it is particularly notable in appearing on the Marshalled List to-day. I am sure your Lordships will feel that this clause alone makes postponement of the Bill for a week worth while in order to be able to consider this clause this evening. Having considered it, I am glad to see what is in it; I welcome it and I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on having put it down in your Lordships' House.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, is the noble Viscount suggesting that the House should adopt the same method on other occasions?

LORD STONHAM

If the circumstances warrant?

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for going some way to meet the point that I raised on the Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28:

Notification of certain accidents

28.—(1) Where any of the following events occurs, namely,— (a) the bursting, explosion or collapse of a pipe-line or any part thereof; notice of the event, in such form and accompanied by such particulars as may be specified by the Minister, shall forthwith be given by the owner of the pipe-line to the Minister.

8.41 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) to insert: ( ) the escape of any thing from a pipeline;".

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause deals with the notification of certain accidents, or, as they are called in the clause itself, events. The clause says: Where any of the following events occurs, namely, (a) the bursting, explosion or collapse of a pipe-line … It seems to me that the escape from the pipe-line of the substances that we are thinking of is almost as serious as the bursting, explosion, or collapse. The escape of the substance which the Bill calls a "thing" seems to me to be one of the things that is most certainly notifiable. If near the house of one of your Lordships some high octane fluid, petrol or jet fuel, was escaping, I think you would think it well worthy of notification. I suggest, therefore, that this should be included in the Bill, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 37, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28, which provides that the Minister must be notified of the things which are clearly stated in the Bill, is to enable him to order an inquiry, if he thinks it necessary to do so, into an accident, under Clause 29, or to impose requirements as to maintenance, inspection and so on, or working pressures, under Clause 21. If I were to accept it, this Amendment would require notification to be given to the Minister in addition of the escape of any thing from a pipe-line. It would mean that a large number of the notifications would in fact be of minor leaks, of which it seems scarcely appropriate for notice to be given to the Minister. They would fall to be dealt with more appropriately by the inspector who would be inspecting the pipe, and would indicate that more attention should be paid to repair and maintenance.

May I go on to the next Amendment? I have tried to take up the spirit of what the noble Earl wants, because I think that any major escapes such as the Minister would wish to know of—anything worth while reporting to him, so to speak—would in any case arise from the bursting, explosion or collapse of the pipe. That is the way in which I have so far seen it. I do not know how any major escape from the pipe could take place without one of these three things happening. Perhaps the noble Earl will expatiate on that in a moment. Amendment No. 41A which I will presently move but which I should like to speak to now in this connection, is designed to ensure what, I think, the noble Earl wants—immediate notification to the Minister of a serious accident. It has been drafted in this way because I do not think it would be necessary to report the accidental ignition of something which some time before had escaped from a pipe-line. I think that this covers the main point that he wishes to make. Will the noble Earl allow me to take into consideration his other Amendment as well? I think that would be unnecessary because if there is to be a report of the escape of anything, as I have said, it would not very much matter whether it was ignited or not: if it got out it would have to be reported. Therefore, that Amendment I consider to be unnecessary. I have tried to pick up in Amendment 41A the sense of what the noble Earl sought. I hope he will find it a satisfactory solution in the circumstances, and that he will prefer it to his own Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

Personally, I do not find the Minister's reply particularly satisfactory. Presumably the Minister is assuming that in these pipe-lines there will be liquids which might explode or ignite. We are at the beginning of a new transport system. May I develop this point? If you are in a built-up area where there is a water supply and you are moving acids and the pipe starts to leak, surely the leakage will then become a very important matter. Is a leakage a "collapse"? I should not not have thought so.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but if the leakage was of a size which required reporting to the Minister—and this was the theme I tried to develop—I should have thought it would certainly come under the heading of "collapse".

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take up the points made by the noble Lord. The leakage of substances such as the ones with which we are dealing is surely a matter of some seriousness. I do not know whether every notification should be made to the Minister, or whether there should be provision for notification of minor events of that kind to the local health authority, the local water supply or other authorities. But as this is the clause of the Bill dealing with notification of certain accidents, I should be very sorry to see any mention of "leakage" omitted from this section. It may be gas or it may be liquid; it may be inflammable, or it may not be; but I should have thought that there ought to be provision in the Bill for it to be somebody's duty to report an event of this kind. Even a minor leak could be a source of considerable danger or nuisance to inhabitants in whose neighbourhood it escaped. Although I appreciate the noble Lord's Amendment No. 41A, which I think deals with that point, it seems to me that the clause should make it clear that there is a responsibility to notify any occurrence of that sort.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, it seems to me, from a non-technical way of looking at this, that there is a complete difference between a "bursting, explosion or collapse" and a leak. Even in an ordinary private house where you have a pipe—admittedly, not a large pipe-line—you can have a leak of water or a leak of gas from the pipe, and the pipe has not collapsed, exploded or burst. I should have thought that it was perfectly possible for these pipelines to develop such a leak as that which could be extremely dangerous whether to human life or to animals.

