HL Deb 17 April 1962 vol 239 cc784-831

Further considered on Report (according to Order).

Clause 49 [Exclusion of application of Act to, and in relation to, pipe-lines in factory, mine or quarry premises]:

LORD MERRIVALE moved, after subsection (2) to insert: ( ) Where a local pipe-line is situate partly within and partly outside a factory and is thereby for that part of it within a factory subject to the provisions of the Factories Act, 1961 and for that part of it outside a factory subject to the provisions of this Act, then any references to section thirty-seven of this Act in relation to that part of it outside a factory shall be construed as references to sections one hundred and forty-five and one hundred and forty-six of the Factories Act, 1961, so that the whole length of the pipe-line shall be inspected by an inspector appointed under that Act.

The noble Lord said: On Second Reading and during the Committee stage I drew attention to the numerous short sections of pipe-line which form a necessary part of industrial plant and equipment of this country, many of which lie in part just outside the factory, and in some cases for very short distances. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, did not agree with my Amendment and took the view that, on the grounds of safety, these short pipe-lines should not be outside the ambit of this Bill. In this connection I expressed dissatisfaction with the safety provisions of the Bill, and my dissatisfaction was based on the Minister having arbitrary powers instead of powers to promote safety requirements in the form of regulations. I would stress here that with regard to the Factories Act. 1961, the procedure for these special regulations is laid down in great detail in the Fourth Schedule.

At this point I should like to refer to an excellent little booklet, published this year by the Ministry of Labour, which explains to the layman the provisions and the working of the 1961 Factories Act. The booklet is entitled The Factories Act, 1961: A Short Guide. I should like, if I may to quote a few words from the preface, which I feel may substantiate the point that I am trying to make on this Amendment. The preface says: This pamphlet gives general guidance about the provisions for safety, health and welfare in factories laid down by the Factories Act. 1961. A little later it goes on: In addition to the Act itself, there are also a great many regulations, rules and orders prescribing special precautions for particular kinds of work or plant and dealing with a great variety of other points of detail. Then, under the heading, "Scope of Act", it goes on to say: In addition, electrical stations and substations, some parts of charitable institutions, docks, wharves and quays, warehouses with mechanical power, loading, unloading or coaling of ships, repair and certain other work on ships in harbour or wet dock, slaughterhouses and certain other premises are to some extent within the scope of the Factories Act and of special safety, health or welfare regulations made under it … I think that this extract highlights the range and scope of this Act, particularly with reference to the capability of the Factories Inspectorate to carry out any inspections which, should my Amendment be accepted, might be necessary just outside the curtilage of a factory.

During the Committee stage I drew attention to the anomaly created in the Bill of having one Inspectorate where a pipe-line is inside a factory and another Inspectorate where the pipe-line goes just outside the factory. Here I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Chesham of what he said on Committee stage on the 3rd April [col. 123]: In order that my noble friend may not be misled, I said that I would look into the position of the dual inspection that he alleges. That is what I am looking into.

I hope that he has now been able to look into this matter and that he will be able to agree to this Amendment. I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships and to Her Majesty's Government, as I feel that it may be a practical solution of what would otherwise be a frequent source of difficulty.

This Amendment is based on the principle of giving powers of inspection to the existing and highly qualified Factories Inspectorate under the Factories Act, to which I referred earlier on, for which the Minister of Labour is responsible. I think that there can be no doubt that the starting point of a pipe-line in a factory is the keypoint from the point of view of safety. Again, I think it is equally true that the Factories Inspectorate could carry out all necessary inspections whether within the factory or outside it. Thus I feel would be achieved in the simplest and most direct way the extension of the high standards of safety inside factories, and it would be extended to ancillary external operations which involve pipe-lines. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Merrivale.)


My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Lord must surely appeal to all noble Lords as an entirely sensible remedy for what appears to be a possible lack in this Bill—a lack of definition of responsibility for inspection of pipe-lines. We know that demarcation questions are liable to give rise to a great deal of contention. Noble Lords remember that in ships there is a point at which the engine-room department ceases to be responsible and the deck department takes over. There have been other more contentious cases of demarcation disputes, but here is a case where the inspectors under the Factories Acts cannot, it appears, carry on their duties outside the boundaries of the factory.

The noble Lord is proposing that they should be responsible for the inspection of the pipe-line for the whole of its length. I may say that it is perhaps some support for the view which my noble friends and I took earlier in regard to the definition of "local" pipe-lines. We said that we thought a distance of ten miles was too long. If the Minister thinks ten miles outside the factory gates is too much for factory inspectors to take on, he might perhaps consider reducing the ten-mile limit on "local" pipe-lines to five miles or less, as was suggested in the Committee stage. I hope the Minister will look with a kindly eye on this Amendment.


My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Merrivale for reminding the House of what I said in Committee, as to exactly what it was I was looking at. I still, of course, remain of the view that the desire of my noble friend and the noble Earl opposite to ensure that nothing should be done in the Bill that would have the effect of preventing sensible administrative arrangements is one with which one can have sympathy.

But, my Lords, this Amendment does not commend itself to me, superficially attractive as it is. I think it should not commend itself to your Lordships, either, and I must tell you why. It seems to me, in the circumstances, that the argument that the factory inspector is the man who could inspect the whole of the pipe-line, could equally well be met by the argument that it should be a pipe-line inspector. I do not think that there is any evidence there which would necessarily suggest the acceptance of this Amendment, rather than another, and I do not think my noble friend—unless I do him an injustice, which I certainly should not wish to do—has really thought this thing right out.

I remember that, on the last occasion, my noble friend gave us an example of a pipe-line running between two factories which were only a very short distance apart. But they might be a much greater distance apart. They might be anything up to ten miles apart. Even if we followed the noble Earl, who considers ten miles too long for a "local" pipe-line, it seems that they could be five miles apart unless any criterion were observed other than a very short distance. I think that it would be unreasonable to put on the factory inspectors the onus of inspecting the whole of that pipe-line, because it would probably mean imposing on them, skilled as they are within their own sphere, to which the noble Lord referred us with the aid of this admirable guide to the Factories' Act.

The noble Lord read out a long list of things to which factory inspectors were expected to pay attention, and I am sure that they do; but I am sorry to say that it does not necessarily fit them for inspecting a pipe-line where it goes out- side the factory and across country. Neither will they necessarily be equipped with the needful statutory powers to do so, and there will be the necessity of application of different statutory provisions under the Factories Act and under this Bill. Therefore, it would not be at all simple to apply the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward. In fact, I think that if the Amendment were accepted it would cause certainly as many difficulties as he seeks to cure, if not more.

Now, my Lords, I am going on to say this. Clearly, there is here—one cannot deny it—a problem of a kind, to which the noble Lord has drawn our attention. But surely, as I have shown, it is not one that should be tackled by means of a definite provision in the Bill. On the grounds of safety, I would rather have an overlap of two inspectors making certain that the pipe was inspected, than letting it fall between two stools. I would rather that than the other way round. But this anomaly which has arisen is essentially a matter to be dealt with by administrative action. This is surely the kind of case where the Ministers concerned would get together and come to a satisfactory working arrangement by consultation with all concerned. That kind of thing is often done, and I am sure it will work in this case. I can certainly assure my noble friend, that it is one of the matters to which the Minister will devote the most careful attention when he comes to make his arrangements for administering the Act. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend, and the noble Earl opposite, may feel that that will adequately cope with the situation, because I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.


My Lords, there is only one rather frightening feature of the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has just made; that is, that he would rather have an overlap with perhaps two officers having responsibility. My general experience has been that, where there is an overlap, nobody does the work: it is always left to the other fellow. That is a most serious point. I think that the Minister has not used the best argument for him, which is that factory inspectors are a very much overworked body of men. They are a very competent body of men, exceedingly well skilled in many branches of machinery; but one has to face the fact that, because inspectors are so thin on the ground, the inspector himself has, quite rightly, to decide when and where his duties are going to be performed.

I have never complained about the manner in which they do their duties, because I have seen them operating in the field and I have the highest regard for them. What they naturally have to do is to watch the ones whom they know are a bit shaky; and, when it comes to the large firm who have a very good record in regard to the fencing of machinery, standard of machine maintenance, safety of tools, equipment, ladders and all the rest of it, the inspector naturally leaves them alone for long periods of time and pays them only a courtesy call. But with certain other operators who are working on a shoe string, he almost has to watch them from week to week.

Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, that it might be better for someone in the position of a factory inspector to be excluded from the pipe-line operation, skilled though he is and knowledgeable though he is in the possible working of it. But I must say that I hope the Minister will make it clear that the safety precautions are the responsibility of one group of the inspectorate, and not overlapping groups. Otherwise we shall find that because of the pressure of work each will think that the other has done the work, and it will never be done.


My Lords, by leave of the House I should just like to comment upon what my noble friend Lord Chesham has said. He hoped that my Amendment would not commend itself to your Lordships, and gave you reasons why he thought it should not do so. I must say that I was not very convinced. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, in so far as he approved the idea of only one inspectorate, and I must say that I felt as strongly as he did when the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that he wanted to see two inspectorates overlapping. I must say that I support the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, wholeheartedly on that aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that we may be able to achieve this by administrative action, and it may well be that Her Majesty's Government would rather do that, because at the moment they are nit quite sure which is going to be the appropriate inspectorate. In effect, this matter has not really been gone into sufficiently, so Her Majesty's Government have not been able to put down an Amendment which would clarify this situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, said that the factory inspectorate, excellent as they were, were over-worked. As under the new Act inspectors will have to be taken on, I should have thought it would have been better if they were taken on by the factory inspectorate. Another point is that, under this Bill, according to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, inspection along the line will be carried out by inspectors. But I should have thought there might well be many instances where the initial cause of a fault would have to be traced right up to where the pipe-line was initiated; in other words, within the factory. So what happens then? Then the inspectorate under the Ministry of Power will have to obtain the permission of, or make some arrangements with, the inspectorate under the Ministry of Labour. I do not propose to press this to-day, but I must say that I think the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Chesham are most unconvincing. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53 [Meaning of pipe-line]:

3.10 p.m.


My Lords, I trust that I shall have a little more success with this Amendment, because this is a point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? In reply the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that he had not written on his notes either "Resist" or "Accept" and was waiting to hear what the arguments were in favour of the Amendment before deciding whether to agree to it or not. Drains and sewers are constructed and operated by many persons, including local authorities, for public health purposes, and also by industry for the drainage of trade effluents. In the case of both local authorities and industry such drainage cannot always be achieved by gravity alone. This drainage has sometimes to be effected under pressure, and therefore pumping is required. I put this Amendment down really for clarification purposes. On the question of the disposal of trade effluents, I think it is fully covered under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts of 1951 to 1961, so that the matter of the route of a drain is not left to casual chance or choice. I sincerely hope that, with those few remarks, my noble friend may see fit to accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 34, line 36, after (" sewer ") to insert (" or any pipe or system of pipes used for purposes of drainage of land or premises.").—(Lord Merrivale.)


My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me of what I said on the last occasion. I had thought, without reference, that I had said it in relation to his other Amendment, which he will doubtless move in a moment, but that is a very small point because I think I might equally have said it in regard to this one. Having said I wanted to pay attention to what he then said, I have now learnt what it is that he is putting forward by way of a case. Although my noble friend hopes that I am going to accept this Amendment, I am sorry to disappoint him by sayina that, in fact, I am not. The reason that I do not wish to is not that I disagree with him in the argument he has put forward but that I cannot see that it is necessary. I rather anticipated that my noble friend's argument might be something like what he has said, and I tried to think about it beforehand so far as I could. It seems to me that the Amendment is unnecessary, and that is why I do not wish it to be accepted.

I think that the matters which my noble friend has called to our attention do, without any question of doubt, fall within the definition contained in the Bill of a drain or a sewer. That is my understanding of the matter; and therefore I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I think it is quite unnecessary, and would merely add words to the Bill which would have no meaning or use if they were in it. On the other hand, if it be that I am wrong, I should be prepared to look at the matter again to make absolutely certain that there was not any kind of drain that was not covered. If my noble friend would like to expand the matter and to call my attention to something else privately afterwards, I should still look at it to make certain that it was covered, but my understanding is that it is covered, and that the Amendment is therefore unnecessary.


My Lords, it seems to me that, as there are so few words in the Amendment, it would not very much overload the Bill if the noble Lord were to accept this Amendment. Apparently the noble Lord who moved it is concerned only with clarity, and, instead of waiting for trouble to arise, wants to deal with it at this moment. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill feels that these words are such a heavy weight that it would be a waste of good paper and print to add them, then there is no more to be said. But I should have thought, with the noble Lord who proposed the Amendment, that as there are so few words and they definitely would clarify the situation he might very well accept the Amendment.


My Lords, my recollection of this matter tallies with that of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in that the concern which I personally expressed was solely related to pipes used for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Nevertheless, I agree with my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh that the acceptance of this Amendment would make for clarification and would not unduly overburden the Bill, particularly having regard to the fact that the Government have, at the instigation of noble Lords on both sides of the House, very substantially increased the wording of the Bill, greatly to its benefit.

But the one point that I make is that we are to some extent groping in the dark, because the noble Lord has not yet seen fit—and perhaps quite properly not seen fit—to disclose his intentions with regard to the next Amendment. I am therefore bound to say that, while we might be willing to respect his view that it is quite unnecessary to add these words to the Bill at the present moment, certainly I think that I personally, and I hope your Lordships in general, would take a very much stronger line if the noble Lord produced some other arguments on the next Amendment.


My Lords, may I ask leave of the House to speak again—I cannot speak otherwise—because a fresh point has cropped up, the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh? It is not a question in this case of merely adding a few words, and a very few words at that. The noble Lord asked for clarity. It is precisely for that reason that I do not wish these words to be put in. They add nothing to the clarity of the Bill, and that is against the whole theory of building a Bill. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, says, a great many words have been put in, I am not objecting to the cost of paper or printing ink; but when you wish to add words to a Bill which do nothing to add to the clarity of that Bill in any way, which is what I submit is the case here, I really cannot accept that they should be put in; they should be kept out.

I had not indicated any intention regarding the next Amendment because I had thought that it was a completely different point—as to me, indeed, it appears to be. If it will help your Lordships at all, I said on the last occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out, that I wanted to hear what was put forward in justification of the Amendment. And I still do. That is the position. I cannot indicate any impression one way or the other until I know exactly what the noble Lord has in mind. No doubt in a moment or two, when he comes to move it, he will tell us. But, in the meantime, in the circumstances, I am no more inclined to ask your Lordships to accept Amendment 54 than I was earlier.


My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask my noble friend to expand something that he said?—because he did say that this Amendment was unnecessary. If it is unnecessary, will he give a categorical assurance that any drains or sewers which convey liquids under pressure do not come within the ambit of this Bill?


My Lords, I suppose that, as I have been asked a direct question, it is in order for me to answer it—I trust so, at any rate. The answer is simply this. If the pipe concerned is a drain or a sewer, whether running by gravity or under pressure, it is specifically excluded from the provisions of this Bill. That is my point: that what the noble Lord is putting forward as that which ought to Abe inserted in this Bill, is already fully covered in the Bill.


My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Merrivale will not press this Amendment, because, apart from the point of view of drafting and the Statute Book as a whole (if I might go further than my noble friend Lord Chesham), not only is this Amendment unnecessary but it might throw doubt on the interpretation of "drain or sewer" where the term is otherwise used. From that point of view, I think that all my legal friends agree with me that it would be a dangerous departure to put in these additional words which would throw that doubt.


My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MERRIVALE moved to add to subsection (1): (d) a pipe or system of pipes used

  1. (i) for agricultural or horticultural purposes or
  2. (ii) for scientific research or experiment."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment proposed in paragraph (d) (i) is intended to exempt pipes which may be used on farms and related premises for agricultural purposes, including, for example, greenhouses for horticultural and market garden purposes. Such premises—


My Lords, I wonder if I might interrupt my noble friend at this stage to ask him a question. In view of the limitations that there are, would he be quite specific when describing the pipe-lines he has in mind "for agricultural or horticultural purposes?" Would he describe exactly what the pipes are intended to convey? In other words, what is to be run through them? If he will kindly inform us, I think it would be helpful to the House, and certainly to myself.


My Lords, the pipes are pipes which are within the same premises, and could be used to convey fertilisers, or milk; but they are on one premises.


My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? There is one very common use in horticulture for which a pipe can be used, and that is for the conveyance of steam for the fertilisation of soil. That is a common practice in horticulture, and that might very well be one of the purposes.


My Lords, I believe that steam is not included in the Bill. The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from the provisions of this Bill any pipe which may be used in the horticultural industry or agricultural industry in one premises for the conveyance of various things which are used by those industries.

