PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 26 March 1962 vol 238 cc771-836

2.48 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

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

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

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

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

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, to insert as a new subsection (1): (1) The British Transport Commission, or any Board or Authority to which the functions of the said Commission may be transferred, shall have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain.

The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth regrets that he is unable to be here to move this Amendment. But your Lordships will be aware that in the Second Reading of this Bill he expressed the view that all my noble friends hold, that this new development in transport is one that ought, in our view, to be kept under public control. However, so far as we can we should like to amend the Bill in such a way as to give more scope to the agencies operating the national transport system. Everyone agrees that this pipe-line development is a new, almost a revolutionary, development in inland transport. It is going to supplement and compete with existing methods and we have to see to it—indeed, the purpose of the Bill which the Government have brought in is to see to it—that the evils of the unrestricted and unrestrained competition of the last century on the railways is not repeated. Therefore, we have examined the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill with that in mind.

We find the position is rather confused, because at this moment there is a Bill before the House of Commons, one clause of which gives power to agencies of the Transport Commission to construct and operate pipe-lines, either themselves or through the agencies of other bodies. I think that we should be told what effect that other Bill, the Transport Bill, and that clause in particular, have on the Pipe-lines Bill. We have been told by the Minister in the Second Reading debate that, under existing authority, the railways, the inland waterways and other Government Boards are empowered to build pipe-lines and operate them if they are for their own operational purposes only. If any of these boards wish to operate pipe-lines to act as carriers for other owners, then they will have to come to the Minister under the Pipe-lines Bill and obtain authorisation.

We think that the need for co-ordinating the various means of transport in order to avoid waste and duplication is such that the Transport Commission should be able to operate pipe-line systems as carriers of other peoples' goods in the same way as the railways and waterways carry other peoples' goods on their own tracks and canals. This seems to me almost exactly parallel with the system as operated in other countries. In France, for example, a body including representation of the French Government departments and private interests is operating a pipe-line between Havre and Paris, carrying other peoples' goods—namely, various types of oil. We think that in our country the Transport Commission, or any Board or authority to which the functions of the Commission may be transferred under the Bill now going through Parliament, should have power to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain. Your Lordships will have noticed that Amendment No. 3, in the names of my noble friends, is designed with the same object; that planning claims to construct and operate pipe-lines should lie with the British Transport Commission or its successors. I hope that the Minister may appreciate the reasonableness of this demand. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS)

This Amendment, as also No. 3, is presumably intended to deal with the issue of principle between the Opposition and the Government in relation to this Bill—that is, the issue of public ownership. The noble Earl gave several reasons for the Amendments. He said it was essential to have a rational plan for the future development of a pipe-line system; that pipe-lines should operate as common carriers, and that pipe-lines should be co-ordinated with other forms of transport; and, of course, I am sure that the noble Earl had in mind too that the Transport Commission would be enabled to use its land for the purpose of building and operating pipe-lines.

I should like to refer to the Government's general approach to this question, as I did in the Second Reading debate. The Government do not dispute the need for the orderly development of pipe-lines or for avoiding, as my noble friend Lord Chesham once said, a pipeline network like a dish of spaghetti, sprawling all over the place. But the Government do not think that public ownership is desirable at this stage. As the Minister of Power said in discussing this matter in another place, it seems desirable to leave the problem to the initiative of private enterprise, provided that there is public control on a recognised plan and pattern. In my Second Reading speech, I also pointed out that I saw no reason why the Government should be called upon to provide millions of pounds for the development of pipe-lines which are required for private enterprise.

The noble Earl asked me what the effect of the Transport Bill, now being considered in another place, would be on the Pipe-lines Bill. Clause 12 of the Transport Bill will empower Boards to construct and operate pipe-lines in Great Britain, or to enter into transactions with other people to construct and operate them; but they will not have power to acquire land for this purpose except where the pipe-line is to be mainly on lands belonging to the Boards. These powers are adequate to ensure that full use can be made of the railways and canals, but they stop short of empowering the Boards to build pipe-lines anywhere for the purpose of providing a new service or simply for making a profit. It is the Government's view that that is the right place to draw the line.

The construction of pipe-lines means heavy capital investment. No one would argue that the British Transport Commission are in such a flush financial position that they should devote their funds to this new enterprise when the alternative of getting private industry to provide the funds is there. The only thing that this Bill seeks to do is to see that any development is a proper one, that it is conducted in an orderly fashion and that a proper system of pipelines evolves from what industry requires at the present time.

The Government do not accept the view that pipe-lines should be operated as common carriers, so that anyone who puts down a pipe-line should be compelled to take other traffic. But the Bill does provide that, if the Minister sees the need for pipe-lines to be constructed in such a way as to carry additional traffic, that should be done. Finally, the Government accept the view that when major pipe-line projects are being considered other forms of transport should be examined; that care should be taken to avoid unnecessary disturbance to lands by the fullest use of the existing wayleaves of the Transport Boards, such as disused railways and canals. It will be the Government's intention to set up administrative and consultative arrangements for discussion on such matters. I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this Amendment, which is really the back door to nationalisation.

LORD SILKIN

I will not pretend that I am disappointed at the noble Lord's reply, because I expected that he would take a line of this kind. I am bound to say, however, that I regard it as a very narrow and unimaginative line. We are at the beginning of a new era, and for the Government to take the view that they will merely sit back and hold the scales for people to come along who think they can make a profit out of this new phase of transport, and not themselves take an active part in its development, is, as I have said, in my view, narrow and unimaginative. The noble Lord said that he felt it was necessary to have a co-ordinated system. But are you going to get it in this way? All that will happen is that some undertaking (and there is one already in the picture, I see, for whom the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is going to speak, because they have a large number of Amendments to this Bill), visualising a profit out of providing certain pipe-lines in certain areas, will come along and, if the Minister of Power gives them authority, acquire private land compulsorily. That, to me, is a shocking doctrine from a Conservative Government—to give one private body power to acquire compulsorily land from private people, or to acquire private rights over other people's land.

At any rate, the Minister is going to take that power and give them those rights. I am not sure whether there can be a public inquiry or not; I think that is a little vague at the moment. But we are going to see that if private enterprise does function it will function fairly between one body of private enterprise and another. Private enterprises are going to function in this way; and it will happen quite fortuitously and accidentally, and only in those places where some body feel that they can make a profit. There will be no co-ordination, no attempt to make sure that this new form of public transport will be general throughout the country or that one scheme is linked up with another

I feel that the Government are losing a wonderful opportunity of being in right at the beginning of something which is bound to come in the future. We had this sort of experience before in various forms of transport. The railways were built fortuitously: not necessarily in the right places, but where some undertaking thought they could make a profit. It was a bad mess, and in the end they had to be publicly acquired. I know that noble Lords opposite did not support the nationalisation measure, but they have taken no steps to denationalise. They are quite capable of doing that, if they think it right, but they have allowed nationalisation to stand. The same thing happened with the tramways all over the country; they had to be municipalised. I foresee that if this goes through in the way in which the Government seem determined that it shall, the time will come when these pipe-lines will have to be publicly acquired. We shall then have to" pay through the nose", and pay for something which is unco-ordinated and less satisfactory than it could be if this Amendment were accepted.

The issue is not quite as the noble Lord says, because we contemplate in the Bill that private enterprise may come along and take part. But what we want is that where the British Transport Commission, or any body that are going to be put in their place, decide that they would prefer to do it, then they should be allowed to do so; they should be allowed to take the initiative in any part of the country where they think a system is necessary and desirable. So far as we on this side of the Committee are concerned we should have no objection to private enterprise coming in and supplementing and co-operating in the policy of creating a nation-wide system of underground transport.

As I have said, I had no hope that the Government would accept this Amendment, and all I am doing is putting on record as clearly as I can the reasons which have prompted us to move it. I hope, at any rate, that they are understood and that the issue between us is perfectly clear. We want a co-ordinated system of transport. The Government want to leave this to private enterprise, in a chaotic and chancy state, and do not really appreciate the far-reaching nature of the possibilities involved.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is scarcely fair to the Government here. He says that the Government want no co-ordination and no planning. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, says that we do not want any waste or duplication. Why the British Transport Commission should be more capable of making an overall plan than the Ministry, I do not know. I do not think their planning has been so successful so far as to lead one to believe that they should be the national planning authority, I should like to call attention to the Explanatory Memorandum, which in paragraph 1 says: The Bill has four main objects. The first is to provide the Minister of Power with means of controlling the development of cross-country pipe-lines in the public interest, together with a procedure for objections to such projects to be heard and considered locally. That seems to me to fulfil entirely the points which both the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, have been making.

LORD SILKIN

Is it not a fact that this is chancy? It depends on people coming along and being prepared to build a pipe-line in a certain place. It does not necessarily follow that there would be a co-ordinated system.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

As I understand the noble Lord who is in charge of this Bill, the only two objections he raises against these Amendments are, first, that the Government are opposed to nationalisation. Well, there is nothing new in that. It was almost a waste of words to tell noble Lords what the Government feelings were. But the noble Lord has a second objection to these Amendments. He thinks that private enterprise has both the money and the initiative, and would obviously set out to succeed because of the profit motive. We agree with the noble Lord in that. But what he seems to forget, or what he has never given a thought to (and I presume that this applies to the Government as a whole), is what happened yin this country before certain industries and services were nationalised.

Perhaps the best illustration of my point is to recall what happened when electricity, apart from municipalisation, was more or less under private ownership. The noble Lord must know, and I am sure your Lordships will remember quite clearly, that all one of the private electricity companies had to do was to come to this House and obtain further power to supply electricity over very wide areas; and then, having secured the power, it absolutely refused to provide the service for many years. In those days, it was not a question of nationalisation: it was what the noble Lord seems to want in these days—sterilisation.