As my noble friend has said, it may be an acid which is being carried. There might be a very small leak, with no collapse whatsoever of the pipe. The pipe-line is still integral as it used to be, but a small leak comes out into a water supply, over a field or wherever it may be, giving off noxious fumes or mixing with some alkali, which reacts with the acid and causes very serious results. As this Bill now stands, there is no need for that to be notified, and I should have thought that my noble friend's suggested emendation was an eminently sensible and desirable one, which in no way affects the spirit of the Bill, but safeguards the public without putting any undue burden upon the undertakers of the pipe-line. I personally can see no reason at all why this simple and worthwhile suggestion should not be adopted by the Government.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again on Amendment No. 41, I would say this. I rather think that the noble Lords opposite have a point here. I had previously thought that the contention I put forward, on anything that the Minister would require to know, would be covered by the existing wording of the Bill, but I must confess that I feel some little doubt about it at the moment. I should think that the question of the ignition of something that came out of the pipe was probably covered by the Amendment that stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, and it perhaps meets the views of noble Lords opposite on that score.

As regards the escape without ignition, as I say, I am not quite convinced about it now and I should like to reconsider this matter, if the noble Earl would consider withdrawing his Amendment. I cannot give any commitment on what I can do about it, but I should like very much to reconsider this matter to see whether the safety angle, which is allimportant—I do agree about that—needs tightening up in this respect. Whether it can be done in time for a later stage in this House or in another place, I could not say, but I should like to give the assurance that this matter will be very carefully considered in view of what has been said.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and, in view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.54 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I do not think, after the discussion, that there is anything I really need to acid to this, so I beg merely to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 38, after ("pipe-line") insert ("or of any thing which, immediately before it ignited, was in a pipe-line;").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29:

Inquiries into accidents

29.—(1) The Minister may, where he thinks it expedient so to do, direct an inquiry to be held in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act into an event notice of which is required by the last foregoing section to be given.

8.55 p.m.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "do" to insert ", and shall if the event has resulted in loss of life,". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43, standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. This, again, is the "may" or "shall" argument: the argument between permissive and mandatory powers. As the subsection now stands, the Minister may, if he thinks proper, direct that an inquiry be held in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Act: but we seek to insert in the fourth line words which pro- vide that, if the incident or the accident has resulted in death, then the Minister must hold an inquiry.

One can visualise that, where there has been an explosion, the collapse of a pipe or the emission of some fluid, which has not caused an accident, or which has not caused a fatal accident, the Minister might not think it desirable to hold an inquiry unless he felt that it might bring forth some knowledge which would be of general use in respect to the service of pipe-lines. But if a fatality has occurred, then inevitably there will be very considerable public concern; the kind of concern which will give rise, perhaps, to requests in another place for a public inquiry to be held, requests which are usually acceded to when accidents of this kind occur. With this new method of transport we feel that it would be highly desirable, in order that if accidents do occur public confidence should not be sapped by ignorance arising from lack of knowledge, that in the event of a fatality it should be mandatory, an understood thing, that the Minister should immediately set up an inquiry.

We are dealing for the moment with things which have been uncharted. All day to-day noble Lords opposite, in their replies and in moving their own Amendments, have on quite a number of occasions generously conceded that matters which they had not previously thought of have been raised during our discussions and have been considered or thought about, and in the result points have been conceded. I would submit, my Lords, that this is another one, and that if fatalities arise through any kind of accident or failure of a pipe-line then there should be an immediate inquiry ordered by the Minister. That is what our Amendment provides, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 23, line 4, after ("do") insert (", and shall if the event has resulted in loss of life.").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I can well understand why the noble Lord thought it well to put this Amendment down. He has given us a very clear exposition of the reasons. Therefore, I am a little concerned at finding it necessary to resist the Amendment. I will try to explain why. Clause 29 as it stands is similar to Section 122 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, with the exception that the Minister may direct that an inquiry should not be held in public where this appears to be expedient in the interests of national security. I am sure noble Lords will well understand that the reason for this is that a pipeline may be a matter of strategic importance. The Factories Act, 1961, also provides for inquiries into accidents.

Neither the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, nor the Factories Act, 1961, provides that there must always be an inquiry into fatal accidents, and I think it is desirable to keep the provisions of this Bill in line with other legislation. In any event, serious accidents will be immediately reported to the Minister under Clause 28, and an inspector could, it necessary, attend the coroner's inquest and give evidence. Where the cause of death can be clearly established at the inquest, and there are no further issues arising, it may be unnecessary to hold an inquiry as well.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that we are not asking for a public inquiry? We are asking for an inquiry. I should have thought that right through industry, if there is a serious accident, certainly in a case involving death, there would be an inquiry into the various safety factors required in that industry. My first comment to my noble friend Lord Stonham, when I saw this Amendment, was that an inquiry should be necessary in the event of serious injury and not only in the case of death. Because, as we know, this is going to be a new system, and the Minister may well obtain information that will enable him to preserve the safety of persons in this industry in unfortunate events. I should have thought that the Government, if they cannot accept this Amendment this evening, would at least agree to give this matter further consideration. We do not ask for a public inquiry, especially where national security is concerned, but we certainly feel that there should be some basic inquiry into the cause of an accident; and, in my view, that should apply where serious injury has arisen and not only in the event of death. I ask the noble Lord if he will again look at this matter.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will just add this. I said that I understood the reasons for putting down this Amendment. I was advised that we had to take into account the fact that there might be cases where the lines were of strategic importance, and therefore we had to be careful how far publicity was given to the matter. But I will certainly have another look at this Amendment and see what can be done, if the noble Lord will now withdraw it.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, in view of that assurance, for which we are extremely grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 [Duty of pipe-line owners to make arrangements for notifying fire-brigades, police, &c., of pipe-line accidents]:

9.3 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line if requested so to do by any authority, board or undertakers for whose notification, in the event specified in the last foregoing subsection, arrangements are thereby required to be made, to furnish the authority, board or undertakers with such maps, and to give them such information, as they may reasonably require in order—

1. (a) in the case of a fire or police authority, to enable them efficiently to discharge the duties falling to be discharged by them in consequence of the happening of the event;
2. (b) in the case of any other authority, and in the case of any board or undertakers, to enable them efficiently to take, in consequence of the happening of the event, steps for the purposes respectively mentioned in relation to them in that subsection."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment that has been put down following undertakings, which were given by my noble friend Lord Mills and myself to various noble Lords opposite—Lord Burden, Lord Silkin, Lord Lindgren and Lord Stonham—in respect of various Amendments, six in number, which they moved on the Committee stage. There was a kind of umbrella offered at the time, and this Amendment is the result. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that, where necessary, information and maps are provided for the use of public authorities, without making it obligatory to furnish the material when it was not required for any purpose—a point which was generally worrying various noble Lords opposite who spoke on behalf of various authorities and bodies. I think it meets all the arguments that information should be supplied to river boards, fire authorities and other statutory bodies, by providing for that information to be given in its proper context; that is, in relation to duties which the various bodies will, or may, have to carry out.

It does not provide for the information to be given automatically to all local authorities, as some noble Lords wished. It may be that most of them will be entitled to the information in their capacity as police or fire authorities but apart from these have no other duties to perform under this part of the Bill. I can see some noble Lords getting up and saying that the point was that these authorities should have notice in advance that there was going to be a pipe-line. That matter is covered by the wording of the Bill, though here I must point out, in case any noble Lord has noticed, that there has been a small but unfortunate printing error in Clause 32, in that an important word has been left out. The clause begins: It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line to ensure the efficient carrying out of arrangements … That should read: It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipeline to make and ensure …

That was the original draft of the clause, but due to an unfortunate error it is different in print. This word, however, is all important in this context, because if a pipe-line owner does not set about making the necessary arrangements—in order to make which he has to approach the authorities, and so they will know what is going on—my argument will fall down. If the local authorities concerned do not get sufficient information, the duty is laid upon the pipe-line owner to give it to them. If there should be an authority on the boundary of a proposed pipe-line who might be overlooked, this Amendment enables them to demand information, if it is necessary for them to have it. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to noble Lords who were worried about this point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 37, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone a long way to meet the various points we made about ensuring that advance notification should be given to all authorities likely to be concerned with a pipe-line in their area, and, in particular, fire authorities and certain other authorities who are not covered by the definition of local authorities which is still in the Bill. The present definition, for example, excludes the London County Council, who are of great importance in a matter of this kind, and some of the Amendments which my noble friend and I moved on Committee stage were designed to meet the position of the L.C.C.

This Amendment says: It shall be the duty of the owner of a pipe-line if requested so to do by any authority, … I do not think that there is a definition of authority as such in the Bill. There is a definition of local authority, but not of authority. Subsection (2) (a) in the Amendment uses the words "in the case of a fire or police authority". We all know who the fire authorities are, and that point is covered. The noble Lord may argue, in the case of the London County Council, that they are a fire authority so that my point is covered. But I do not think he will, because there are other matters in which a local authority would be concerned, particularly an authority such as the London County Council, which their position as fire authority would not cover.

I do not think this is a mere drafting or small point. We must, I feel, before we part with this Bill, ensure that the very proper rights in matters of this kind of major authorities, county authorities, such as the London County Council, and their immense prospective responsibilities in respect of pipe-lines, will be taken care of. Therefore, I should like an assurance from the noble Lord that the point I am now making is covered. My recollection is that it is not, but I shall be very relieved if he can, in a few well-chosen and simple words, point out how wrong I am.

9.12 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that my words will be simple, although I am not sure about well-chosen. Of course, the noble Lord is technically right in what he says about the exclusion of the London County Council, as such. But in his reading of "authority" as set down in the Amendment he must refer also to subsection (1) of this clause, because it specifically refers in subsection (2), which is part of the Amendment, to the authorities in the previous subsection, where it is rather more clearly set out.