The proposed new paragraph (d) (ii) is related particularly to research establishments which are not factories, but which nevertheless build and operate research equipment involving pipes and the conveyance of a variety of liquids or things that are often used in research. I feel that, as such pipes are found in these establishments, it would be impracticable to carry on the work which is necessary in these establishments if sixteen weeks' notice had to be given to the Minister of Power of any change in the layout of the pipe-lines which are necessary in the day-to-day working of these research establishments. In addition, where research is involved, the movement of a pipe-line may have to be done at very short notice. Also, if one is going to carry logic to the extreme, it seems to me strange that schools are not referred to in this Bill, because they may have a research establishment or research laboratory; and I presume that if it were necessary for any pipe-lines to be moved, an application would have to be made to the Minister of Power by the Minister of Education. Therefore, my Lords, I am hoping that the noble Lord will be willing to accept these words, which I feel may help to clarify this position.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 2, at end insert: (" (d) a pipe or system of pipes used—

  1. (i) for agricultural or horticultural purposes, or
  2. (ii) for scientific research or experiment.") —(Lord Merrivale.)


My Lords, I am very glad that I have heard my noble friend's exposition of his Amendment. I, like him, think it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we deal with it in two parts—the agricultural and the scientific. The noble Lord said that there might be pipe-lines which would convey certain things in the world of agriculture or of horticulture. I had been hoping that he was going to give us some evidence that there were some, and thus show that there was some kind of problem to be faced. That is why I was rude enough to interrupt him in the early stages to ask him to be specific about the purpose for which these pipe-lines were going to be used.

If he will look at Clause 53 of the Bill, he will see that subsection (1) states that pipes … for the conveyance of … air, water, water vapour or steam are specifically excluded from this consideration, as of course are drains, heating apparatus, and so on, as set out in Clause 53. Therefore, in the normal way such pipes for irrigation, conducting major quantities of heat about horticultural holdings, and so on, are already outside the Bill. I wanted to know from him whether there were other kinds of pipe-lines in?use. I do not know, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, will have something to add to this. Personally, I do not know of any pipe-lines down which milk flows within a farm. I think there may be some in the future for conveying milk, perhaps over larger distances, and in that case there is no reason, so far as I can see, why they should be outside the scope of the Bill.

I should have liked some evidence that there was a problem. The noble Lord has not told us of anyone who actually moves liquid fertilisers within the confines of his farm. The only farm pipe-line that I know of is run by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who does not seem to be here at the moment, to move whey from his cheese-making building to the piggery. It does not seem to me that the noble Lord has shown that there is a problem to be tackled. I am trying to resist his Amendment without resisting the principle. If there is a problem to be tackled in agriculture and horticulture, an Amendment to the Pipe-line Bill is not the way to tackle it. Perhaps it could be done by putting farms on the same basis as factories and providing for this by some other modification of existing legislation; but it cannot be done by removing farm pipelines from the definition of "pipe-line" in this Bill. However, I am prepared to look at this point, and if anything needs to be done, I will try to do it. But I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.

The same reply must be given to the other half of his Amendment, in regard to pipe-lines used for scientific research or experiment. There may be such lines and I shall be very willing to look into the point if the noble Lord will give me specific examples. Again, if we are to deal with such pipe-lines I think that it would be better to place them on all fours with pipe-lines in factories. I will give the noble Lord the assurance that this matter shall have the attention which the noble Lord thinks is its due. I hope that I have persuaded him that his Amendment is not the way in which to get it properly done.


My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Lord with examples of the type of pipe-line that might justify the acceptance of this Amendment. While the words in subsection (1): for the conveyance of anything other than air, water, water vapour or steam and the later words, in paragraph (b): … a pipe or system of pipes constituting or comprised in apparatus for heating or cooling or for domestic purposes; remain, they seem to cover almost everything possible. It is well understood these days that in horticulture, in particular, people are constantly experimenting with pipes of a kind beneath the surface, but even these would be covered by the words "heating". Therefore. I cannot conceive of any example that might be put to the noble Lord.


My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the real problem is the length of pipe-line? One can imagine pipe-lines carrying all sorts of special liquids, but most of them would be comparatively short. Is there a limit in the Bill to the length of pipe-line? A pipe-line may be 500 yards or 50 yards or only 5 yards. Comparatively short pipe-lines carrying many kinds of fluids no doubt exist on farms.


My Lords, I think that I can help on the horticultural side. I have in hand at the present moment a plan for moving diluted pig manure for about half a mile on my fruit farm.

On Question, Amendment negatived.


My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to cover the Amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Faringdon, Lord Stonham and Lord Lindgren, which follows next on the Marshalled List. I can see very little difference in the wording of this Amendment and the one put down by the noble Lords. It seems to me to meet the same purpose. Clause 53 (2) enumerates the associated works and apparatus which alone are to be treated as part of a pipe-line. The Amendment would add any structure used for carrying a pipe-line over, for example, a marsh or a ravine, when it would be impracticable to lay the line below the surface. Similarly, any concrete works necessary for carrying a pipe-line under the bed of a stream or below the surface of difficult ground will be covered. The general provisions of Clause 38 will ensure that such structures will not desecrate the countryside. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 19, at end insert— (" (f) a structure for the exclusive support of a part of the line or system. ").—(Lord Mills.)


My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the point that we have suggested. I agree with the noble Lord that there does not seem to be much difference between the Government Amendment and our Amendment. The only thing is that ours was tabled first. I have complained many times about the use of excessive words and would congratulate the Government on their six words, "for the exclusive support of a" in substitution for our eight words, "used solely for the purpose of carrying any". So, at least, that is an improvement. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the last words, "the line or system" carry exactly the same meaning as our words, "any part of the pipe or system". If he is satisfied that they do mean precisely the same thing, and is so advised, I would particularly welcome the Amendment.


My Lords, they do seem to mean exactly the same thing.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [General Interpretation Provisions]:


My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 17, at end insert— (" ' local water authority ' means a local water authority within the meaning of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946;").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.40 p.m.


My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised to see that this Amendment is down in the same form and the same words as that put down by my noble friends and me on the Committee stage. I will not weary your Lordships by going over all the arguments, but, briefly, we think that this is an element of the transport system of the country and that the proper Minister to look after it and administer the Bill is the Minister of Transport, and not the Minister of Power. This Amendment really hinges on the matter of the closed mind of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Mills, on the Committee stage, on April 3, assured us that the Government's mind was not closed; and he said that twice to emphasise the point. So I think we can take heart from that and feel that in the course of time, as the Bill proceeds on its way through Parliament, we may see What we want come about. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 18, leave out (" Power ") and insert (" Transport ").—(The Earl of Lucan.)


My Lords, I do not intend to reiterate all the arguments advanced when this question was considered in Committee, but as I supported it so strongly then, so I support it now. The more I have thought about it, the more I have been convinced that, as the responsible Minister for the economics of this country's transport, the Minister of Transport should be responsible for the administration of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mills, even if he does not accept the Amendment this afternoon, will leave the door open for further consideration, and perhaps to hear the arguments which will be advanced on this point in another place. As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, reminded us, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, said that he still has an open mind upon it. I am certain that this Bill will never work satisfactorily in the interests of the transport of this country unless the administrative Minister is the Minister of Transport.


My Lords, I should like to endorse from these Benches what both noble Lords have said, and to say that the fact that the speeches on this occasion have been short does not indicate, I am sure, that many noble Lords in this House do not feel strongly that this is a matter for the Ministry of Transport, and not the Ministry of Power.


My Lords, may I remind the House of a rather peculiar position that will arise if the Minister does not concede the point that has been made by my noble friend Lord Lucan and supported from opposite sides of the Chamber? If this Bill goes through as drafted, we shall have the Minister of Power responsible for the pipe-lines. But in anticipation of a debate, I was over the week-end looking at the new Transport Bill under which the Railway Boards will have power to operate pipe-lines, but from which it would appear that it will be the Minister of Transport who will give the necessary authority. It would seem, therefore, that we shall have two Ministers controlling and approving two separate types of pipe-lines. I should have thought that that would lead to complete chaos.


My Lords, it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, that I did say twice at least on the Committee stage that the Government had an open mind on this matter. But I did not give any reason to think that the Government had in mind making any change during the passage of this Bill. In fact, I particularly said that for many reasons—and I enumerated them both on Second Reading and in Committee—we had chosen the Minister of Power to get the development and control of pipe-lines under way. In this choice there were administrative considerations; there was the fact that the whole of the experience and history of pipe-lines were vested in the Ministry of Power; and the fact that they had all the expertise. In view of this, the present is not the right time to consider giving the task to the Minister of Transport.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has drawn attention to something appearing in the Transport Bill. But I believe that refers only to pipe-lines on railway or canal property required by the railways for their own use. The only other power which is given to the railways is to use their land for the operation of pipe-lines by somebody else, which would come under this Bill. So there is no confusion at all.