As I understand these Amendments, they do not ask for nationalisation. All they suggest is that, if the Transport Commission feel there is an even chance of improving the service, and perhaps making it a paying service, they should have the right, as with private enterprise, to explore the possibilities of this new service. I should have thought that that was just what every noble Lord in the House would want to see. They are always supposed to be hostile to monopoly, but they want monopoly here for just a section—the whole does not matter. I do not think that is the best way of starting what might well develop into not only a superior service to the one we now possess, but also a profitable one. I should not have thought that it was a question of nationalisation or sterilisation. It is a question of how can we get the best service, despite the parlous financial plight of the Transport Commission at the moment—not due to nationalisation, but due to obvious shortcomings on the part of private enterprise while the railways were still in the hands of private enterprise.

I hope the noble Lord will feel that this is not a question of ideologies, but only of the best means of securing the best service for the nation as a whole. For it is the national interest we have in mind, and not just that of the British Transport Commission or any other Commission. I should have thought that those in charge of the Transport Commission at this moment are wise enough in their day and generation, both in financial terms and other terms, to know whether it would be worth their while to explore the possibilities of a pipe-line here and there as a supplement to the railways. I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is just a question of ideology. The question is: bow can we give the best service to the nation without giving certain people a monopoly, and without completely sterilising those who feel they can give a service to the nation?

LORD SHEPHERD

May I join in the note of disapproval at the Minister's attitude to our Amendments? The other day we were discussing the Courtauld-I.C.I. merger, and the noble Viscount who leads the House then asked us to remember that we were in the twentieth century, when one required large organisations in industry in order to control a particular section so that industry can go forward for the advantage of the nation. My noble friend Lord Lucan has made a case that these new pipe-lines should be vested, not entirely, but at least the predominant side of it, in the hands of the British Transport Commission. We have put down an Amendment to that effect, though not because this is a political issue—it was the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who made this a political issue. We feel that the British Transport Commission is the one organisation in this country which is providing transport service throughout the country. It is not provided by road. Road transport is fragmented into many companies. It is British Railways, with its ancillaries, which is providing the general transport system right through the country.

It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, to say, "They are hardly good planners." The position of the British Transport Commission is not one of their making. In fact, it was made by the Conservative Party when they broke up the co-ordinated transport service that had been created by a Labour Government. It was the only hope (and I am sure that in his secret heart the noble Lord, Lord Mills, would admit it) for the future of a bankrupt railway service that it should be co-ordinated and stimulated with road transport. Yet that also was to be denied. The flourishing side of the industry was to be hived off to private enterprise. Now the noble Lord says that this new form of transport service is not to be available to a State Corporation; it is to be available only to private enterprise.

The noble Lord may be right. He may say, "We will have it in private enterprise". But, as I understand it, the Minister is going to be particular as to who shall operate from, say, London to Liverpool. There will be no question of three or four different pipe-lines being operated by three or four different companies from London to Liverpool, or Liverpool to Glasgow. There will be one company with a franchise. In fact, the Government are going to create a privileged monopoly as they did with commercial television. That is as I understand it. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, can correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case, if there is to be a monopoly, I would certainly support 100 per cent. that it should be in the hands of the State. We made a tragic mistake with commercial television, and I hope that this is not going to be repeated in this Bill. I cannot anticipate that the profits will be anywhere near as big as they are in television, but the principle is still there. Now I will come back to the real reason why the Amendments are on the Order Paper. They are there because we see the British Transport Commission as the one authority, the one organisation, which now provides general transport throughout the country. We see this pipe-line as, shall we say, moving into the '70s, so far as transport is concerned. We believe it is right, in the interests of the country, that this service should be allied, co-ordinated and developed within the State organisation.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I think my noble friends have made it quite clear that in the starting of this new development we regard it as a matter of great importance that the State must, through its existing agencies, have the power to construct its own pipe-lines. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum and said that he thought the Minister had adequate powers; but surely he has not seen that the powers the Minister has are purely negative. The Minister at present has no power of initiating or stimulating developments in directions where they are wanted. He can only wait for private enterprise to make application. We are not, of course, by this Amendment asking for a monopoly; we are merely asking for the Transport Commission or their successors to have power to construct their own pipe-lines.

Finally, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has said, if I understood him rightly, that the Government were not insisting on the principle of common carrier operation of pipe-lines. But surely that is just what Clause 8 does. If the Minister sees a likelihood of a demand in excess of the demand from the original applicant he can compel that applicant to provide facilities to carry other people's goods. That, I understood, was an essential feature of the Bill: that the Government proposed to encourage or, in fact, compel the applicant to operate as a common carrier. That is getting away from the subject of this Amendment, which we believe is essential to the proper launching of this new element of transport and we propose to ask the House to divide on the matter.

LORD MILLS

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, painted a very convincing picture of what happened to the railways, but he did not tell us that that development took place 150 years ago when the pattern of living and the centres of population were not settled. Circumstances are entirely different to-day. We know what is the pattern of trade in this country and we have some idea of what pipe-lines are required. But I would ask noble Lords to remember one thing: these pipe-lines we require at present are not for the public use but for private use. The Government fail to see why they should provide millions of money

to deal with this problem when the facilities are required by private industry. That is the nub of the problem.

I am very glad to hear from noble Lords opposite that they are not adopting a doctrinaire approach and that this is not even a political matter. The fact remains, however, that they want to put new and enlarged responsibilities on a transport system which, as we all know, is doing all it can to put itself in a position where it does not lose so much money as it is doing and has done for some time; and in these circumstances I think it would be quite fatal to accept this Amendment.

My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye pointed out, quite rightly, that one of the main objects of the Bill, among all the things which have been touched upon, is to provide the Minister of Power with the means of controlling the development of cross-country pipelines. It will be his duty to see that they develop in an orderly manner.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Kenswood, L.	Summerskill, B.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Lucan, E.	Walston, L.
Amulree, L.	Manchester, L. Bp.	Williams, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.]	Rusholme, L.	Williams of Barnburgh, L.
Crook, L.	Shepherd, L. [Teller.]	Wise, L.
Henderson, L.	Silkin, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L.	Ebbisham, L.	Merrivale, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Effingham, E.	Mills, L.
Ampthill, L.	Forster of Harraby, L.	Milverton, L.
Arran, E.	Fraser of North Cape, L.	Molson, L.
Auckland, L.	Goschen, V.	Monsell, V.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Gosford, E.	Monson, L.
Bathurst, E.	Grenfell, L.	Newall, L.
Bossom, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	Newton, L. [Teller.]
Buckinghamshire, E.	Hampton, L.	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Chesham, L.	Hastings, L.	St. Oswald, L.
Cholmondeley. M.	Horsbrugh, B.	Somers, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Howe, E.	Soulbury, V.
Conesford, L.	Killearn, L.	Spens, L.
Coutanche, L.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Strang, L.
Crathorne, L.	Lansdowne, M.	Strathalmond, L.
Denham, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Swinton, E.
Derwent, L.	MacAndrew, L.	Teviot, L.
Devonshire, D.	Mancroft, L.	Waleran, L.
Dudley, L.	Mansfield, E.	Weir, V.
Dynevor, L.	Margesson, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "cross-country".

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I beg to move this Amendment which, as your Lordships will see, is linked with Amendment No. 12. Briefly, we question the need for, or the soundness of, differentiating between local pipe-lines and cross-country pipe-lines. The Government have made this arbitrary distinction of ten miles, and called anything over that "cross-country" and anything less than ten miles "local". No very good reasons seem to us to have been given for that distinction, and it gives considerable latitude to prospective builders of short pipe-lines, because they do not have to obtain authorisation from the Minister: they merely have to give sixteen weeks' notice and get the local planning authority's permission.

It is easy to see that there are a number of really local pipe-lines where it might be unnecessary for the promoter to have to go to the Minister to get authorisation—for example, pipe-lines at docks and harbours, refineries, factories, mines, quarries and the rest. But all those are specifically excluded from the Bill by Clauses 50, 51 and 52. Local pipe-lines serving local needs of some particular industry are therefore already exempt from the need to go to the Minister. But why allow people to build what would, in effect, be branch pipe-lines from a central one without the necessity of getting the Minister's permission? Until we have heard more about the Government's reasons I personally am not convinced of the need, and I therefore beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out ("cross-country ").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD MILLS

As the noble Earl has said, this Amendment and No. 12 in the Marshalled List would have the effect of making all pipe-lines subject to the full authorisation procedure, that is the same procedure which will govern cross-country pipe-lines. To apply this procedure to the large number of quite small pipe-lines appears to us to be entirely unnecessary and would impose an undue burden on applicants. It is the development of the cross-country pipe-lines which the Government wish to be able to control. Pipe-lines under 10 miles long (I agree that the figure is an arbitrary one; but a dividing line has to be taken somewhere) would normally be for the purpose of linking specific installations, such as individual chemical plants in the course of production, or oil tanker berths with shore installations or refineries. There will normally be little argument as to the need for such facilities or over the general line which they should follow.

In any case, the local pipe-line will be subject to planning control by the local planning authority. The promoter of such a pipe-line will have to negotiate the rights he needs with the owners and occupiers of the land over which it is to go. Failing their agreement, he would, of course, have to apply for a compulsory rights order which would be the subject of a local inquiry. There does not seem to be any need for this Amendment, which, as I have said, seeks to make short lines subject to the same authorisation procedure as long cross-country lines. I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

In present circumstances, and in the light of what one can see of the development of pipe-lines during the next few years one can accept the point of view put forward by the Minister. But, after all, this is legislation for the likely development of transport of various types of material, and therefore, at a later stage, there is likely to be a multiplicity of these pipe-lines. Whilst in the early stages of development it is true that, so far as planning permission is concerned, the consideration given by the local authority to the question of highway subways, drains and waterways—and in London to Post Office pipe-lines and London Tubes—will not be a material factor, if these pipe-line are going to develop to any extent, then certainly in the towns and the outskirts of towns it is desirable that there should be some control through a central authority.