The point is that we have tried to cover the matter in the way I described in moving the Amendment so that authorities and bodies of various kinds should be notified and know all the details where they have some duty to perform in the event of some kind of accident. "Local authority" is defined in Clause 30 (4) as including "council of a county"; and this includes the London County Council, although, as the noble Lord said, it does not become apparent from what is set down in Clause 32. I think that for all useful purposes any authority which needs to know about the existence of a pipe-line because of the duty it will have to discharge will know about it, either under this clause as fire or police authority, as something which they must do (because I think the obligation on the pipe-line owner to notify them is now pretty water-tight), or because of the planning connection. I hope I have given the noble Lord the assurance he requires, and that as a result of what I have said he feels more happy about it.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if I may be allowed by leave of the House to say another word on this, I regret to say that I am not completely happy, because, as I understood it, the noble Lord said that I was technically correct in my reading of the matter and that it meant that in this Amendment the London County Council was in fact excluded. If that is the case, I would regard that as a most unsatisfactory way in which to leave the matter.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I said that he was technically correct in the way that he defined the word "authority". But, of course, in effect, as I understand it, they are not excluded, because of the duties they would have to perform in connection with the pipeline.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful to the noble Lord. If it means that in matters where they have jurisdiction where pipe-lines come into their area the London County Council will have notification, then the Amendment is quite satisfactory from my point of view, and I am most grateful to the Government for introducing and moving it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment your Lordships have just accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 39, leave out ("the foregoing subsection") and insert ("either of the foregoing subsections").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment will be required as a consequential Amendment if the new Clause 38, which is to be moved as a Government Amendment, is accepted. The new clause refers to statutory water undertakers and local water authorities which will therefore have to be defined. Previously the only reference to these bodies was in Clause 32, and they were defined in subsection (3) (d) of that Clause. With the insertion of the new clause, it will be more appropriate to include the definitions in the general interpretation provisions in Clause 54. The definitions in Clause 32 will therefore become redundant. The present Amendment will remove them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, leave out lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Mills.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I do not want to be unduly meticulous, but in the drafting of this would it not be better also to leave out, in line 18, the word "and", and then "in this section", because "and" is not a suitable conjunction after "(d)". I think it would be a slightly tidier way of doing it.

LORD MILLS

My Lords, I would ask the noble Viscount to let me consider that and deal with it later.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment, No. 47, is consequential, oddly enough, on Amendment No. 48; therefore perhaps I had better speak to Amendment No. 48 and then move this Amendment. Although it looks quite long, this is the Amendment which was put down to fulfil an undertaking which my noble friend Lord Mills gave to my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney in Committee. Clause 33 originally provided for the notification of the Minister only by the pipe-line owner on change of ownership or use of the pipe-line. My noble friend wanted the owners and occupiers concerned to be informed of a change of ownership, and that is what this Amendment does. There does not seem to be any call for them to be notified of the change of use, but it is obviously desirable that owners and occupiers should know whom they should get hold of in case of any trouble, and that is the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 33.—(Lord Chesham.)

9.20 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I find myself supporting the noble Lord in Amendment No. 47 to leave out Clause 33 but opposed to him when he spoke to Amendment No. 48. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Amendment was intended to satisfy some doubts and fears of a noble Lord opposite, but when I look at the Amendment and also at the Bill, I find a serious matter. It is that in the beginning of the Bill the Minister is given powers to grant an application for a pipe-line or to refuse it. I presume that he would make his decision not only on the question of the need of a pipe-line, but on the ability of the persons who wish to operate it. That is the first point. If, under the clause that is in the Bill and the proposed Amendment No. 48, there can be a change of ownership of the pipe-line without any prior notification to the Minister, I think quite a serious objection could be raised, because there can be a change of ownership of a pipeline without the Minister's being aware until three weeks after the sale and transfer has been accomplished.

There are two reasons why this raises a serious objection. First of all, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when speaking to an Amendment that we moved on the question of an inquiry into an accident, said that there might be a case when national security arose, when the running of pipe-lines owned by a company might be in the national interest. Under the Bill as it now stands, it is possible for the owners of that pipe-line to sell it to foreign interests. Therefore the question of national security immediately raises its head, certainly far higher than when we discussed the question of an inquiry into an accident.

The second point on which serious objection can be raised concerning the transfer of a pipe-line without prior notice to the Minister, is that power has been given to the Minister to grant compulsory purchase and compulsory use of land. That has been done in the interests of the State; but it is to be operated by private enterprise. I am not arguing against that now; but is it not easy to assume that as soon as the pipeline operator is operating, having used compulsory powers, the assets of that company become very valuable, certainly much higher than the assets of the company when the line was put down. Yet this company is free, having obtained compulsory powers, to sell the pipe-line to another company which may be quite objectionable to the Minister. But that can be accomplished without the Minister's being able to stop it. This is quite wrong, as I see it. It may be that the Minister can give us some assurance, but it seems to me that the owners of the pipe-line will be able to sell their property where national security is at stake without any reference to the Minister. In my view, it is quite objectionable. Therefore, I support the Minister when he moves Amendment No. 47, and I would ask my friends to object to Amendment 48.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I think that I can even improve upon the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in pointing, to defects in the new clause—at least, I think I am right. The effect of the new clause, as indeed of the present Clause 33, is that there may be a change in the thing or class of things that is going through the pipeline. To take an extreme case, whereas in the first instance, the substance in the pipe-line might have been treacle, it might then become aviation fuel. In the Bill as it at present stands, under Clause 18 the Minister has certain powers to prohibit various things being done in the interests of safety, but he can do that only by notice served on a person executing or proposing to execute works for the construction of a pipe-line. That is to say, the safety precautions he lays down under that clause can be laid clown only before the pipeline comes into operation. In the instance I gave, where a pipe-line is built to convey treacle, the precautions would not have reference to any future use of the pipe for any other purpose.