It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is convinced that the right Minister is the Minister of Transport. I doubt whether the Government or I personally would entirely disagree with that. But having weighed up all the circumstances and considered what is the best thing to do at the present time in order to get this matter moving efficiently and properly, we have come to the conclusion that the right Minister is the Minister of Power. I

would ask noble Lords to accept that view and not to press the Amendment.


My Lords, I hope that my noble friends will press this Amendment to a Division. If, for instance, the Ministry of Power have produced a Bill such as this Bill was when originally introduced into this House, then that is about the best of all possible reasons for the administration of pipe-lines not to be left in their hands. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth: pipe-lines are a new form of transport. It is not a new form of coal or electricity. It could be almost a revolutionary change—a change for the better, we all hope. We wish the Bill well, and all that may flow from it, but, for the life of me, I cannot see one solitary argument why a form of transport should be handed over to the Ministry of Power, whose job it is to look after producing coal, electricity or power in any form, but not transport. I do not think it will bear argument to insist that this pipe-line business ought to be left in the hands of the Ministry of Power. Of course, there is no reflection on the Minister, and none is intended. I hope noble Lords will feel that this forthcoming transport revolution should be in the hands of the Minister of Transport and not in the hands of the Minister of Power. I hope my noble friends will go into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 53.

Addison, V. Lawson, L. Shepherd, L.
Airedale, L. Lindgren, L. Sinha, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Stonham, L.
Amulree, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Summerskill, B.
Amwell, L. Meston, L. Taylor, L.
Archibald, L. Moyne, L. Walston, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Ogmore, L. Williams, L.
Citrine, L. Rea, L. Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Furncss, V. Rusholme, L. Wise, L.
Geddes of Epsom, L. St. Davids, V. Wootton of Abinger, B.
Henderson, L.
Allerton, L. Carrington, L. Crathorne, L.
Auckland, L. Chesham, L. Croft, L.
Baden-Powell, L. Clwyd, L. Denham, L.
Bossom, L. Conesford, L. Devonport, V.
Boston, L. Congleton, L. Dynevor, L.
Effingham, E. Jessel, L. Perth, E.
Elliot of Harwood, B. Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Rathcavan, L.
Elton, L. Lansdowne, M. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Ferrier, L. Long, V. St. Oswald, L.
Forster of Harraby, L. MacAndrew, L. Somers, L.
Fortescue, E. Mar and Kellie, E Soulbury, V.
Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Margesson, V. Spens, L.
Fraser of North Cape, L. Massereene and Ferrard, V. Strathclyde, L.
Gosford, E. Merrivale, L. Teynham, L.
Hailsham, V. (L. President.) Mills, L. Twining, L.
Hastings, L. Milverton, L. Waldegrave, E.
Howe, E. Newall, L. Waleran, L.
Jellicoe, E. Newton, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.


My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9 of Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 25, at end insert (" ' river works consent ' means a consent given under section thirty-one of the Land Drainage Act, 1961 ").—(Lord Mills.)


My Lords, I think this Amendment definitely brings the river boards within the scope of the Bill as I requested, and I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister. While on my feet, may I say how sorry I was not to be present when the Amendment to Clause 10 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and was accepted? I am sure I am expressing the appreciation of the River Boards Association, as well as my own Association, for the consideration given by the Government to these Amendments.

4.0 p.m.


My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 49 in the Marshalled List.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 25, at end insert— (" ' statutory water undertakers ' has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of the provisions of the Water Act, 1945, other than Part II of that Act.").—(Lord Mills.)

Clause 55 [General application to Scotland]:


My Lords, this is the last Amendment in what I referred to earlier as the "No. 19 group". It is, in fact, a drafting Amendment in the clause on general application to Scotland, and perhaps its chief interest to us Englishmen is to find out what it is they call "chattels" in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (" (2) For any reference in this Act to chattels there shall be substituted a reference to corporeal moveables.").—(Lord Chesham.)


My Lords, This Amendment is consequential on No. 60. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 42 at end insert— (" (7) For any reference in this Act to the Lands Tribunal there shall be substituted a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland: Provided that until sections one to three of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, come into force as regards Scotland, this subsection shall have effect as if for the reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland there were substituted a reference to an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919; and sections three, five and six of that Act shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, in relation to the determination of any question under this Act by an arbiter so appointed.").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 56 [Expenses and receipts]:


My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on an Amendment your Lordships accepted to remove the former Clause 14 (4) in Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 39, line 3, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Chesham.)

First Schedule [Applications for Grant of Pipe-line Construction and Diversion Authorisations]:


My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 20, after (" street ") insert (" or river ").—(Lord Mills.)


My Lords, I do not think we ever quite cleared up the question of the conditions under which an authorisation should be given. This Amendment to the First Schedule refers to the specifying by the Minister of conditions, and it seems that in this second paragraph there should be mention of any conditions laid down by the Minister. I wonder whether the noble Lord would tell us if he has come to any further conclusion on the points that we raised yesterday. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 39, at end insert (" subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the notice.")—(The Earl of Lucan.


My Lords, yes, I have been able to inform myself a certain amount and to consider this matter since the noble Earl raised this query, which we left in a somewhat inconclusive state in our discussion yesterday. What he really wanted to know, if I recollect properly, was whether the Minister had power to require a pipe-line to be modified in the sense of being extended. We knew he had power to modify the proposed route for the pipe-line but the noble Earl thought of various reasons that he considered might tempt the Minister to want it to go further than the applicant applied for, and asked whether the Minister had the power to insist that he should. In fact, it is doubtful, to say the least of it, whether he has the power to do that—to insist on authorising the extension of the line as opposed to the variation of the route which has been put to him in the application.

What he could do, if he thought it was necessary, would be to refuse the application—he has the discretion to do that—and he could make it clear to the applicant that he would not allow it to proceed unless he got a modified application which took account of the extension that he wished to make. The most he could do would be to say, "You may not have your line this long; you must have it that long". But he would have no power to say to the applicant, "You must have it there"; and the applicant would, of course, have discretion as to whether or not he then wished to build the line that long or whether he did not. To make it quite clear, I will draw an analogy with the powers that the President of the Board of Trade has in dealing with an application for an industrial development certificate. In that instance he says: "You may not put your works here; you may put them there"; but he cannot say, "You must put them there". It is then up to the applicant whether he goes there or does not. The same would be true of this pipe-line application. I hope I have made the matter sufficiently clear to answer the question that the noble Earl asked. If not, I shall have to ask him to be patient and I will try to answer any further questions that he puts.


My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. It makes clear that the Minister has power, even if a rather indirect one, and it is symptomatic of the whole approach of the Government to this matter that the Minister can act only in this roundabout, rather negative way. However, I think it is too late in the progress of this Bill to take this matter any further, so I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


My Lords, this Amendment and the two subsequent ones, No. 66 and No. 67, which are consequential, have gone down to implement an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, in Committee. The noble Lord wanted, in addition to the notices which are to be given locally, notices to be published in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette so that national bodies and various bodies who work on a plane higher than local level could learn of the proposals that there were to build a pipe-line. That suggestion I examined, and I came to the conclusion that it was good, and this Amendment meets it precisely. It will also help to meet the point, which I know is the view of some noble Lords, that there should be wider publicity on schemes available to the local authorities and they would have a better chance of seeing it. I hope the Amendment meets the noble Lord's ideas, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 46, leave out (" such ") and insert (" the Gazette and thereafter also in such other ").—(Lord Chesham.)


My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken.

4.11 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after paragraph 3 (1) (b), to insert: (c) a like notice shall be served on every council of a county district, metropolitan borough, town (in Scotland) and parish in whose area any part of the route of the proposed pipe-line will lie, and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph ' metropolitan borough ' shall include the City of London

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although I rather imagine that my noble friend intended the Amendment which your Lordships have just accepted to meet my point in some degree, I am not altogether satisfied that it does so. All through this Bill your Lordships have been discussing the balance between the people who should by statute at various stages be told of pipe-lines being proposed or being authorised and so on, and on the other side, the difficulty that would ensue if one attempted to put in the Bill a list of all the possibilities and contingencies that might arise in the event of which bodies should in special circumstances be given that information. My noble friend said that the last thing he wanted to do was to put in a long list of bodies to be informed, because if he did so he would indubitably in some particular cases miss out a very vital body and, in many other cases, include many bodies who need not be told at all. This I appreciate. Nevertheless, as this Schedule stands there is only one particular body which must, as a matter of course, be told of the application and the inquiry which is forthcoming, and that is the local planning authority.