Local authority boundaries are in no way determined by the possibilities of transport functioning. One can have a multiplicity of local authorities, particularly within the area of cities like Manchester or Birmingham, and London. One would have thought that it would be much better to have a central authority in regard to which general overall permission was given, having regard to the fact that places such as Greater London or Manchester have in their vicinity a number of urban districts, even though they are short of ten miles away, which might be involved, and there might be a number of pipelines concerned in the development.

LORD MILLS

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, but I would remind him that the authority is the Minister. If in any area or class of areas the Minister considers that local pipe-lines ought to be subject to the same authorisation procedure as cross-country pipe-lines, he can make an order to that effect under Clause 6, subject to Affirmative Resolution. I think that deals with the point.

LORD LINDGREN

I accept that. But, with great respect, would that not be too late? After all, surely the damage would have been done by the time Clause 6 arises.

LORD MILLS

I think not. The Minister can make such an order at any time he sees the need for it.

LORD SILKIN

I think I can understand the Minister's case here much more easily than I could see it on the last Amendment. But I should like him to explain what is the point of having the 10-miles provision. Ten miles seems a long pipe-line. I should have thought that if one had wanted to make a distinction between local and cross-country lines, something substantially less than five miles would have done the trick. The noble Lord visualises the occasion (I think he considers that it might be rare) when the Minister would have to intervene under Clause 6 and ask that the procedure for the cross-country pipe-line should be adopted in the case of lines which are less than ten miles long. On the other hand, I foresee that that might be fairly frequent.

The occasion I envisage is where a pipe-line might go right through a town and beyond it and, as my noble friend has explained, within the area of a number of local authorities. In those cases, which I think will be fairly numerous, the Minister would wish to intervene. I should have thought it would be much better if you did it the other way: gave a short distance for the pipe-line, say five miles, but with a right in certain cases to convert it into a local line where it was felt that that would be satisfactory. Of course, our Amendment is not directed to that, but I hope that we are all trying to be helpful to one another. I would respectfully suggest that that might be worth considering.

LORD MILLS

We have been accused, both on Second Reading and again today of giving no thought to this matter. But in fact, although I said that ten miles was an arbitrary figure, it was by no means a figure "out of the blue"; it was the result of full inquiries. Some people thought it ought to be a mile, others two miles, and so on; and after full consideration of all the evidence we could gather we selected ten miles as the best. I think there are ample safeguards for dealing with the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, and therefore I wish to oppose the Amendment.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

This is purely a practical matter and there is no great principle involved; but if the conception in the Government's mind is of a system of trunk, artery and arterial roads, with feeder lines from the refineries and distribution branches to industry, I fail to see why it is not necessary for the Minister to control the proliferation of these branches. They will almost all be in or about built-up areas or centres of industry. They may be under ten miles, but they will give an unnecessary and wasteful duplication of construction. I am quite prepared to believe that the Minister has given this matter great thought, but I still think that experience will show that some central control is necessary for branch lines other than those that are already provided for in Clauses 50, 51 and so on. Nevertheless, I do not propose to press this Amendment; but I should like the Minister to give thought to the problem.

3.49 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

Before we part with this Amendment, I want to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Mills. I appreciate that the Government have given consideration to this Bill—of course they have. I hope that Governments give consideration to every Bill that they present to either House. That does not mean that these Bills are incapable of being improved, or that anything that may fall from the lips of noble Lords in various parts of the House should be ignored or be ridden over roughshod—simply because the Government have given consideration and they are going to stand by their decision. If that is the attitude, then I fail to understand what is the purpose of a Committee stage in this House. If the noble Lord is going to say to us: "But of course we thought about this before; we gave consideration to it. We reject your Amendment, and are not even prepared to consider it", then I think we are wasting our time. I do not propose to waste my time on the Committee stage. I will leave it to my friends in another place, who will not stand for this kind of treatment.

LORD DERWENT

With respect to the noble Lord, it seems to some of us who have been listening to this matter that the case for the Amendment, that the ten miles is wrong and that some other distance is right, has not been made out. I should be prepared to accept what the Minister says, because I do not see why it should be three miles or four miles, and if we are going to move an Amendment it seems to me that the case for the Amendment must be made out.

LORD CONESFORD

May I point out one matter that I do not think has been mentioned? I do not think it is final in support of either the Government's view or the Amendment, but it is the problem that is raised when one of those smaller lines goes through an area covered by different planning authorities. If it went through the area of three planning authorities, you might have the situation that two of them gave permission and the third refused it. That would not necessarily be an argument for the Minister to take the matter over under Clause 6 of this Bill, but it would have the somewhat strange result that the appeal by the person desiring to construct the pipe-line would be from the planning authority that had refused permission, to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Therefore, in a case of one of these local pipe-lines where there was a difference between the planning authorities the appeal would go to that Minister, whereas in most cases the Minister concerned would be the Minister of Power. No doubt one Minister can consult the other. I do not say that the position is necessarily wrong, but I thought it might be worth pointing out that it would have that result.

LORD MILLS

I think I had a rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which was not really deserved. I have been most impressed all the time I have been in your Lordships' House with the way the House improves legislation. These improvements come from proposals of the noble Lords opposite and also from proposals from this side of the House. But when very careful consideration has already been given and when one says that noble Lords opposite fail to alter one's mind on the matter, I do not think that can be called riding roughshod over the opinions of noble Lords in this House. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that for what it is worth.

LORD SHEPHERD

Before we go on, could the noble Lord reply to the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in which there was considerable merit?

LORD MILLS

It is true that the planning authority has a duty to determine whether, for its own reasons, an application should be rejected. There is provision in this Bill for a public inquiry even in regard to a local line where the planning authority is not prepared to give its consent. So I think the matter is quite well covered.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

In the Parliamentary Division that I represented for well over thirty years there are two urban district councils, a rural district council and a county borough council all within an area of ten miles. It is perhaps more mysterious to me than to anyone else as to who in the last analysis would give the final decision on one of the shorter pipe-lines.

LORD MILLS

I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but in the case he has cited they would not be the planning authority.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

It would be the county council, I presume. The county council would come in as the overall planning authority. The two urban district councils would have to be consulted, the rural district council would have to be consulted, and the county borough would have to be consulted—because they came within the ten mile limit. I understand from the noble Lord that the county council planning authority will have the final say, or the Minister.

LORD LINDGREN

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government have for some time been encouraging local authorities to delegate powers; there has been a big move in the direction of delegation of powers from the central authority down to the minor authorities, both urban and rural. Most county councils have done this to a considerable extent. This still means that, while the county has the overall final authority and would co-ordinate the application of the two urban district councils and the rural district council, to which my noble friend referred, those who are promoting pipe-lines would be expected in the first instance to consult four authorities, and that the final negotiations would be with two authorities. This seems to me to be extending it a little for a ten-mile area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "authorisation" to insert: shall have regard to the public interest and convenience and the interests of amenity, and

The noble Viscount said: I hope that when he was speaking a little earlier this afternoon I did not detect in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, any slight suspicion of hostility towards me, because I can assure him that in regard to some part of his speech that he made on the first Amendment I have very considerable sympathy with him. It was rather for that reason I put down this Amendment. As the Bill at present stands there seems to be no sort of overall direction which will charge the Minister with seeing that no such complexity and plethora occurs in the pipe-line field as occurred in the last century with railways. It was in order that he should be strengthened and encouraged to resist this sort of thing that I thought fit to put down an Amendment requiring him to take note of the public interest. And I hope that by using the phrase "public interest" your Lordships, and the Minister later, would interpret my view as meaning that he ought to be very strict in supervising the spread of pipe-lines and the whole pattern of their national network.

There is a further consideration of which I think we ought to take note if one is setting out for him a charter, as it were, on which to work, and that is the convenience of the public, by which I mean this. If there have to be two pipe-lines running roughly between the same two places, he should take very carefully into account whether they both ought not to go into the same hole, rather than that two groups of people should have their land and their many interests disturbed in the process. There are many problems of that nature which I think the Minister ought to take very carefully into consideration, and which so far as I can see he is not required at the moment to do.

The third of the things with which I have attempted to charge him in this Amendment is the interest of amenity. I see that noble Lords opposite have put down a very much fuller Amendment on this, and so indeed has my noble friend Lord Mills himself. Therefore, I need say very little about it. But I hope that if this Amendment be not acceptable in itself, my noble friend will be able to give your Lordships the very strongest possible assurance that the Minister is going to take a very stern view of his duties under this Bill in order to see that we do not have a somewhat slipshod network of pipe-lines all over this country, which should really have been very much better co-ordinated in the first place; that he will continue as time goes on to see that the pipe-lines, which are added at a later stage, do not duplicate those which already exist and, if possible, they follow the same routes; and that in every possible way there is a very secure hold taken upon this situation. This is the purpose for which I put down this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 17, after ("authorisation") insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD WILLIA MS OF BARNBURGH

I should like to support the theme of the noble Viscount when he raises the point that, apparently, there is no criterion to guide the Minister as to what is the public interest, what is the pri- vate interest, or what anybody else's interest may be. I understand that no Private Bill would be allowed to go by unless it were proved that the Bill was in the national interest. I think there ought to be some basis on which the Minister, or whoever happens to be in charge and is either giving or withholding authority, will be satisfied that the public interest is going to be served. I can visualise pipe-lines going here and there, and agricultural land being disturbed; and we have already had some experience of what can happen with opencast coal production. I have seen sights in my county and adjoining counties which almost made one weep. Of course, that was in the earlier stages of opencast mining. It has taken very many years for an acceptable solution to be found. That relates to the public interest, and it is the sort of thing which should be thought about very seriously at the outset, and not five, ten or fifteen years later.