The only other power the Minister has to deal with such a change or use appears to me to be in Clause 21, where he has at any time the power to serve notice with respect to the examination, repair, maintenance, adjustment and testing of the line. or the inspection of the route taken by the line". or to the pressure of the contents per square inch. I should have thought there might easily be circumstances in which, with such a change of thing or class of things passing through the pipe-line, as mentioned in Clause 33, a great deal more than that might be required. Conditions could not be imposed under Clause 18, because the pipe-line would be constructed and be in operation, and I do not think that maintenance, adjustment or testing would begin to cover some of the new devices which might be required. Therefore, if my noble friend is going to look at points made by noble Lords opposite I would ask him to look at this, too. I apologise for not having noticed it before, but it appears to me that it is of importance that this gap should be closed before we allow this Bill to go forward.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, no doubt the noble Viscount who has just spoken has noticed that in the First Schedule, paragraph 1 (d), the applicant has to state what he proposes to convey in his pipe-line before he can obtain the authorisation; and yet when he wants to change the substance from treacle to aviation fuel, as the noble Viscount said, he does not have to notify anybody until three weeks after he has done it. Surely that is something that needs to be looked into.

May I, on quite a different subject, on the question of nomenclature, question this word "thing". We talk about a "thing" in a pipe-line. Surely, "thing" is a singular noun and not a noun of quantity, and is it a correct way of describing some continuously flowing substance in the pipe-line? It worries me every time I read it in the Bill, and I suggest that some better word might be found.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I think it is precisely as a result of endless cerebrations on the subject that the word "thing" has been adopted, because I think that it is probably the best available word to describe all the multitude of things that might be put up a pipeline. On the other subject, I have listened with great care to what has been said. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will not mind my saying that in fact the substance of this Amendment and its form have been no more really than a peg upon Which they have hung certain hats.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cannot object to this Amendment as an Amendment. He may have certain reservations to express on the circumstances which would give rise to the substance of the Amendment, because it merely says that where there is a change of ownership that change of ownership shall be notified to the owner of the property over which the pipe-line goes as well as to the Minister. The desirability of that will not be altered where there is a change of ownership. The noble Lord queries whether there should be a change of ownership, or whether that should be catered for in the Bill. There, I am inclined to be with him. But this is not the place to deal with it.

What I am saying is that I have listened to what he and my noble friend have said, and I believe that there is a point there that we should again con- sider. Rejecting or altering this Amendment will not make the slightest difference to that consideration, or to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has raised, because I think it is right that where there is a change of ownership of a pipe-line it certainly should be notified to the landowners concerned. I think that is indisputable. Whether there should be a change is a matter for consideration, but not in connection with this Amendment. I therefore propose to ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment, and I propose to go on to say that we should like very much to consider carefully in principle what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said and, similarly in principle, what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross said, in the hope that we shall be able at least to have something to say upon the matter when we come to Third Reading. If that is agreeable to your Lordships, I hope that you will agree to this Amendment.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I entirely agree that these two points have been hung on to this Amendment, but I am sure the noble Lord will agree that they are extremely important. When he is considering them, would he also give some further thought to what my noble friend Lord Lucan said about the expression "thing"? When we come to speak of the escape of a "thing" from a pipeline, that could cover everything from the Loch Ness monster to a defeated Conservative candidate escaping from a by-election.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, speak again? The things in the pipe-line are limited to the things for which the pipeline is authorised—and it is not thought necessary to authorise a pipe-line for defeated Conservative candidates. If it were thought to be necessary, I think we should have to bring into play the shared user by other requirements.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I do not want to follow the important discussion that Lord Shepherd and Lord Colville of Culross have had on this clause, but I should like to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting the point which I raised on the Committee stage. I am sure it is most important that the landowner should know who owns the pipe-line that runs through his land. I agree that my Amendment on the last occasion went too far. I am sure it would be impracticable to notify him of all changes in regard to the things that are going through the line. In the case of the Minister I think it is important that he should know, but in the case of the landowner, while I think he should know the ownership, there is this difficulty.

LORD SHEPHERD

I raised my objection rather "off the cuff", because it was a point I noticed when I was reading it. This is an important matter, and I think it would be useful if we could have some discussions before Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.36 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I am not going to waste very much time in moving this Amendment, but I should just like to say one thing with regard to the point that has been raised about the imposition of safety requirements after a pipe-line is constructed. That argument is properly put forward in the Bill as drafted now. Of course, the position will change in view of the Amendments from noble Lords opposite which my noble friend Lord Mills accepted in principle to-day. Therefore, that particular argument is not as valid as it would have been before to-day's proceedings took place. It is not strictly in order perhaps, and so as to avoid getting further out of order, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 33 insert the following new clause:

Notification of change of ownership or use of pipe-line

(".—(1) Where a change occurs in the ownership of a pipe-line, the owner of the line shall, within three weeks from the date on which the change occurs, give to the Minister and to every person who is an owner, lessee or occupier of land in which any part of the line is situate (except a tenant for a month or any period less than a month) a notice stating the particulars of the change.

(2) Where a change occurs in the thing or class of things conveyed by a pipe-line, the owner of the line shall, within three weeks from the date on which the change occurs, give to the Minister a notice stating the particulars of the change.

(3) A person who fails to satisfy an obligation to which he is subject by virtue of either of the foregoing subsections shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment argeed to.