The local planning authority is either the county council or the county borough council. In the case of the county council, this is a central body which, although it may very well have ideas on the general route of a pipe-line through its area, is not the body which has the local and detailed knowledge to decide upon whether the thing should be fifty yards to the left or to the right of any particular place. The authority which has that knowledge is the authority at a lower stage, in the county particularly, county district and parish, and in London of course the metropolitan boroughs, and in Scotland the town councils. As I said on Committee stage, I do not think that there can be any occasion when these local authorities would not rightly be informed of a proposed pipe-line to go through their area. Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to put in the local planning authority in this Bill and they have seen fit to leave out everybody else. I should be most dissatisfied if this Bill went out of your Lordships' House without, at any rate, a very clear assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the local authorities were going, to receive their notices.

So far Her Majesty's Government have said nothing about the way the Minister proposes to exercise his powers under paragraph 3 (1) (b) of the First Schedule, which gives him the power to specify other persons who will receive a notice. Your Lordships have no idea who those persons will be; you have no idea whether, as a matter of course, it will include the local authorities I have mentioned or not, and the whole scope of it is very vague. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be a little more frank with your Lordships and tell us rather more of their intentions in this matter. If it be that they are going to make a rule that all the local authorities I have mentioned will, as a matter of course, get notice, that is probably satisfactory, but in my present state of knowledge I do not think it is. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 13, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)


My Lords, this Amendment follows a similar Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on April 3. I then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 239 (No. 60), col. 151]: I do not disagree with what the noble Viscount has had to say on this matter, but, again. I have to plead for time to consider it. I want to see what all this means. The addition of various authorities is proposed, and I should like to look at the whole problem. I see the force of what the noble Viscount says, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it. I am not accepting the Amendment at the moment, but I should like time to consider it further. I can assure the noble Viscount that I have given a great deal of consideration to this problem. The Bill as drafted quite deliberately leaves the Minister discretion as to the persons—other than the planning authorities—on whom he should require the applicant to serve notice. It sounds quite simple to include the authorities set out in the Amendment, including the parish councils, among those on whom notice has to be served; but the problem is not quite so simple as that. There will, no doubt, be a large number of persons, including the local authorities and statutory bodies of various kinds, on whom notice will need to be served. The list will not necessarily be the same on each occasion. For example, when a pipe-line crosses a national park the National Parks Commission should certainly be notified; but it would be quite wrong to put in the Bill that the National Parks Commission should be notified of all occasions on which there is to be a pipe-line authorisation. That indicates our objection to this Amendment.

It will be the Minister's intention when administering the Act to set up standing administrative arrangements for ensuring that in each case notice is given to all those people who should be notified, but also that large numbers of unnecessary notices will not have to be served. Once we start adding authorities to whom notices should be given we may have to go on with the process; therefore, it was quite deliberately left for the Minister to decide in each case who should be given notice. That does not mean that there is any disagreement about the fact that in general local authorities should be given notice. I hope the noble Viscount will be content with that explanation.


My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I must say that, seeing nothing on the Marshalled List, I thought that the sympathy which he enunciated on the Committee stage had probably evaporated altogether. I am glad to see that it has appeared again this afternoon. Nevertheless, when he says that administrative arrangements will he made whereby all those who should be notified will be notified, I wonder whether, with the permission of the House, he would go a little further. He said, later on, that as a general rule the local authorities will receive their notification. That is most gratifying. But does he mean all the local authorities? I confess to your Lordships that this point was put to me by the parish councils. It is a matter of great importance to them that they should have a say in the route that the pipe-line will take through their area. They are well acquainted, as a rule, with the intimate details of their neighbourhood. It is not so much that they wish to obstruct, as that they have ideas about where it would, and where it would not, be suitable for the pipe-line to go. I wonder whether my noble friend could go a little further, and say whether all the bodies that I have mentioned will, where suitable, and where the pipe goes through their area, be consulted. I do not know whether your Lordships would allow my noble friend just to answer that question.


My Lords, with the leave of the House I will try to give an answer, because the question of parish councils is one which causes us considerable anxiety. Certainly, in every case where a parish council were directly concerned—where, for example, the pipe would have to go over a recreation ground or anything of that sort—they would be notified of the proposal. I think they would in many cases where they clearly take a great part in the affairs of the neighbourhood. But it is a little difficult to generalise about parish councils, and I think the Minister should use his discretion: he would require the notices where he thought it necessary, and he would not do so where there would be difficulties. I hope that that answers the noble Viscount's question.


Yes; if my noble friend is certain that the Minister of Power is aware which parish councils are active in their localities and which are not, then I am sure that is a reasonable answer to the question. I hope that he will in any case consult with his right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, because I do not believe that the Minister of Power, in his normal functions, is aware which parish councils contribute to the work of local government in their locality and which do not. I feel sure that that is outwith the Minister's normal scope.


My Lords, would the noble Viscount not agree that it is not the Minister of Power who has to make up his mind which parish council is concerned, but the local planning authority? Surely the local planning authority in each case, in the normal working of the planning Acts, does keep in pretty good touch and does keep the smaller local authorities informed?


My Lords, with the leave of the House and with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, that is not so. The people who will be notified are such as are specified by the Minister. At the end of paragraph 3 (1) (b) the noble Earl will see that the people that I am talking about are "such … other persons as may be specified by the Minister." After the result of your Lordships' deliberations a short time ago, that Minister is still the Minister of Power.


But he is anxious to notify all the local planning authorities.


My Lords, I have ventilated this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


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

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 16, after (" notice ") insert (" in the manner directed by the Minister").—(Lord Chesham.)


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

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 18, at end insert (" and ' the Gazette' means

  1. (a) in relation to an application for the grant of an authorisation for the execution of works for the placing of a proposed pipe-line along a route lying wholly in England and Wales, the London Gazette;
  2. 812
  3. (b) in relation to an application for the grant of an authorisation for the execution of works for the placing of a proposed pipe-line along a route lying wholly in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette;
  4. (c) in relation to an application for the grant of an authorisation for the execution of works for the placing of a proposed pipe-line along a route lying partly in England and Wales and partly in Scotland. the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette.").—(Lord Chesham.)

4.25 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after paragraph 4 to insert: ( ) For the purposes of any inquiry held under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule a full statement of the applicant's case is to be made available to any objector twenty-one days before the hearing or inquiry takes place.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move this Amendment, may I offer my sincere apologies to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, especially as he had put himself out to be present in your Lordships' house in order to reply, for not being in my place rather late last night in order to move the three Amendments standing in my name which really have some connection with this Amendment. I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that I am contrite. I must confess that I absolutely miscalculated the efficacy of the threat which was held over your Lordships' House by the Government Chief Whip; that unless you made satisfactory progress with the Bill you would all be called to London on Maundy Thursday. It only shows what your Lordships can do if sufficient inducement is held out ! However, the situation offered me the pleasurable opportunity of briefing learned counsel to appear on my behalf; and, if he will permit me to say so, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, most efficiently and charmingly made my case as well as I could have made it. I now have the satisfaction, for the first time in my life, of having briefed learned counsel without any fear of being presented with a bill.

Perhaps it would meet the convenience of your Lordships and of the noble and learned Viscount if I speak to Amendments Nos. 67A and 68B together. Your Lordships will recollect that upon the Committee stage, on the Question that the First and Second Schedules to the Bill be agreed to, I said that I feared that, as the Bill is drafted in the fourth paragraph of the First Schedule and the fourth paragraph of the Second Schedule, which compel the Minister to hold a public inquiry when there are objections, the inquiry would be held only into the objections; and I expressed the fear that that would narrow too greatly the scope of the inquiry. Your Lordships will remember that, with the patience your Lordships' exercise here, I was allowed to go back to the Franks Committee and to quote the words of that Committee upon this question of statutory inquiries and the extent to which a statutory inquiry should be allowed to go. Quite frankly—that is not supposed to be a humorous pun—that Committee stated that an objection could not properly be considered unless the wide reasons for the objections were also entered into.