I do not quite know whether or not the words in the Amendment will meet the case, as they are not too specific. But I would hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will feel that we ought not to make the same mistake which was made in the early stages of opencast coal mining. If we can determine what we think is the public interest, and that is the criterion on which the Minister grants or withholds authority, then I am sure that your Lordships' House will be happier than they are at the moment, when there is no criterion at all and no reference to public interest. I hope that the noble Lord will give some little thought to this before he rejects it.

LORD SILKIN

I should not have intervened but for the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to what I said on an earlier Amendment. I should like to assure him that there was not the slightest intention on my part to suggest any hostility to him. On the contrary, I have, as we all of us have, the highest admiration for his abilities and we hope that he will have a very happy, long and successful career. I was perhaps "pulling his leg"—if I may use a vulgar term—about this Amendment, because I noticed that many of us have been circularised by a Company which has an interest in securing the passage of this Bill. They have been good enough to suggest a number of Amendments that we might put down, and I thought I detected some of them in the Amendments which the noble Viscount has put down on the Order Paper. He assures me that he has put each one down on its merits and after full consideration, and of course I entirely accept that. But that is the explanation for the observation I made.

On the merits of the Amendment itself, I hope that this is not one of those Amendments which the Government considered before they introduced the Bill and decided that it was not necessary. Indeed, I noticed that the noble Lord himself has a number of Amendments. Evidently, he did not think of everything in this Bill. There are some things that he must have omitted, and I should have thought that this was one of them. I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment or something like it.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

I do not suppose there is anyone in any part of the House who would disagree with the underlying principle of this Amendment, that the public interest and convenience, and the interest of amenity as well, should be safeguarded. I should not like to have to define myself as resisting this Amendment, because that would be to gainsay what I have just said, and that is something which I would not wish to do. I should like, if I may, to refer my noble friend to paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Memorandum where he will find that the object of the Bill— is to provide the Minister of Power with means of controlling the development of cross-country pipe-lines in the public interest". That is the underlying purpose of the Bill.

If it were not to be with regard to the public interest and convenience, there would have been no Bill. It may be the case, in fact it is—we have already had proof this afternoon—that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said, there are differing political views on how to achieve the public interest. That we have seen and it must exist. But there is certainly no difference between any of us on the point that the Minister is to act and should act in the public interest. The whole object of the Bill is for him to act in that way, and it seems to me that it is quite clear that there is no other way in which he can act; he is not at liberty to act in any other way. I would say, therefore, that that aspect of my noble friend's point is already covered. If I were to accept the Amendment it would merely add words to the Bill and would add no further strength to what is already there.

On the point of amenity, if your Lordships will look at Amendment No. 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, you will see that it covers amenity. Perhaps we shall mention it again when we reach Amendment No. 7, which I think takes full care of the interest of amenity. I hope, therefore, that in view of what I have said my noble friend may be satisfied and will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

May I first express my appreciation of the very generous things that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said? Of course I entirely accept that. My noble friend Lord Chesham has said remarkably little about what Her Majesty's Government consider to be in the public interest in this particular field. I wonder whether he would care to go a little further into the sort of way in which he expects his right honourable friend's mind to work when considering the whole complexity of this subject.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

The noble Lord said that the words "in the public interest" are in the Explanatory Memorandum. But in his remarks he then seemed to me to assume that what was in the Explanatory Memorandum was, in fact, part of the Bill. That seems to me to be the weakness of his argument. He talks about public interest and reassures us because it is dealt with in the Explanatory Memorandum. He says that the purpose of the Bill is to preserve public interest, but there is nothing in the Bill which translates that expression of intention contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

LORD CHESHAM

My noble friend will not be surprised to learn, perhaps, that I was aware that the Explanatory Memorandum did not form part of the Bill. I referred to it as an indication of the first object which had been in any- one's mind when devising this Bill. I am not sure whether consultation with Parliamentary counsel would improve my mind or not, but I am not quite certain how to define in a Bill what is "public interest"—I may be not sure of that merely because I am ignorant—and what are the particular aspects of the public interest which are to be protected.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

May I interrupt my noble friend for one moment? Had the Government not pursued this course but the course of the procedure laid down for a Private Bill, public interest would have been adequately safeguarded. The Government have really brought this ambiguity upon themselves by introducing the particular procedure outlined in the Bill. I hope the Minister is not going to be resistant and, if I may use the word without offence, obstinate, but will tell us that the intention set out in the Explanatory Memorandum will be considered at a later stage as a possibility for insertion in the Bill.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

Before the Minister replies, may I point out to him that the Long Title of the Bill equally has no mention of public interest. The Long Title says that the Bill is to regulate and facilitate the construction of pipe-lines. That is all the Minister has to go on in exercising his discretion. What I think the noble Viscount and other noble Lords have in mind is that there should be some broad aim of policy, which need not he defined too closely, to guide the Minister in exercising his discretion.

LORD CHESHAM

I should not like to be thought obstinate and resistant on a matter of this kind. I have merely sought to try to show that the object of the Bill is to proceed with the development of pipe-lines in the public interest by offering safeguards to individuals, to collections of individuals and, generally speaking, to the public in various ways. To explain what the Minister considers as being in the public interest is, to my mind, to make a lengthy Second Reading speech explaining the Bill. As I said, the intention of the Bill as a whole is in the public interest. But I do not want to go on with this too long, because I certainly should not want to be resistant about it. I tried to show only that some such expression as that used by my noble friend in his Amendment would not add anything to the Bill. If he and your Lordships would be happier that this matter should be looked at again to see whether anything constructive can be added—because I think your Lordships would agree that we should not want merely to add words that mean very little—I should be only too happy to look into it.

LORD CONESFORD

I should like to support both what the mover of this Amendment has said and what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said. I think the real difficulty here turns on the burden of proof. As long as you have anything like Private Bill procedure, the applicant has to prove the Preamble. The burden is on the applicant to show that the pipe-line is in the public interest. Now all that is swept away. There is machinery providing what the applicant has to do. He has to say, "I want the pipe-line, and I have got such-and-such consent", or, "I have consulted such-and-such people ". Then there is the bald statement that the Minister can grant or refuse, but there is nothing to indicate what the Minister is to have in his mind. I agree, of course, with my noble friend Lord Chesham, that there is something not quite appropriate in putting into the Bill such simple words as "shall have regard to the public interest" —because, of course, every Minister must have regard to the public interest; and the other addition of amenity is being provided for more specifically in another, later Amendment.

What I ventured to put before the House during the debate on Second Reading was that something more is required to show the sort of principles that are to be observed. To put a possible principle that might appear, the Bill could provide that the Minister shall be satisfied that the proposed pipeline achieves its object with a minimum of interference or prejudice to private interests or to amenity—some principle of that sort. The effect of proceeding from a Private Bill, where the burden of proof is entirely on the pipe-line constructor, to the method adopted by this Bill, where the matter is entirely in the hands of the Minister, but where there are no principles laid down at all on what the Minister is to observe, shows, I think, that there is something missing which ought to be supplied by a Government Amendment. I am convinced that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will not press this particular Amendment, which I think is surplusage in so far as public interest is concerned, and is better provided for by subsequent Amendments in so far as amenity is concerned. I therefore think he will not press this particular Amendment; but, for the reasons given both by him and by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I think there is a point of substance which is not met at present in the Bill, and is not met by any of the Government Amendments hitherto put down. I therefore very much hope that, at a later stage, something will be done to meet the need which I think is felt in all quarters of the Committee.

LORD SPENS

May I just add a word to this discussion? I personally should very strongly deprecate any such expression as public interest "going into an Act of Parliament, because, if it means that it is going to be put upon Her Majesty's judges to decide whether or not a Minister has acted in the public interest, it is a highly undesirable form of legislation. Certainly Her Majesty's judges, so far as I know, would very much deprecate being called upon to decide what is in the public interest. That is a matter for a Minister or for this House or for the other place to decide, and it is not a matter which should be put into legislation in any form so that the burden of decision is put upon Her Majesty's judges. Therefore, if further words are added, I suggest that the less we have about the public interest in an Act of Parliament which may be the subject of litigation the better.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Particularly in view of what my noble and learned friend has just said, and also having regard to the speech of the noble Lord upon the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Conesford, I will not press this Amendment; but I am extremely glad to hear from my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will look at this matter again because I, like other noble Lords, feel there is a point of substance here. However, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.20 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2), after "application" to insert: subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think fit".

The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that, once again, I have anticipated an Amendment by noble Lords opposite, but only in the place in which I have put mine down. So far as I can make out, the Bill, with the possible exception of paragraph 5 of the First Schedule, does not entitle the Minister to make an alteration in a pipe-line construction authorisation which is sent up to him for his approval. So far as I can see, he is empowered only to grant it as it stands or to refuse it as it stands, although according to the First Schedule he may make a few minor alterations. This does not conform with the normal powers of a Minister when this type of duty is laid upon him. For instance, when he sits in a quasi judicial capacity to decide upon an appeal under the Town and Country Planning Acts, he has the power written into that Act either to grant the appeal or to refuse it, or to grant it subject to such modifications as he may think fit. It seems to me, therefore, that whether or not there is some vague power in the Schedule to this effect, there should appear in the .body of the Bill a perfectly clear power and discretion to the Minister to make such modifications as he may think fit to an application which is sent up to him under Clause 1. Therefore, I beg to move.

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

LORD LINDGREN

As the noble Viscount intimated in moving his Amendment, the general principle so far as Amendment No. 6 is concerned is exactly the same. As I see no purpose in having two discussions over a difference of words, if your Lordships would agree we could have a discussion on both Amendments at the same time. I appreciate that the Parliamentary draftsmen say that the less one puts in the better, because the more one puts in the greater is the possibility for people to point out that certain things are in, others are left out and were therefore intended to be left out. It seems to me, however, that if there is to be permission to grant and permission to refuse, then there ought to be the possibility of varying or modifying. Therefore, from this side of the House I should like to support Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Viscount.