LORD MILLS

This Amendment follows an undertaking I gave in Committee on April 2 in response to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who was concerned with the avoidance of pollution of water supplies. The undertaking was to provide special recognition of the duty placed on my right honourable friend, the Minister, to safeguard against pollution of water supplies. Clauses 18 to 22, 31 and 33 are particularly concerned with safety and changes in use, and contain the provisions on which the Minister will mainly depend in carrying out his duties under this new clause. Noble Lords will see that three consequential Amendments will be necessary—Nos. 46, 56 and 59—in order to remove the definitions of "statutory water undertakers" and "local water authority" from Clause 32 to the general interpretation provisions in Clause 54. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 38 insert the following new clause:

Protection of water against pollution

(" .The Minister, in order to determine whether to exercise any of his powers under this Act and in what manner should be exercised any of those powers which he has determined to exercise, shall have constant regard to the need of protecting against pollution any water, whether on the surface or underground, which belongs to any statutory water undertakers or local water authority or which they are for the time being authorised to take.").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39:

Obligation to restore agricultural land

39.—(1) A person executing pipe-line works in agricultural land shall be under obligation to secure, so far as is practicable, that upon the completion of the works the land is so restored as to be reasonably fit for use as agricultural land.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "land is," and to substitute restored to a condition similar in every way to that subsisting before the execution of the works".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a point which was raised on the Committee stage by my noble friend, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and it concerned the obligation on the pipe-line owner to restore agricultural land to proper condition after he had dug his trench in which to put the pipe. I think my noble friend at that stage produced an Amendment which perhaps was not altogether reasonable. However, the justification given by my noble friends in front of me for the wording which was then included in the Bill seemed to me to be unreasonable, in that the words "reasonably fit" had been imported from the Opencast Coal Act. If your Lordships will consider the difference between restoring land after opencast coal has been dug out of it and restoring land after a trench has gone through in which there is a small pipe, you will perhaps think that there is some reason for varying the wording of the obligation on the pipe-line owner to restore. I see that my noble friend Lord Mills has an Amendment down, No. 49B, which I rather think is intended to meet the same point; but, without looking a gift horse in the mouth, I am not altogether sure that it does. Because, as I see it, the purpose of restoration of agricultural land is not only that the top soil shall be put back on top, and other matters of that nature attended to, but that the land drainage shall he restored, the fences and hedges be put back and, where it is country with banks, that the banks shall be built up. All things like that are to be put back as nearly as possible to the same condition as they were before the pipe-line went there.

If I am right in supposing that Amendment No. 49B is on the same point, I do not believe that it will meet this requirement at all, because the purpose for which the land was in fact used before the pipe went through has nothing to do with the condition of the land itself. The only way in which No. 49B could meet the point would be if it read: for the purpose for which it was capable of being used immediately before the execution of the works had begun. As I say, I do not want to be captious about the wording of my noble friend's Amendment, but I think that there is some importance in this matter, because, after all, it is going to be a matter of great concern for the farmers to have their land restored as nearly as possible to the same condition as it was in before. I think that we ought to try to contrive the best possible wording to meet that function. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 3, leave out from ("is") to the end of line 4 and insert ("restored to a condition similar in every way to that subsisting before the execution of the works").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I have listened with care to what my noble friend has said, and I must say that I agree with most of the case he has put forward about the importance and the necessity of getting this matter right. I think that perhaps he will not be very surprised when I say that I do not greatly care for his Amendment—at least, for the wording of it—because it is open to the same objection as is the Amendment which I think was moved on Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney, which referred to the same point. What may surprise my noble friend a little more is that, after a due amount of reflection, I do not greatly care for the wording of our own Amendment No. 49B, either. I slightly agree with my noble friend that it does not go far enough to meet this case. I have devoted a great deal of thought to this particular matter, and I believe that we could do a good deal better to meet the point which the noble Viscount has made, and which I think should be met to a considerable degree. Therefore, I am going to suggest to my noble friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, that I will not move mine, and that I will put down a very much better one on Third Reading.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for putting down the Amendment, which attempted to meet the point I made on Committee stage. I will not repeat all that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said; and, for the reasons he has given, I do not at the moment greatly care for the Government Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord for undertaking to look at this matter again.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I recognise the shortcomings, both of myself and of the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, as I recollect, this is another of the "19" group. It is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 15, leave out ("subsection (2) of section eleven") and insert ("any other of the foregoing provisions").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 40 [Penalties for uttering false documents]:

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment extending Clause 32, Which is Amendment No. 44 on the Marshalled List. Clause 32, as amended, provides for penalties for failing to provide maps or information, but does not specifically penalise the provision of false maps or information. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 32, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— (" (c) in purported compliance with section thirty, or subsection (2) of section thirty-two, of this Act deposits or furnishes a document which he knows to be false in a material particular or gives any information which he knows to be so false or recklessly deposits or furnishes a document which is so false or recklessly gives any information which is so false;").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 [Provisions as to inquiries and hearings]:

9.46 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (3), to insert: ( ) Any inquiry or hearing held under the provisions of paragraph 4 of the First Schedule or paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to this Act shall be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure to be made by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Council on Tribunals.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if I may move notionally to the Cross Benches for the purpose of moving this Amendment, I do so very willingly on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and particularly so in view of the discussion that took place between him, my noble and learned friend and myself on the Committee stage. I think it is most felicitous that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put down this Amendment in the way that he has, because it seems to me to reflect the confidence that I think your Lordships and the country as a whole have in my noble and learned friend and the Council on Tribunals between them to establish a fair method of hearing in cases where local authorities' inquiries are laid down by Statute.