I put down the other Amendments which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, so kindly moved last night, because I wanted the noble and learned Viscount to make rules which would cover exceptional cases which I thought would arise when the statutory inquiries were considering the novel thing that we are now doing by this Bill—that is, giving statutory authority for a private enterprise firm compulsorily to acquire the property of a private individual. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was quite right when he said that I specifically stated that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor should make these rules, because we all have such a high regard for his fairness and his diligence in protecting the rights of the most humble citizen. In this particular case, the humblest of citizens might be fighting against a most powerful financial concern in regard to the putting down of a pipe-line through his property. I put down these two Amendments because, when the replied to me, the noble and learned Viscount said that he would like to consider the point again.

There is some difference between the First and the Second Schedules. The First Schedule deals with public inquiries following an objection against consent to lay a pipe-line; the Second Schedule deals with a public inquiry consequent upon an objection against a compulsory purchase order. At some time or another, either in the second case or the first, the question must arise: what is in the national interest? Is it right that the burden of proof should be upon the objector, rather than upon the applicant? Therefore, I have put down these two Amendments stating that there should be an obligatory 21 days' notice to enable the full case of the applicant to be made available to objectors. The objector should have time to prepare his case, and should know in detail what case he has to answer. I do not think I can put it any plainer than that. I have chosen 21 days because that is the period that already applies in regard to planning permissions and objections to planning permissions which are the subject of a statutory inquiry.

There is one point which I should like the noble and learned Viscount to answer. Might I ask him whether there is any likelihood that, where there is an objection to either of these consents that might arise under the First Schedule, the Department may possess themselves of the same powers as the Ministry of Housing and Local Government so that they really assume the functions of a planning authority? Under the First Schedule planning authorities could be objectors as well as private individuals.

I trust that I have made the point clear, and I hope that by expanding, upon what I said on the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount may be able to clear up this apprehension which, as I think he knows quite well, is exercising the minds of people other than myself.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 41, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)


I should have thought that there was much to be said for these two Amendments, if only because in some cases at least I should have thought the effect of them might well be to allay the objectors' fears and thus to render the eventual inquiry in some cases perhaps unnecessary. As to the noble Lord's obligatory 21 days, I myself should have preferred to see it expressed as "not less that 21 days". I should have thought that that was what was intended. There is no sanctity about the precise figure of 21, and I feel that "not less than 21 days" would be a better expression to use.


My Lords, I do not think I can allow the occasion to pass without thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his kind words. I only wish I could always have clients in whose cases I so thoroughly believed. I do not want to expand very much on what I said yesterday, except to make one point to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. So far as the Franks Committee Report has a bearing on this subject, one of its most remarkable by-products has been the circular that was issued in 1958 which requires the local planning authority, in the case of a planning appeal or compulsory purchase order, to issue a statement of its case to the applicant within a reasonable time of the inquiry, so that he may know what case he will have to answer. In this particular instance the matter is not suitable for a ministerial circular, because, of course, the pipe-line owner will not be under the direct jurisdiction of any Ministry. Therefore, if it is to be effective at all, it will have to be done by some sort of rule laid down by my noble and learned friend. But the effect of the circular issued in 1958 has been so beneficial in the planning world in enabling people to go properly prepared for the case they have to meet, that I believe that an equivalent provision would be of immense value in this particular instance. I therefore support my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth in what he says.

4.37 p.m.


My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth for having raised this point again, because, naturally, in the course of our discussions I have been giving the matter considerable thought. I should like to put to the House the state of my thinking at the moment—as much, I hope, to get information later on as to express my own views.

My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will remember that on the Committee stage, and again I think to-day, he was worried that in either of these cases the burden of proof would be put on the objector. In answering him in our discussion in Committee, I said that it was hardly conceivable that the Minister would decide whether or not to make an Order on the narrow issue of onus of proof. The question is not really one of proof but of balance of advantage; and I stand by that. But the point which has been worrying me in the night watches is whether we ought not to make a distinction—as indeed the noble Lord has done in his speech; although he has very conveniently invited us to discuss the Amendments together—between the inquiry which precedes the Minister's making up his mind on authorisation, and the inquiry which may lead to a compulsory purchase order or a compulsory rights order.

I could not help being impressed by the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, in other connections, has returned again and again to the negative nature of the Bill, and that is a point of disagreement between us. We feel that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is that pipe-lines will be created. If that is taken as the purpose of the Bill, I think that the first point your Lordships have to consider is this: how do you approach an application for authorisation? Should that be approached with an onus on the applicant, or if the purpose of the Bill is to be carried out, should one not approach it on the basis that, up to the point, and only up to the point at which you run into using compulsory powers either for purchase or a right, you will give the authorisation unless an objection is clear? I am deliberately stating the problem, because I think it is important at that stage. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will understand that I emphasise again and again the words "at that stage", because once you come to the second stage, when you are going to infringe the rights of the individual, then different considerations apply. But I should like my noble friends to consider that point, because I think it is an important one.

To continue to look at what I may call the first point—the application for authorisation—if one follows it out in the case of an application for a pipeline construction authorisation, that grant will not In itself enable the applicant to exercise powers over anyone else's land. Therefore, one comes to consider how one should apply my noble friend's Amendment concerning "a full statement of the applicant's case". At that stage, does a potential objector require to know more than the sum of the matter set out in paragraph 1 of the Schedule; that is, the name and address of the person who will be the owner; the points between which the proposed pipe-line is to run; copies of a map or reference to a map, so that the map is available to him; the question of whether or not the grant of rights or any street works consents have been given; what is proposed to be conveyed in the proposed pipe-line; and such other particulars as may be prescribed by the Minister?

At that stage—I am deliberately putting this interrogatively, because I should like noble Lords to think it over and to help me if they will be so kind—is it not enough if the person knows that; and then, knowing whose pipe-line it is, what it is going, to carry and how it is going to go, he will know whether there is something to which he objects at that stage. I think it might be said that that was enough, but if my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross were advising the undertakers, knowing him as I do I think he would probably advise them that they would be sensible if they added to that statement some information showing the economic or public advantages of their pipe-line. I cannot imagine a document, after being settled by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, not containing a very strong statement on that fact, and probably that would he sense. But, if that information is given to the potential objector, I should have thought, at any rate, that this was worthy of consideration. Did my noble friend want to ask something?


My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount invited observations, otherwise I do not think I should have had the temerity to intervene at this stage. But I should just like to mention again a point which I was endeavouring to make on another Amendment last night. It is that, but for this Bill, the procedure on the application for authorisation stage would have been the Private Bill procedure of this House or of another place, at which any objectors would have had the benefit of sitting back and hearing the applicant for the authorisation making the whole of his case in support of his application. That is the only point I wished to make.


My Lords, I hesitate always to question anything that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, says, but would it require statutory powers to make a pipe-line in every case, if you had agreement on the land or if you acquired the land voluntarily? I wonder. I cannot see why. It may be that what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has in mind is this. Of course, once you came to use compulsory powers either for the acquisition of the land or for the acquisition of the rights, then you would have to come to Parliament—assuming you were not one of the agencies of Government or a local authority which have powers under general Statute. That is really what we have been discussing. Before the Provisional Order procedure was invented you would have had to have a Private Bill; after that you would have had to have a Provisional Order. After I invented the Special Parliamentary Procedure, you could use the Special Parliamentary Procedure. But without further argument, I could not accept that you needed Parliamentary powers merely to construct a pipe-line if you did it by agreement. However, may I consider that point? I am very willing to listen to anything that the noble Lord says if he thinks that I am forgetting something. But at the moment I cannot see a flaw in my argument.


My Lords, I was only saying that there are two recent precedents which I can think of, where applicants for constructing substantial pipe-lines had to come to Parliament and promote Private Bills, and to make their cases in Select Committee.


My Lords, speaking from memory, I think that in the Esso case, which is the best known, the Esso Company wanted to obtain powers to acquire land compulsorily along their route. Perhaps my noble friend and I can both look at it. If I am wrong I shall be happy to admit it, but at the moment I am not convinced.


My Lords, I am sure that my noble and learned friend is right. I believe that there was within a very recent period quite a long pipe-line laid entirely voluntarily, without any Bill at all.


My Lords, if we proceed on that basis for the moment, I think I should like to make the distinction that what I have said is that, in going for an authorisation, a statement of the kind I have mentioned—I am not laying down a rule for ever, but I am laying down the sort of thing that appeals to me—would be appropriate at that stage. I say to my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that I think, in the view which I now hold, that it may be found that, in any event, it would be for the convenience of all concerned that the applicant should provide a statement—not a long statement, but a statement explaining his proposals so that objections can be considered in their proper context. But I should like to examine that first. As I say, I should like my noble friends to examine it in the light of the approach I have made. So I come to the end of the first question. At the moment, I am disposed to think that a statement of the sort I have described would be useful—and, of course, if it is going to be useful it has to be given in reasonable time.