LORD CHESHAM

Again, I am in no mind to resist the spirit of these two Amendments in principle. All I am going to say is that I had, up till now, taken the view that what is already in the Bill provides for the necessary modification. I would agree that the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (2), give the impression that the Minister should either grant the application or refuse it, but it must be taken in conjunction with paragraph 5 (1) of the First Schedule, where it says quite clearly that a modification of the rules may be made. Perhaps noble Lords will be able to help me here. I have had some difficulty in thinking of what variations or modifications the Minister is likely to make other than ones of route. Such matters as depth, size of the pipe, what is to go up it, and so on, are covered elsewhere in the Bill. Certainly my understanding is that the wording of the Bill was already sufficient to comply with the points which noble Lords have raised. Therefore it is much more a matter of drafting than of substance. Indeed, it may at first sight seem a little complicated. I am told that there would be certain complications in re-drafting the clause to say the same thing, and I hope that both noble Lords will feel satisfied that their fears are in fact met.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to my noble friend, but it passes my comprehension why, if it is the intention that the Minister must have this power, he must rely on something in the Schedule and cannot write it into the clause in the Bill. It seems to me to be such an obvious thing to do, and so much easier for everyone. Is my noble friend saying that this is a matter which he will not question any further?

LORD CHESHAM

No; quite frankly, I am not saying that. I should need a little convincing that it was needful to write it in in some different manner; but if your Lordships feel happier about it, I will consider the matter again, although I feel bound to say that I could not commit myself as to what that consideration would lead to.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am grateful to my noble friend. He has spurred me to make some research into this matter, and I will see whether I can find some precedents for this, and I may possibly raise the matter again on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

In view of the appearance on the Marshalled List of Amendment No. 57, which is, to all intents and purposes, the same as No. 7, tabled by my noble friend Lord Chorley and myself, I suggest that we have the discussion on Amendment No. 57, and not on this one. If that is agreeable, I do not propose to move this Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "substantially". The noble Viscount said: This is a very small point. The words "substantial "and" substantially" have in the past given rise to serious litigation. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment in order to raise the point whether Her Majesty's Government might not be able to find a more suitable method of putting into effect what I quite see is a valid point, in order to make it a little less uncertain when the work has been "substantially begun". It is, as I say, only a small point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, leave out the word ("substantially").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD CHESHAM

In reply to this Amendment, might I ask whether my noble friend and your Lordships would be prepared to consider Amendment No. 11, which I think is the same point, because I am bound to say that I think this is a matter which is "substantially" in the public interest? This form of drafting and the use of the word "substantially" in this connection has actu- ally come from the precedent in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950. Under Clause 1 (4) and Clause 2 (3), a construction authorisation under Clause 1 or notice given under Clause 2 expires if the work has not been substantially begun after twelve months. Now, if we withdraw the word "substantially", it would be possible for the promoter—the constructor of the pipe-line—to keep those authorisations and notices in being just by digging a silly little ditch or turning over a few spadefuls of earth; and I do not think that that is what is wanted. "Substantially" has worked quite well in its application under the Act I mentioned, and I think it is the proper word in this case and should remain where it is. I hope my noble friend will accept that it should.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Yes, I do. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for detaining you once more on this clause, but there is a small point on subsection (4) in respect of which I did not put down an Amendment and which I think is worthy of being considered by your Lordships. The Committee will see that, although as a broad principle the authorisation, once given by the Minister, will lapse at the end of twelve months, none the less the Minister has power to extend that period and, so far as I can see, his power is unlimited. He could extend the authorisation for any period which he thought fit.

The effect of an authorisation to construct a pipe-line across any property will be, of course, that the route taken by the pipe must be sterilised to all intents and purposes until the line is laid and the whole thing is over and done with. Therefore, I very much welcome that this sterilisation cannot, normally speaking, last for more than twelve months unless the holder of the authorisation goes back to the Minister for regrant. But to me it is a little worrying that the Minister should have this unlimited power to extend the period of validity of the authorisation he has granted.

I wonder whether your Lordships and the Government might not think that there would be a case for inserting in the Bill at this particular point the requirement that if the Minister decided that he would like to extend the time during which an authorisation should remain valid, he should give the owner of the land across which it is proposed that the pipes should run an opportunity to make representations to him, so that he may perhaps make the period a further year or might impose some sort of condition on the proposed pipe-line owner so as to avoid a long period of doubt and hesitation to the landowner in question.

LORD MILLS

I appreciate the validity of the argument put forward by the noble Viscount and I should like to give the matter further consideration.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank the noble Lord.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 [Local pipe-lines not to be constructed without notice to the Minister]:

LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (1), after "local pipe-line" to insert "more than one mile in length". The noble Lord said: First of all, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for having put down this Amendment in manuscript form at such a late time, but I returned from a trip abroad only yesterday, so I trust that I have your Lordships' forgiveness for putting down this Amendment this morning. The purpose of the Amendment is that industry, on which this country depends to such a large extent, shall not be unreasonably hampered by the provisions of this Bill in so far as very short pipelines are concerned, while it still allows the rights of private persons to be properly protected.

The number of short pipe-lines of a mile or less in length—in many cases of half a mile or less—is very great, particularly in the chemicals and minerals fields. I say with humility that it would seem, as the Bill stands at the moment, that the Government have not shown the correct amount of awareness of the large number of short pipe-lines that already exist. I would, for instance, mention only a few areas and places: Cornwall, Tees-side, Merseyside, Birmingham, Winton, Widnes, Runcorn. These very short pipe-lines come daily under the eye of factory managements, and therefore it would be quite impracticable for long notice to have to be given for carrying out new construction or alteration work on pipe-lines which may be only a few hundred yards outside the area of the factory. In effect, the Bill imposes a control in the form of a sixteen-week notice, even when an industry may be able to obtain immediately the agreement of the one landowner who may be affected.

It is possible for such a short pipe-line to be laid from a quarry to a factory and to pass through the land of only one landowner. Or a short pipe-line used for chemicals may have to be laid to replace an existing defective one. Or a short length of pipe-line may have to be laid from a brine well to a plant which will use or treat the brine and which is in close proximity to the wellhead. Short pipe-lines have also to be laid at short notice in the china clay industry, to which I referred on Second Reading. There have been cases in the past, especially because of the large variety of qualities and of demands from abroad—approximately 70 per cent. of the output of the china clay industry goes for export—when a short pipe-line has had to be laid just to meet the demand of one customer, say, in America. Also, short pipe-lines may have to be laid at short notice to comply with the requirements of a river board in order to avoid river pollution.

Therefore, unless there is exemption for such short pipe-lines from the notification procedure, there will be unwarranted dislocation and interference with normal industrial processes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, as an experienced industrialist, must be well aware of this problem which industry, particularly the chemical industry, will face if this Bill goes through as it is, and I hope he will see some way of accepting this Amendment. I think that he will realise that for such short pipe-lines this exemption cannot be detrimental to the public interest and will be of great assistance to industry as a whole and particularly to the chemical and minerals industries. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, after ("pipe-line") insert the said words.—(Lord Merrivale.)

LORD LINDGREN

While the noble Lord who moved this Amendment made an excellent case from his point of view. I hope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. It is easily understood if the works to which the pipe-line is to be joined are in open country; but more often than not they may be in a town, or quite close to a town, in which such matters as water mains, sewerage and the rest are likely to be involved. Sixteen weeks is not a long time for all the various interests likely to be affected to get to know what is happening, and for their various technical staffs to consider possible effects and to have consultation in regard to possible lines of action to be taken. If it were only one firm and one pipe-line; if they were the only landowners and there was likely to be no other interest involved, then the case put by the noble Lord would no doubt stand. But where there are other interests involved—it may be another landowner, local authorities, water companies, sewerage works and the rest—generally sixteen weeks is not an unreasonable period.

LORD MILLS

I appreciate the reasons which have actuated my noble friend Lord Merrivale to put down this Amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, has very nearly got the answer. My noble friend has not appreciated, I think, that the main purpose of the period of notice prescribed under Clause 2 is to enable the Minister to consider, in consultation with other interests affected, whether any safety requirements should be imposed. From this point of view, the length of the line is almost immaterial. Any line which runs outside the promoter's premises can be a potential danger to the public: indeed, a short line carrying dangerous or explosive materials in a built-up area may require much more stringent safeguards than a longer one conveying harmless things through the open country. I suggest, therefore that it would be impracticable to relate the period of notice to the length of line proposed. The clause, however, provides in line 13 and 14 on page 3 that the Minister may allow a shorter period of notice in a particular case, and this should enable him to meet the difficulties which my noble friend foresees.

LORD MERRIVALE

I must say that I am little disappointed at the response of my noble friend Lord Mills. He completely failed to mention the manner in which companies at the moment acquired the right to lay their short pipe-lines which, as I mentioned, are already in existence and operate from one plant to another or from one factory to another nearby factory around the country. Therefore, as the law stands at the moment there are safeguards. I fail to see why my noble friend is not content with the safeguards which now exist for the protection of the general public, local authorities and others, and cannot see his way to agree at least to the principle of my Amendment.

I am not wedded to the distance of one mile. So far as the chemical industry is concerned, I think that a distance of half-a-mile would be quite satisfactory. I should not have thought that amenities of the country or the general public interest would be affected in any unpleasant way if this Amendment, or another one covering a shorter distance, were accepted. It can be in a number of cases that the length of pipe-line may be very small indeed; it may go only just outside the curtilage of a factory. I am sure that my noble friend is aware of this. He must have great knowledge of how the chemical industry works at the moment, and must know that if the Bill goes through in its present form it will injuriously affect some very large organisations in the country, on which in large measure the country depends for its livelihood.

It is all very well to say that local authorities or the general public interest will be affected; but we are an industrial nation. I agree that we must have safeguards, but there are safeguards in the Bill; and very short pipe-lines are day-to-day matters which cannot stand a sixteen week delay in respect of this notification period. I would plead with my noble friend to look at this matter again and have further consultations. Perhaps at a later stage he may say: "We have consulted with some of the largest concerns in this country, but we still believe as we did before. "The chemical industry is one of our most important exporters. Surely, if in the matter of these very short pipe-lines their day-to-day operations will be affected, it is not right that we should pass the Bill in its present form.