When this matter was discussed in the Committee stage on the First Schedule, my noble and learned friend, I think, rebuked me slightly for what seemed to him to be a too rigid application of the rules of court procedure to local inquiries. I would now, if I may, hasten to reassure him that that is the last thing I wish to do. On the other hand, I very frequently attend public inquiries, and I know some of the difficulties that tend to arise. I foresee that, in the context of this Amendment, at a large local inquiry held under the First Schedule there may well be grave difficulties about who is to begin, about the information available to an objector before he has to state his case, and many other matters which I think could, with great advantage, be considered by my noble and learned friend and the Council on Tribunals before this Bill really comes into action.

An inquiry under the First Schedule will be of rather a peculiar nature. It will certainly not be in the nature of a planning appeal, because it will not be an appeal from anybody at all. It will be more an inquiry in the first instance. As it stands at the moment, it does not appear to me that it will be an inquiry, either, quite after the fashion of, for instance, an amendment to a development plan, or the promotion by a local authority of a large compulsory order pursuant on designation of a development plan, or anything of that nature. I think that the procedure will be to some degree sui generis, and I think it is certainly worth considering whether some special rule should not be made to ensure that the procedure will run smoothly. I am sure that my noble and learned friend agrees that that is really the point of any rule that is laid down for procedure at local inquiries. The whole point of them is that they shall be informal, easy to understand, cheap, short, and extremely efficient at getting at the real point of the matter without too many of the legal twists and turns which might occur before other tribunals.

Therefore, although I am not fully conversant with the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, might have wished to make on this particular matter, I hope that it is something which my noble and learned friend will consider. If he does not make rules as such, perhaps he will at any rate put it before the Council on Tribunals, and perhaps, for all I know, it might be the subject of a circular to be sent round in due course. At any rate, I shall be very interested to hear what he has to say. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, when he was speaking during the Committee stage, was kind enough to say that he had put down these Amendments in order to let me express my views upon the subject again; and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for having developed the argument on behalf of Lord Lucas of Chilworth. The noble Lord will remember that I told my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth during the Committee stage that the work on the rules of procedure was well in hand, and that I hoped that they would soon go to the Council on Tribunals for consideration.

With regard to the first of the noble Lord's Amendments, proposing that inquiries and hearings should be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure to be made by the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that is necessary from the point of view of the Statute Book, because I already have the power under Section 7A of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, of 1958—the provisions added by Section 33 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959—to make rules for the conduct of inquiries or hearings held by, or on behalf of, Ministers. I can assure my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that, if I consider it necessary to make rules for inquiries or hearings to be held under this Bill, I will do so, and I think he may take that as a satisfactory aspect of the matter. I should not like to be tied until the Council on Tribunals have had a chance of looking at this and we come to a final conclusion on the present rules of procedure.

Also, quite frankly, before I form a final conclusion in the matter I should like to have a look with my right honourable friends at the way the Bill, in the initial stages, is likely to work. I think it would be unfortunate if one were put in the position of not being able to hold any inquiries until the rules were made, because one wants them to be flexible and adjusted to the actual requirements. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross knows that there is, of course, a great field of rules at which I have to look, but I assure him that I am most anxious that the result of which he has spoken and the kind of inquiry which he has described should take place. At the moment, its perfection rather frightens me. It is like the headmaster who was describing the qualities which he would like of the head boy of his school, and a visiting governor said, "I know exactly where you get these qualities". So the headmaster asked: "Where in the school would I get them?". The Governor replied, "You would not get them in this school or in any British school; the only person I know with those qualities is Napoleon Bonaparte". But despite that moment of pessimism, I shall try to conform with the view of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and I give him that assurance. With that, I hope he will not press me further.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount is to look at this again, would he perhaps look at subsection (3) of Clause 41? He will find that it consists of 170 words in one sentence, without a single semi-colon. I could suggest, if necessary, a very simple way of splitting, it up into two or three sentences and making it much more understandable to the average person.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am most grateful for what my noble and learned friend has said, and I know very well that this matter will now be given, if it has not already been given, the greatest possible scrutiny. I would impress upon my noble and learned friend that this may be a different sort of inquiry from others, and there is a great deal to be said for having some sort of statement made in good time beforehand on behalf of the pipe-line owner who is promoting the whole thing, so that there may be proper preparation on both sides. This is the sort of point that I am sure my noble and learned friend will look at, and in view of what he has said I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, would be most satisfied, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, may I underline what has been said by the noble Viscount, and put it in this way? This Bill is supplanting the Private Bill procedure, under which a Select Committee would proceed upon the basis that a person seeking authorisation would have to begin. For the objector to begin would be a very great departure from the procedure that is being supplanted by this Bill.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a further word. I want to be sure that I have these two points correctly. I thought at first that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross was talking of the public inquiry itself. I should be glad to look into this point and should be grateful—I mean this most sincerely—if he would send to me any points that have occurred to him on the question, and I will look at them. I am not quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was on the same point. I thought that he meant the Joint Select Committee. If he did, of course, the procedure by which a statement of the promoter's case is made will be continued and the objectors will have that in the Joint Select Committee. If I have misunderstood him, and he is really thinking of the inquiry, that is a matter which we shall have to consider, because one of the important things in all these inquiries is that those who are taking part in the inquiry should know its purpose and the points of policy involved. I will look into these points most carefully.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, with leave of the House, may I say that what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is doing is drawing an analogy between the Private Bill procedure, by which a promoter has to present his case and persuade the Committee that the preamble is proved, and the present inquiry under paragraph 4 of the First Schedule which, on the face of it, at any rate, looks as though it was up to the objector to prove the case rather than vice versa. I think that is the point that the noble Lord was making, and it was the change of roles of the two parties that was causing his concern.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved to add to the clause: ( ) Any rules made under the preceding subsection may provide for legal aid to be furnished to any objector. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think I must be candid and say that when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, asked me to move this Amendment, he said that he was handing me the end of a string on which he had already set flying a kite in the deliberations of your Lordships' House some time ago. None the less, the point to which he is referring in this Amendment is an important one and, in the context of another inquiry, is dealt with by giving the inspector the power which exists under the Public Health Act to award costs to an objector.