That is broadly the position on the first Amendment, dealing with it up to the question of authorisation. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth had in mind recommendation No. 67 of the Franks Committee, and noble Lords will remember it runs: An acquiring or planning authority should be required to make available, in good time before the inquiry, a written statement giving full particulars of its case. As I have indicated, in the first stage this is not analogous, or closely analogous, to an acquiring authority or a planning authority putting restrictions. Therefore, I think that, for the first stage, one might consider the sort of statement that I have mentioned. But on the next stage, when one is going for compulsory powers, I would remind my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth (because I think he heard me do it five years ago now) that I accepted in this House that recommendation which I have just read. It was accepted in principle by the Government; and, of course, I hope it will be covered in general terms in the new rules of procedure that have been evolved.

When these rules are made—and I told my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth that they are now on the way to the Council on Tribunals; the Council on Tribunals having given their views, the rules are being drafted and sent to them—then they can be applied by me to inquiries held under this Bill. Therefore there is no need to make special provision, because, as I said last night, I have the power under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. I do not think it would be useful for me to make up my mind as to any differences until this Bill has gone through and one sees not only in what form it is but the sort of views which have been expressed: because this is a matter entirely without Party, in which all quarters of the House unite in order to make the matter as fair as possible. That is my intention on the second part, and that, I think, meets my noble friend's second Amendment.

I apologise for taking so much time, but this, I think, is one of the really important aspects of legislation which we ought always to be considering—namely, in these days when the State has to take powers for the general good of the community, how can we best secure that the individual gets a square deal? That is the reason I have occupied your Lordships' time, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth will believe that I am giving great attention to the points that are so near his heart as well as mine.


My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount; and may I exercise the privilege that is mine when withdrawing an Amendment by accepting the invitation of the noble and learned Viscount and putting to him for his consideration one or two further points arising out of what he has said? As I understand the noble and learned Viscount, he would rather have the procedure under the First Schedule, and the Second Schedule to be subject to the rules which he will make in consultation with the Council on Tribunals, than have them written into the Bill. I think I understand him there. May I ask him whether he is satisfied that the rules of procedure, which are, as he has just told the House, in transit, practically, from his Department to the Council on Tribunals, will cover the special points which it is so necessary to cover concerning the procedures under this Bill? Up to date, statutory inquiries of the nature we are now discussing have always been, if I may use the expression, the individual versus the State. The individual has been against nationalised industries supported by Ministries and the State. Now this is something different: this is the right of a private individual versus a statutory consent or a statutory power given to private enterprise—there is a difference there.

The noble and learned Viscount said at one time (I think it was on the Committee stage) that these two inquiries, an inquiry into an application for consent to lay a pipe and an inquiry into an application for a compulsory purchase order, might be rolled into one at the same inquiry. May I tell the noble and learned Viscount that such a prospect fills me, as a layman, with unmitigated horror. Because once a consent to lay a pipe-line has been granted to an applicant—even before that, when the Minister has told the applicant he can proceed without prejudice—I would say the pass has almost been sold, and that the objector will for ever afterwards be negotiating under duress and at a grave disadvantage. Once a Minister has accepted a recommendaton by one of his inspectors, after an inquiry, to give permission to lay a pipe-line, what chance does an objector have of doing a decent deal, without any compulsory purchase, with the man who sits over him holding such a ministerial power? So I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will take that into consideration.

I hope he will also take into consideration that, even if it is not so in the first case, under the First Schedule, under the Second Schedule we may have the advantage of the promise, or the tentative promise, that the noble and learned Viscount gave us—that that inquiry as to compulsory acquisition will be under the chairmanship of an independent inspector. I should not feel that the interests of the ordinary individual were being properly safeguarded if the first and the second inquiry were held under the ægis of the same Ministry with a similar inspector from the same Department.

These are some of the things that I had hoped the noble and learned Viscount would have put into the rules. I note from the OFFICIAL REPORT what he said last night, and I have sympathy with what he said. His words were [col. 767]: … 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 agree: it is far better to be wise after experience. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw both these Amendments, and to leave my case in the very safe hands of the noble and learned Viscount.

But I would come back and ask the first question again. If, on mature consideration, he finds that the rules of procedure on public inquiries—which cover the whole field of public inquiries and are at present in transit from his Department to the Council on Tribunals—do not cover the special cases which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and myself have raised, and which are well before the noble and learned Viscount's mind, will he make further rules so as to safeguard the position as he sees it? My Lords, before I withdraw the Amendment, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would give me that assurance.


My Lords, if your Lordships will give me permission, I will consider most car-fully the point which my noble friend has just put to me. He will give me some time to consider it, but I guarantee that that will be done. I have one sin to confess. My noble friend in his speech asked me a direct question which I did not answer, and I am sorry, because my mind was on another point. He asked me, on the planning aspect, whether there was anything corresponding to the Minister of Housing and Local Government's calling in a planning application. May I put it this way: that for a cross-country pipe-line, the Minister of Power may grant deemed planning permission as if the case were called in. That is the nearest analogy. From a local point of view, the Minister of Housing and Local Government can call in the planning application as he can call in any other application. If there is any other point, perhaps my noble friend will write to me about it.


My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and to the House for having the patience to discuss this matter, and with that I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule [Applications for Grant of Compulsory Purchase Orders and Compulsory Rights Orders]:

5.3 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in paragraph 2, after "Where" to insert: notice has been given to the Minister in respect of a pipe-line pursuant to section two of this Act and ". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like, in speaking to this Amendment, to revert as briefly as I can to a rather intricate point which I raised on Committee stage on the Question "That the Second Schedule be agreed to".

There appears in both the First and the Second Schedule of this Bill a power which I have not previously discovered in any other Act of Parliament in connection with Ministerial consents, public inquiries, and so on; and that is, a sort of initial veto in the hands of the Minister. The Minister is given power, in the first place under the First Schedule, when an application is originally made to him, before anything else happens at all, to say whether or not he approves of it in principle. He may say that he does not, and then the scheme can go no further at all. On the other hand, he may say that he does approve in principle, and it may then proceed, without prejudice, to an inquiry, and a report from the inspector upon the broad application for the pipe-line. Equally, in the Second Schedule, as the Bill now stands, there is the same sort of veto or without prejudice" power for the Minister to consider in advance any application made to him for a compulsory purchase order or a compulsory rights order.

When I mentioned this point on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Mills gave me in answer one very cogent consideration of which I had not thought, and that was in connection with a local pipe-line. A local pipe-line can be laid, under Clause 2 of this Bill, without any initial application to the Minister at all. So long as one serves the notice on him and obtains planning consent, then the work can progress and nothing more need be said unless compulsory powers are required. If they are, then I think it right, in the case of a local pipe-line, that at that stage, which is the first time the Minister has ever had the chance to stop the scheme, he should have the veto power provided by the Second Schedule. And so my Amendment says.

But then we come to the situation under the First Schedule, which deals with a cross-country pipe-line. Here it seems to me that the veto power in the Second Schedule is completely otiose, because, in the first place, the Minister will have the application served up to him at the beginning, and he will have given his approval or disapproval in principle. If he has given his approval, it will probably have gone to a local inquiry; and for the Second Schedule to arise at all, he is bound to have given his consent. At that stage it seems to me that the applicant, or the pipe-line owner, should be able to go straight for a compulsory purchase or compulsory rights order without this curious veto stage coming in afresh. It will add nothing to the Minister's powers. He would already have authorised the application as a whole, and would have power under the local inquiry to turn it down or approve it when he has heard all the case. Therefore I cannot see that there is any opportunity for him to object on principle, in the case of a cross-country pipe-line, to a compulsory purchase order or compulsory rights order.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mills then attempted to justify his argument by saying that it would often happen that the inquiry under the First Schedule, and the inquiry as to the compulsory purchase order or compulsory rights order under the Second Schedule, would be amalgamated under Clause 41 (3) of this Bill, and that therefore the Minister had to have power, as it were, to veto the compulsory purchase order or compulsory rights order as well as the original application. This, I think your Lordships will agree, on reflection, cannot possibly be so, because no local inquiry can be held into either the application or the compulsory rights order unless, in the first instance, the Minister has allowed the application to go through its veto stage under the second paragraph of the First Schedule, and to go forward without prejudice to what he may later say. So I cannot see that, even in those circumstances, any power of veto is necessary at the Second Schedule stage.