LORD MILLS

I can only repeat that in this Bill the Minister will be given power to specify the safety requirements in regard to any pipe-line. It is not a question of the length of the pipe-line. But there is also power in the Bill for the Minister to stipulate a shorter period of notice in any particular case. These problems of the chemical industry, the china clay industry and so on, are well understood and appreciated. Merely because it specifies a period of sixteen weeks, or such shorter period as the Minister may decide, is no reason to think that he will decide anything which is against the interests of the industry.

LORD MERRIVALE

I do not propose to press this matter, but I will go into it further and reserve the right, if need be, to put down another Amendment at a later stage. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.49 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after subsection (1) to insert: ( ) Notice shall be given to the owners and occupiers of any land along the route of the proposed pipe-line of the intention to give to the Minister the notice referred to in the foregoing subsection before such notice is given to the Minister. The noble Viscount said: The question of local pipe-lines has perplexed me in some degree in regard to this Bill, and as your Lordships have already heard it has exercised noble Lords opposite. I am particularly concerned that your Lordships should consider the matter very carefully, in view of the admission by my noble friend Lord Mills that the ten-mile limit for a local pipe-line is, in fact, a purely arbitrary measure.

In those circumstances, it seems to me that, not only now, but probably more so in the future, the Minister's power, under Clause 6, to convert a pipe-line shorter than ten miles from local to cross-country pipe-line procedure, and to subject it to the more strenuous procedure under Clause 1, is going to be very important. If that clause is to be properly operated, I believe it to be quite vital that the owners and occupiers of land over which any pipe-line promoter proposes to put his line, should have notice of his proposal at the very earliest opportunity, so that if for any reason they object to it they shall have the earliest possible chance of making representations to the Minister and asking him to use his power under Clause 6.

I have put down this Amendment in order to put at the forefront of the clause the necessity that a would-be pipe-line owner shall give notice, in the case of a pipe-line shorter than ten miles, to those whose lands are likely to be affected by it. I know that my noble friend Lord Mills said on Second Reading that this particular provision was not necessary, because in subsection (2) (c) of Clause 2, the promoter of the proposed pipe-line has to certify to the Minister the rights and the consents which he has obtained. This means, by inference, that he has had to go to all the owners along the proposed line and talk to them. This is another example of the point I raised a few minutes ago. If Her Majesty's Government intend the would-be pipe-line owner to consult and to give notice to the people along the line, why do they not put it in the Bill? I consider that this necessity is so important that it ought to go in the forefront of this clause in order to give people the maximum protection where the local pipe-line procedure is liable to be used. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

My Amendment, No. 10, deals with almost the same point, and I was wondering whether it would be as well if I spoke to that now. I agree with everything the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has said, and my Amendment tries to do the same thing, though goes, perhaps, a little further. It insists not only that notice should be given, but that owners and occupiers should be fully consulted, in that the promoters would have to seek to get the rights over their land and would have to prove that they had sought to get those rights before going to the Minister. I understand that subsection (2) (c) is intended to achieve this object, but I am informed that there is a certain amount of doubt as to whether it does so. I think it is absolutely essential that the people are consulted at the earliest possible moment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

It is impossible to over-estimate the importance of this Amendment, because it goes to the root of one of the greatest grievances which not only landowners, but anyone who owns or tenants a house, even in a village or sometimes a big town, has to face. Again and again one finds the interests of an owner or occupier, large or small, prejudiced, inasmuch as he suddenly discovers that some Government Department, statutory board or local authority proposes to do something which is definitely inimical to his interests. One is always told that he ought to have known what is going to happen. What usually happens is that something appears in the Gazette which nobody except officials reads, or it appears in the local newspaper. I hope that most of us who live in the country read our local newspapers, but, quite frankly, I do not think that anyone can be expected, once or twice a week, to wade through advertisement columns in order to discover, wedged probably between notices of a church concert and of a farm sale, that something is going to happen which may affect his interests.

This is happening the whole time, and I feel it is essential that there should be a change. If a sense of grievance arises, as it undoubtedly often does, as a result of the behaviour of these Government Departments and public bodies, still greater will be the resentment if it is done at the behest merely of a private company. Furthermore, there will not necessarily be much time. It may well be that it will be thought it could be covered by the notice which the Minister will give later on. But in point of fact no large company is going to embark upon a pipe-line—it is not even going to consider making application for a pipe-line—unless, by private consultations beforehand, it is found that the Ministry is likely to grant approval. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment, or will promise to put in something like it, because, quite frankly, it is not good enough for us to be told that in any case the Minister is bound to do that although it is not stated specifically in the Bill.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Before the Minister replies, would he be kind enough to tell me at what stage the applicant for a local pipe-line has to obtain planning permission from the planning authority? It appears to me that the notice for the purposes of the foregoing subsection must surely state whether planning permission has been granted or not. If he makes the application to the Minister without planning permission, what is the position of the planning authority? I am not quite clear. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to deal with that point in his reply.

LORD MILLS

I have some difficulty in understanding why this Amendment, or an Amendment along these lines, is necessary, because I cannot see any reason to suggest that owners and occupiers will be unaware of proposals for constructing a pipe-line over their land. As has been stated, in subsection (2) (c) the promoter is required in his notice to specify the rights and consents necessary for the construction of the work and to state whether such rights and consents have been or can be obtained. This means that he must first have approached all the owners and occupiers concerned. I can see there is a certain amount of feeling in the Committee that this is not sufficient, but, as I have said, I do not understand why it is not sufficient. In view of what has been said, however, I will certainly have another look at it. I do not think I can go any further than that this afternoon.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I think he discovered that in subsection (2) (c) the proposer has to … specify the rights and consents the grant or giving of which is so requisite and state, with respect to each of them, whether the grant or giving thereof has been, or can be, obtained; Perhaps that does not go so far as my noble friend intended. He wants to know when the planning authority—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Would he not agree that, as a prerequisite before anything else is done, planning permission must be obtained from a local planning authority? It is no good getting to these other consents unless a planning authority has given permission, and I should have thought this should be stated specifically.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said; because, after all, each county or large borough has its own planning authority. It seems very remarkable to me (I am a member of my own planning authority) that there is no mention here, so far as I can see, of a planning authority's being consulted.

LORD MILLS

The proposer has to tell the Minister when he asks for the Minister's consent that he has permission from the planning authority.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Where is that stated?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It does not say so.

LORD MILLS

It is certainly there. Shall I let the noble Lord know?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Certainly.

LORD STONHAM

I have been trying to follow this. I must admit, as the case has been presented, that I have considerable sympathy with the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment. Nowhere in Clause 2 is there any indication, as the noble Lord, Lord Mills, has suggested, that notices are going to be given to the owners concerned. I can see only two references to the notices. One is in line 15, where it says … there has been given to the Minister a notice … and one in line 5, on page 3, where again it says: … a notice for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section has been given to the Minister … There is no indication, so far as I can see, that any of the owners should receive notice as to what is going to be done. Unless it appears somewhere else in the Bill, I think we should have this Amendment.

LORD LINDGREN

I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the position, because it is not only noble Lords in this House who are at the moment mystified. If I may declare an interest, to which I am now speaking, since my arrival at this House I have had a letter from the British Waterworks Association. In reference to Clause 2, they say—and these are their words: Application for an authorisation brings into play the provisions of the First Schedule to the Bill providing for notice for objections to be made and for a public inquiry. This procedure does not, however, apply to pipe-lines under ten miles in length. Therefore whilst water undertakers may be themselves considered affected by a pipe-line under ten miles in length they will not have notice of it and nor will they have any opportunity of making their apprehensions known to the Minister. If a reputable body such as the British Waterworks Association, who I assume have legal advice with regard to matters affecting the laying of pipe-lines and interference with their pipes, are not clear, then I think there is some excuse for noble Lords like myself, who are not lawyers, being also mystified. I should be most grateful if the Minister would like to look at it in the light of what the noble Viscount who moved the Amendment has said.

LORD MILLS

The requirement that planning permission must be obtained is under the Town and Country Planning Act, and that is why it is not stated in this Bill. There is no need for it to be in the Bill.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Will the noble Lord say what happens if a local authority is unwilling to give planning permission? Presumably it will be overridden.

LORD MILLS

There will have to be a public inquiry. The case will be heard and a decision will then be taken by the Minister.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

Which Minister?

LORD STONHAM

Is it not a fact that, in many cases, if the Minister approves a scheme planning permission is deemed to have been given. How will notice arise under the Town and Country Planning Act in such circumstances?

LORD MILLS

I think the position is quite clear. The local planning authority has power to object and there must then be a public inquiry. At the public inquiry a report is made as to whether that objection should be maintained or not. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I would say that which Minister will be concerned, depends on how the inquiry is conducted. In the case of electricity, for example, sometimes it may be conducted by an inspector from the Ministry of Power, sitting alongside one from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Sometimes an inquiry may be conducted by the Minister of Power's representative. It is arranged between the two of them how this should be done.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I suggest to the noble Lord that we should make this quite clear. Here we have an application for local pipe-line planning permission, and let us assume that it is refused under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is unknown and undefined as to who would conduct the inquiry and, more important still, which Minister would be the Minister who would finally agree to its rejection, or overrule the local planning authority. Have we here a position where the Minister of Power would, in fact, be overruling the town planning authorities' objections, or have we the position where there the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be overruling the Minister of Power's requirements for a pipe-line in the national interest? I think we ought to know which it is.