The point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has in mind is certainly this: that where a large pipe-line project is under discussion it may involve a long inquiry, and possibly, if the inquiry into the authorisation and the inquiry into any compulsory purchase orders are taken separately, two inquiries; and there is theoretically a third stage of the Special Parliamentary Procedure to be contended with. The line might well pass through the land of a man who had not a great deal of money but who, none the less, had an extremely valid objection; and if there were not provision in the rules or in the Bill to allow him, if successful at court, to have his costs, he might be completely handicapped from taking part and putting forward his very proper views on the subject. I am sure my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth would be extremely glad to hear my noble and learned friend's views on the subject, in order once again that this might be discussed by your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there are two aspects of this matter which I think must be considered. The first is where the costs of an objector can be paid under provisions such as that which my noble friend, Lord Colville of Culross, mentioned; and that I will certainly look into. The other is the question of granting legal aid under the Legal Aid and Advice Act. That is a much more difficult question. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I think I have introduced legal aid in some seven different fields. But my noble friend will appreciate that I have to be careful with my priorities. I want legal aid where it is most needed, and I have to consider this very carefully. While I quite see that in the case he mentioned it might be badly needed, on the other hand, if he compares it from his own experience with some cases before the Lands Tribunal, for example, he will see that I have to keep a close watch on the problem.

There is, of course, the other problem I assure him that I had no intention of rebuking him in any words, but that was his description of it earlier. He will realise that there are a series of tribunals where to introduce legal aid might encourage a formalism which would not be of advantage for the purpose for which the tribunals were established. That is another aspect I have to consider. I hope he will leave it to me to do two things: one, to look into what I may call his Public Health Act point; and the other, to take the question of applying legal aid in the sense of the Legal Aid and Advice Act in accordance with the priorities I have to consider, but which will certainly include the cases my noble friend put to me. I hope that that will be satisfactory to him for the moment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I realise that this is an extremely wide, complex and difficult subject, and we should be grateful for what the noble and learned Viscount has already done. I am sure that perhaps, if not immediately, in due course, this sort of thing may be possible; but I am only too willing to leave it to my noble and learned friend's timetable. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this is the sixth Amendment in the No. 19 group. This is the one which provides for disputes about the compensation we have introduced for various types of removal to be dealt with by the Lands Tribunal.

That is in the same way as other compensation provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:

Determination by Lands Tribunal of questions as to compensation

(" . Any question with regard to a person's entitlement to compensation under the foregoing provisions of this Act or the amount of compensation to which a person is entitled under those provisions shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the Lands Tribunal.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

10.5 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 45 to insert the following new clause: Modification of Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, in its application to certain orders under this Act . The Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, shall, in its application to an order to which it applies by virtue of subsection (5) of section nine, or subsection (7) of section ten, of this Act (not being an order that relates only to land in Scotland) have effect as if, for the proviso to subsection (2) of section four of that Act (which, in a case where no resolution that an order be annulled has been passed, precludes the reference to a joint Committee of both Houses of a petition of general objection unless either House has ordered that the petition be so referred), there were substituted the following proviso: 'Provided that where any petition so certified has been certified as a petition of general objection, that petition shall not stand so referred if, during the resolution period, either House has resolved that the petition be not so referred'.

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment which gives effect to the undertaking which I gave to my noble and learned friend Lord Conesford. We discussed this at considerable length, and I do not want to repeat myself. All I want to do now is to carry out what I undertook to do. May I say to my noble and learned friend that although there is an argument as to the necessity for the Amendment to my Amendment which he is proposing, I am quite content, in order that the matter may be absolutely clear, that my noble friend's Amendment be accepted. If he would like to move that, then I will move mine with his Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 45, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, I am most grateful. I rise to adopt that excellent suggestion. The Amendment of my noble and learned friend as it stands seems to me to provide an excellent machinery, in pursuance of his pledge, for referring a petition of general objection to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I think that, when that has been done, nobody will conceivably wish to refer it in the very elaborate alternative way. Therefore, it will be a great simplification if my Amendment is accepted; it will make it simpler for everybody to understand. I beg to move.

Amendment to Amendment moved— In line 5, after ("as if") insert— (" (a) the proviso to subsection (1) of section four of that Act were omitted; and (b)").—(Lord Conesford.)

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 47 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines of certain statutory bodies]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 44, which your Lordships accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 26, leave out ("subsection (1) of section thirty-two, and sections") and insert ("and sections thirty-two,").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, certain pipe-lines of railway undertakers]:

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 33, line 12, leave out ("subsection (1) of section thirty-two, and sections") and insert ("and sections thirty-two,").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, I think very good progress has been made with this Bill and that this might be a convenient moment to adjourn. It leaves us some 29 Amendments to consider to-morrow. I beg to move that further consideration of this Bill be adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.