If I might here interpolate one remark to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack about the circumstance when the two inquiries are held at one time (which might, I suppose, in certain circumstances, be a good idea), I would say that it does seem to me to have certain grave difficulties. With regard to the distinction which he made over the question of, not so much the burden of proof, but that concept transferred to the idea of a local inquiry, I hope that the rights of the individual will prevail, and that it will be the compulsory purchase order side of the matter which will predominate, so ensuring that the burden of proof in that joint inquiry will be as it was in the case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, of a Private Bill, where a very similar set of circumstances would arise if the two inquiries were held as one. I hope that my noble and learned friend sees what I am trying to get at.

However, to revert to this immediate Amendment, I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Mills has thought further about it, because the present provision seems to me to clutter up this Bill with an unnecessary stage in the procedure, which adds nothing to the Minister's powers or opportunities for proper examination of the matter and is quite senseless in the case of a cross-country pipe-line. Therefore, I hope that he will consider my Amendment, which confines its power to the local line, as justified in all the circumstances. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 44, after (" Where ") insert (" notice has been given to the Minister in respect of a pipe-line pursuant to section two of this Act and ").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)


My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked me whether I had given further thought to this matter. I wondered whether he himself had given further thought to the matter, as he undertook to do when he replied to my explanation. As he says, the Amendment would restrict the Minister's power to reject applications out of hand to those required in connection with local pipe-lines. I should just like to make the point first that the Minister does not say that he approves the course of a pipe-line in principle. What he says is that he does not object to it in principle. I think that those two things are very different.

But to return to the main point, the person applying for a pipe-line construction authorisation will normally apply simultaneously for any compulsory powers which he needs. Under this Bill the Minister has power to reject out of hand any application for the authorisation. If he is to retain that power—and I think he should—he should also be empowered to reject out of hand any application for compulsory powers needed in connection with it. Otherwise, the quite ridiculous position might arise that when the Minister had rejected an application for consent to lay a pipe-line along a given route he would still have to go through the long and expensive process of holding a public inquiry into an application for the granting of the compulsory rights over land along a route over which a pipe-line would not be authorised in any case.

I think that the Minister's right to reject an application for compulsory powers because he does not accept the application for la pipe-line is a very valuable safeguard to landowners. I do not know whether I have made myself clear. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is objecting to the right given to the Minister to reject out of hand an application for a pipe line. If not, I think it is right that, together with that power, he should also have the power to reject out of hand an application for compulsory rights.


My Lords, evidently I have totally failed to make my point clear to my noble friend, for which I apologise. I do not want to weary your Lordships unduly with this. The point I wish to make is that, apart from this Bill, nobody may ask the Minister to give him compulsory purchase rights either of land or of rights in land. If I may confine myself to purchase of land in order to simplify matters, the only way anyone can do that is to apply under Clause 9 of the Bill for authorisation to purchase land compulsorily. The only person who could do that is the person proposing to execute works over land for the placing therein of a pipe-line. Under Clause 1, no works may be executed on land for the construction of a pipe-line except under authorisation granted by the Minister. No question whatever can arise of anybody asking for compulsory powers unless he has an authorisation from the Minister or has gone through the initial stages of paragraph 2 of the First Schedule and then had two inquiries under the First and Second Schedules rolled into one.

If that has been done, then the Minister will have had his opportunity to turn down the authorisation for the pipe-line which is proposed, because he would have dealt with it under the second paragraph of the First Schedule. I do not object to this power. I think that it is an excellent power under the Second Schedule, in the case of a local pipe-line. All I object to is that, in the case of the inquiries being taken separately, the Minister should go through this performance twice. It seems to me utterly pointless. Obviously, I have made my case very badly, because the noble Lord has just said he did not understand it, but I wonder whether he would not look at this point again because I believe that there is something in it.


My Lords, with leave of the House I should like to say that if I have not understood what the noble Viscount seeks to do, nevertheless I know what this Amendment does. It confines the Minister's power to reject out of hand an application for compulsory rights to a local pipe-line. To my way of thinking, it will often be the case that someone who wishes to lay a pipe-line will come forward with the application itself and with the appropriate applications for compulsory rights at the same time. This Amendment would destroy the right of the Minister to say "No" to the compulsory rights as well as to the pipe-line application itself.


My Lords, I am afraid that this is not progressing and I think that the only thing to do is to beg leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after paragraph 4 (3), to insert: (" ( ) In relation to Scotland any inquiry required by sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall, if the Minister so directs, be held by Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, and where any direction is so given—

  1. (a) it shall be deemed to have been given under section two, as read with section ten, of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945;
  2. (b) the publication and service under the last foregoing paragraph of the proper notices concerning the application for the making of the order shall be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of subsection (1) of the said section two with regard to the giving of notice by advertisement; and
  3. (c) subsection (2) of section forty-one of this Act shall not apply to such inquiry.")

The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Bill as introduced omitted to include a provision which has customarily been inserted in other Acts providing for Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, and this Amendment repairs that omission. The point arises only on Orders extending to Scotland. Any such Order, if opposed, would under the Scottish provisions of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, become the subject of public inquiry by Parliamentary Commissioners in Scotland—normally two from each House. If the ordinary local inquiry had also to be heard first, the parties would be making two appearances before the Order began, whatever proceedings were called for at Westminster. I hope that I have made that clear, because I know that my noble friend Lord Conesford had this very much in mind. To require both the ordinary inquiry and the Parliamentary inquiry in Scotland would mean two inquiries before it came to this House and we think it is right to telescope, as the Amendment will do, the two Scottish stages, with the practical result that when the Order comes to Westminster, Parliament will have the benefit—which it customarily has in all matters of Scottish private legislation—of knowing what its own Commissioners think about the case.

There are several precedents in legislation subsequent to the 1945 Act for telescoping the two Scottish stages in this way. Section 36 (12) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, is an example from a Great Britain Act. In Scottish Acts, we have Section 74 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, and Section 30 (3) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. In view of the fact that Parliamentary Commissioners will hold the inquiry, I do not think that we need have a local inquiry as well. We shall have the subsequent proceedings When the Bill comes here. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 7, at end insert the said subparagraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

5.20 p.m.


My Lords, this Amendment is to take account of the provision allowing the Minister to introduce a Bill for the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order in Scotland when he is not prepared to accept amendments made by Commissioners. The right to question the validity of a compulsory purchase order in England is not available if the order has been confirmed following introduction as a Bill. Under Scottish procedure, orders affecting Scotland only are examined by the Commissioners under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, and if the Minister is not prepared to accept the recommendations of the Commissioners he may introduce a Bill for the confirmation of the order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 26, after (" 1945 ") insert (" or under subsection (4) of section two, as read with section ten, of that Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Third Schedule [Provisions for rendering Compulsory Purchase Orders effectual, &c.]:


My Lords, this is an Amendment put down as the result of an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in Committee, as also are the next two Amendments, which are consequential. The noble Lord was not content with the position of the exception of two provisions of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, from this Bill. At the time I said I thought that his doubts were not soundly based and it would not matter very much, but I promised to think it over. In doing so, it seemed to us, after all, that there was substance in the point put forward by the noble Lord, and these Amendments have been put down to meet it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 47, leave out lines 1 to 4.—(Lord Chesham.)


My Lords, I only want, with your Lordships' permission, to thank the noble Lord very much for what he has done and for the Amendment he has moved.


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

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 10, leave out from (" ninety-two ") to the third (" one ") in line 11.—(Lord Chesham.)


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

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 15, leave out from (" ninety ") to the second (" one ") in line 16.—(Lord Chesham.)

Fifth Schedule [Provisions for Controlling Execution by virtue of Compulsory Rights Order, of Works on railway land]:


My Lords, this is a small Amendment to allow the general provisions of Clause 55 (4) to apply in relation to arbitration in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 16, at end insert— (" (3) Sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not apply to Scotland.").—(Lord Chesham.)


My Lords, this is the last Amendment which I have to put, and I should like to refer to something which your Lordships will remember happened last night. We were dealing with Amendments 39A, B, C, D and E, and a certain failure of communications occurred between the noble Lord, Lord Mills and the Chair, which was myself. An Amendment was put, and then the noble Lord remembered that, in view of an undertaking he had given to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, he should not have moved the Amendment. The noble Lord announced it,* and I asked him which Amendments he was not moving and he included that Amendment. I proceeded on the basis that the House would accept the procedure that the Amendment was not moved. I hope your Lordships think I did right, and that it is in order to have the Bill printed on that basis. I did not want to go further without communicating it to your Lordships, and I take it that your Lordships' silence gives me consent.


Hear, hear !