LORD MILLS

The noble Lord's first assumption is the correct one under this Bill.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Am I to gather from the noble Lord that the prerequisite for an application is to get planning permission first, and that one cannot proceed at all unless one gets planning permission? Would it not therefore be advisable in this particular clause to have another paragraph, (f), after paragraph (e), stating whether or not he has obtained planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act? I must say that I am confused. If he has not obtained that planning consent, can he proceed to the Minister of Power with his application? And, if so, can the Minister of Power then override the local planning authority? If he can override the local planning authority, why not let the man go to the Minister first and thus save himself the trouble of getting planning consent? Because if the Minister of Power says, "Yes, you can put your pipe-line down, "he can, if I may use what is said to be a vulgarism, "cock a snook" at the planning authority. Is that wise?

LORD MILLS

I do not think it is correct. The Minister has to be notified of the result of the application to the local planning authority in all cases before he gives his consent or refuses his consent.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I think it is quite clear from the discussion upon this Amendment that my noble friend should look at this subject again. As I understand it, the procedure for a local pipe-line is not quite what seems to have been described this afternoon. It is really that someone who proposes to put down a local pipe-line cannot start the work without getting permission from the Minister under Clause 2. Of course he cannot do so either without getting planning consent under the Town and Country Planning Act, but that is a different matter. Where, however, the two might become confused is in this instance: suppose the planning authority refuse permission and the would-be pipe-line owner then sends his notice to the Minister under Clause 2, and the Minister, using his powers under Clause 6, treats the application as one for a cross-country pipe-line. The Minister of Power is then enabled to override the planning authority's refusal; but I think not otherwise.

LORD MILLS

But only after a public inquiry.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Only after another inquiry, I agree. It seems to me that that is something which ought to be straightened out. There is one other consideration: if the would-be pipe-line owner did not own all the land along which he wished to put his pipe-line, he would, under the 1959 Town and Country Planning Act, have to give notice to the owner of that land that he was going to make a planning application, so that the owner would get notice that way; but the occupier would not. Therefore I think there is a case for further consideration of this point. However, in view of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 45, after ("them") insert ("that the grant or giving thereof has been sought, and").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney).

LORD MILLS

I think this Amendment is really redundant, if we consider it in relation to Amendment No. 9. I would suggest to your Lordship's that you await the results of my further inquiry into this matter before we agree this Amendment.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

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

5.14 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "six weeks" and insert "twelve months". The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together because they hang together. Clause 4 deals with the case where a pipe-line has been put down in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2 and gives the Minister power to order its removal. It seems to me that the clause as it stands ensures the speedy removal of the pipe-line but does not pay sufficient attention to the interests of the owners and occupiers of the land. The object of my first Amendment, which increases the length of time from six weeks to twelve months, is to allow for the work to be carried out at a time when it does least damage to the owner and the occupier of the land. After all, this person has suffered all the inconvenience of a pipe-line being put through his land and now it is going to be removed, and it seems to me that we ought to ensure that the least possible amount of damage is done. One does not want to take the pipe-line up in the middle of harvest or when the ground is particularly wet in the middle of the winter. My second Amendment ensures that due notice and consultation takes plaice between the pipe-line promoter and owners and occupiers, so that the same object is achieved: that the removal of the pipe-line causes the least nuisance to everybody concerned. That is really the basis of my argument. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, leave out ("six weeks ") and insert ("twelve months").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD CHESHAM

I find myself in agreement with my noble friend who moved this Amendment that there is something that needs doing here. If he will not mind my saying so, I think the way he has suggested of doing it is perhaps not quite the right way. I do not think there is any need for me to waste any words about the convenience, as it were, of occupiers, particularly agricultural ones; but I would say in connection with the noble Lord's first Amendment that while, from one point of view, a period of twelve months would be much more reasonable, I think from other points of view it is much too long. Where somebody has done something naughty with his pipe-line and he has to remove it, it seems that in many cases twelve months would be much too long, although it would be reasonable in others. With regard to the question of notice to the occupier, that is, I think, also a point of substance.

The final question of how the time should be decided when this offending pipe-line should be removed is a question that requires some further study. I am only hazarding a guess, but perhaps that is something that might be done under the Bill as it stands. The time can be extended on the application of the pipe-line operator. Perhaps if that provision were amended to provide for it to be done on the application of the owner or occupier as well, it might meet the case; but I do not want to anticipate how it could be done. We think there are three points to meet here, and if my noble friend feels like withdrawing his Amendment I shall be glad to look at it carefully to see whether we cannot produce a Government Amendment to set down later to meet the points he has raised.

LORD DERWENT

I hope that when my noble friend considers this matter with his right honourable friend he will regard it as being more important to look after the occupier than to treat the pipe-line constructor as a naughty boy. I quite see that he wants to treat him as a naughty boy, but I hope he will look at the matter first of all from the point of view of what is best for the occupier.

LORD CHESHAM

If I may put in another word before the noble Lord opposite, as one of those over whose farm the last pipe-line under the Private Bill procedure is to be laid, I would say that I think my noble friend can rely upon it.

LORD SILKIN

I am delighted to see this new spirit of conciliation in dealing with Amendments to this Bill; it seems to indicate that the Government have not thought of everything. It so happens that this spirit is at the moment directed to one side of the House and not to the other. I hope that Amendments from all parts of the House will be considered with equal objectiveness. So far as this particular Amendment is concerned, I must say that I do not understand the need for it, because in the special case that the noble Lord has quoted where more time is wanted, the clause itself provides for the possibility of granting an extension beyond the six weeks. But in the normal case where a person has put in a pipe-line contrary to the permission that he has had, or perhaps even without any permission at all, surely six weeks would be quite a long enough period in which he should be required to remove it. Is it not the fact that this period can be extended? The Bill says: If a person on whom a notice is served under the foregoing subsection fails, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the notice was served, or such longer period as the Minister may on his application allow … Admittedly that refers to an application by the person who has laid the pipe. I personally should not resist including words to indicate that the application could be made by the owner of the land; but I would certainly strongly resist extending the time in the Bill itself, otherwise, as the clause would stand if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, you could extend beyond the twelve months. However, I rose really to congratulate the Government on their new spirit, and I hope it will continue.

LORD CHESHAM

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has just said. I hope I shall be able to reassure him that Her Majesty's Government always act in a spirit of complete objectivity, and treat every Amendment which is put down on what can be seen to be its merits. I should certainly greatly welcome the noble Lord's invitation for the future. I cannot say more at the moment than that I think he must wait and see; but, of course, as always, we do our best.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I am most grateful to my noble friend for the assurances he has given that he will look into this point. I agree that my Amendment, as it stands, is by no means perfect. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I hope that I shall be met with an equally friendly response to this Amendment. It deals with a different paint—namely, that after the pipe-line which has been laid in contravention of Clauses 1 and 2 is removed, there does not appear to be any provision for compensating the owner of the land for the damage that is done in removing the pipe-line. The object of my Amendment is to ensure that when the pipe-line is removed full compensation is paid for any damage that is done. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 5, at end insert— ("(4) Full compensation shall be made by the person in default to any person who suffers any loss or damage by reason of any entry upon land or anything done to remove works pursuant to the provisions of this section.")—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

LORD MILLS

We accept this Amendment in principle, and we will consider the necessary words to bring it about.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I should like to thank the noble Lord, and to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power of the Minister to direct that section 1, instead of section 2, shall apply to local pipe-lines

6.—(1) The Minister shall have power (exercisable by statutory instrument) by order to direct— (a) that section one of this Act shall, to the exclusion of section two thereof, apply to works for the construction of local pipe-lines of a class specified in the order (other than pipe-lines for whose construction works have lawfully been begun, or might lawfully have been begun, before the date on which the order comes into operation) as it applies to works for the construction of cross-country; or

5.26 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1) (a), after the second "of" to insert, "any local pipe-line or". The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is the second limb of the way in which I envisage local pipe-lines ought to be dealt with under this Bill. I have already adverted to this point in the remarks that I made on an earlier Amendment. We do not know at this stage to what extent local pipelines will be required to be laid or the conditions under which they will be laid. There are many things in the future pattern of pipe-lines in this country which are not at all clear at the moment and, as your Lordships have already heard, the limit of ten miles which makes the distinction between the complicated machinery under Clause 1 and the relatively simple machinery under Clause 2 is purely arbitrary.

This arbitrariness is cured by the Minister's being given power under Clause 6 of this Bill to treat what would otherwise be a local pipe-line as if it were a cross-country pipe-line, and by so doing he will require it to go through the full machinery prescribed under Clause 1 and the First Schedule of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister should have the widest possible power to do this. As the clause is at present drafted, his power is severely circumscribed because he can use it only if he has by order specified either that it is "a class" of pipe-line (whatever that may mean) or that it is a special sort of area through which the route of the pipe-line goes. I suppose that both of those things are bound to be general: the second one would be if the pipe-line goes through part of the country which is of high landscape value or is a National Park, and the "class" might be a pipe-line containing petrol or something highly inflammable and dangerous.

None the less, regulations will presumably be laid as the result of this clause, and they will be comparatively inflexible. My Amendment gives the Minister an extra and, as I believe, an important power. It would enable him, if there were sufficient need for him to do so, to treat one specific pipe-line as if it were a cross-country pipe-line, and would require it to go through the full procedure. I do not think he can do this under the Bill as it now stands. I am convinced that it is something that he ought to be able to do. Therefore I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 36, after the first ("of") insert ("any local pipe-line or").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MILLS

As the noble Viscount has said, this would give additional powers to the Minister, which might be thought objectionable on the grounds that he should not be empowered arbitrarily to force on to an individual promoter more onerous requirements than those generally applicable. I realise that it is important that the undertakers of local pipe-lines should know where they stand at the outset. As the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said, it is important in many cases that the construction of pipe-lines is put through urgently. I am prepared to look into the matter further, although I cannot accept any commitment to put down an Amendment.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I thank my noble friend very much, and I hope that as a result of his reflections he will feel that this is a point that ought to be met, because I do not believe that the power that exists at present is going to meet the case when it in fact arises. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Provisions supplementary to Sections 1 to 6]:

LORD MERRIVALE

I shall be very brief on this point. It seems to me that the words proposed to be left out by this Amendment are uncertain and could be construed as meaning the addition of a second line in parallel. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the aggregate of the lengths exceeding ten miles means a linear extension of the same single pipe. Therefore, this is purely a clarification Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 9, leave out ("an addition") and insert ("a linear extension").—(Lord Merrivale.)

LORD MILLS

I had some difficulty in following the purpose of this Amendment. It appears to me to provide that the length of a new pipe-line should only be aggregated with that of an existing line for the purposes of determining whether or not it is to be treated as a cross-country pipe-line, if the new line is added on as a linear extension at the end. This would mean that short branch pipe-lines running out of an existing line would be treated as local pipe-lines. No doubt examples can be adduced to show that in certain cases it would be reasonable to treat branch lines as local rather than cross-country lines, but any change of definition in the sense proposed would be likely to cause more problems than it would solve. For example it would open up possibilities of evasion by enabling a pipe-line owner to start a branch line just short of the end of the existing line and so escape the controls to which he would otherwise be liable. Generally I think it should be recognised that in dealing comprehensively with anything so varied as pipe-lines certain anomalies are inevitable. No refinement of definition can hope to deal entirely satisfactorily with all the cases that may arise. I hope the noble Lord will feel entitled, after this explanation, to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MERRIVALE

I fail to see how by extending a single local pipe-line it may be that an applicant would not come within the ambit of the provisions of Clause 1, but if my noble friend is satisfied that there will not be any cause for litigation with regard to the provisions of this clause, I am perfectly satisfied to withdraw the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions for avoiding construction of multitude of pipe-lines between same points

8.—(1) Where application is made to the Minister for the grant of a pipe-line construction authorisation for the construction of a pipe-line to be designed for the conveyance of a particular kind of thing or of things of a particular class and the Minister is satisfied that there is likelihood of demand arising amongst persons other than the applicant for the grant of such authorisations for the construction of further pipe-lines to be designed for the conveyance of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class, being pipe-lines the routes to be taken by which will be the same, or substantially the same, as that to be taken by the line to which the application relates, he may, if he grants the application, grant it subject to the condition that the line to be constructed pursuant to the application shall be so constructed as to be capable of conveying, during such period as may be specified in the authorisation, not less than such quantity of the kind of thing in question or, as the case may be, things of the class in question, as may be so specified; and where a pipeline constructed under a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this subsection is constructed without conformity to that condition, the works for the construction of the line shall be deemed, for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this Act, to have been executed in contravention of subsection (1) of section one of this Act.

(2) The Minister may at any time, by notice served on the owner of a pipe-line constructed pursuant to a pipe-line construction authorisation to which a condition is attached by virtue of the foregoing subsection, impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the following purposes, namely,— (b) regulating the charges to be made for the conveyance by the line on behalf of such persons of that kind of thing or, as the case may be, things of that class;

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "likelihood of demand arising" and insert, "evidence of demand existing or likely to arise". The noble Viscount said: Clause 8 seems to me to be another most important clause in this Bill. It enables the Minister, when construction authorisation is given, to impose certain conditions on the applicant and in regard to the pipe-line that he allows as a result. However, as the Bill at present stands, in considering whether or not he should impose these conditions he has to take into account the likelihood of demand arising among persons other than the applicant for further pipe-lines. In other words, he has to take into account that in future there may be a case for somebody else to use the same pipe-line or the same route.

As the Bill is at present drafted, all that he has to take into account is a "likelihood". I think that for the protection in this case of the pipe-line owner himself, and in any ease for better drafting, as "likelihood" is a broad word in this context the Minister should act on something a little more concrete. I have suggested the word "evidence". My Amendment goes a little further than that, because I have suggested here that he should take account not only of evidence of demand that may crop up in the future, but also of evidence of demand that is in existence at the time when he is considering his authorisation as a result of the application. I hope that this Amendment will commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 21, leave out ("likelihood of demand arising") and insert ('evidence of demand existing or likely to arise").— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MILLS

The noble Viscount has drawn our attention to a power that in his view should be given to the Minister. This Amendment would enable the Minister to impose certain requirements where he is satisfied that there is an existing demand as well as a future demand. I look upon this as a useful Amendment, which we can accept in principle.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.39 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the same, or substantially" and to substitute "wholly Or partly". The noble Earl said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 20, as your Lordships will appreciate, refer to the same point, which to a great extent revolves around the word substantially", on which we have already had a little argument this afternoon. You will see that the effect of Clause 8 is that where the Minister has a second application for a pipe-line and the second application wishes to follow a route which is "the same, or substantially the same" as that of the first application, he can compel the promoter of the first application to enlarge the facilities so as to be sufficient to take both pipe-lines, or to put in sufficient gauge of pipe-line to carry the required amount of whatever is being carried.

What does "substantially" mean, and what, in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, would constitute a substantial part of the route? Not having the advantages of the noble Viscount, I would say that "substantially" means more than half; and that would rule out any pipe-line which proposed to use only a small fraction of the original route. Since the object of this whole Bill is to avoid unnecessary waste and dislocation, even if the distance to be followed by both pipe-line routes is only a small one, the Minister should, to my mind, still be able to compel the promoter to provide a pipe-line in the first instance that is sufficient to carry both. I hope I have made myself clear.

As the noble Viscount said, Clause 8 is an important Clause. In fact, I would almost say that it is the most important in the Bill, because it is the instrument by which this orderly development is going to be carried out with the prevention of waste and duplication. I can easily imagine demands for pipe-lines along routes which would intersect, and which, part of the way, would want to follow the same line. I suggest to the Minister, therefore, that it is important that the Minister should have this power and should be able to impose these conditions even if there is only a short route. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 26, leave out ("the same, or substantially") and insert (" wholly or partly").—(The Earl of Lucan.)

LORD CHESHAM

In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said earlier on I feel very chary of answering this Amendment. However, in view of what I myself said, I am perfectly happy to go on. I was glad to hear from the noble Earl that my understanding or my anticipation of his Amendment was correct; that it is to ensure that where pipe-lines partly go over the same route there is power to see that they go by the same pipe, in the same hole, or something like that. That is perfectly right, and I think the noble Earl's point is a good one. But my view of the matter is that what he is worried about is already covered in the Bill, under Clause 8, subsection (2) (a), which, I should have thought, fairly adequately covers the situation that he visualises.

I think I must also say that in this connection the only point of even the slightest disagreement that I have with him is on the interpretation of the word "substantially". If I were to accept this Amendment in the terms in which it has been put down, the result would be this: "the same, or substantially the same" would be replaced by "wholly or partly" which would meet the noble Earl's point. It would meet that, but it would have an unfortunate effect, as the words, "the same, or substantially the same "are there to indicate the line of the route. So that if two pipe-lines are proposed, shall we say, from London to Birmingham, the Minister has discretion to put them together to share the pipe, to impose conditions of construction, so that both will be served. I think that if those words were removed he would no longer have the power to do that, and I do not think that two proposed pipe-lines, say half-a-mile apart but serving the same centres, could necessarily be directed together. I think there would be that effect.

In that sense, therefore, I should like to resist the Amendment, which I hope the noble Earl will withdraw. But in asking him to do that, I should like to have a further opportunity to consider, in consultation with him if he so wishes, whether the existing wording in the Bill to which I referred does adequately cover the point, or whether some Amendment at a later stage would be necessary. In view of that, I hope that he will understand why I cannot accept his Amendment and will agree to withdraw it.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

Before the noble Earl opposite does withdraw the Amendment, I wonder if my noble friend would just explain this a little more to me. I think he said that the point raised by the noble Earl would be covered by subsection (2) (a) of Clause 8, but I am not sure that that is so. If we leave in the wording of subsection (1), "the same, or substantially the same", that refers to the route. But if there were a short part of the actual pipe-line which coincided with another one going between two different places, then the routes of the two would not be "substantially the same". Therefore, the Minister would not have power under subsection (2) to impose any conditions at all, because the routes would not be substantially the same and would not be covered by subsection (1). So I do not think that he would necessarily have powers under subsection (2) (a) to do what the noble Earl, very rightly, wants.

LORD STONHAM

I would support what the noble Viscount has just said, because, quite obviously, subsection (2) (a), which the noble Lord said meets the conditions, only allows the same thing to be done as is allowed under subsection (1). In my noble friend's Amendment we do not want precisely the same thing to be done in all cases; we want it to be possible for a part—and it may well be a part which is far less than half the total length of the line—to be used. Therefore, it is not 'possible to suggest that the point is covered. When the noble Lord looks at the point again, he might consider it in conjunction with the provisions for the diversion of pipe-lines.

I would make a special plea for him to look at this again, in view of the extraordinary drafting of subsection (1) of this clause. It is not possible for me to remember a subsection of this kind, which consists of 266 words in one sentence, 197 of them before one gets to a semi-colon. It is the most amazing drafting that I have seen for a very long time. I should have thought it would he a good thing to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill to get up and see whether he could read this subsection in one breath. I am quite convinced that he would want a new pipe-line before he succeeded in doing the job. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cheslham, will accept from me, and from his noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, that this does not meet the point in mind; and I hope that, while he is having another look at it, he might consider breaking this subsection up into a reasonable number of sentences. when I think we might all understand it a good deal better.

LORD SILKIN

As I understand the suggestion of the noble Lord, it is that he will look at the principle of my noble friend's Amendment, although he says, and it may well be so, that the actual words of the Amendment are not suitable. But I should like to support the noble Viscount when he says that subsection (2) does not really meet the problem which my noble friend put forward. Subsection (2) seems to indicate that the Minister will act when it is too late to achieve what is required. What is wanted is that the Minister should be in a position to make certain conditions at the time of the application as well as at some future time. The result of requiring that a pipe-line should be used jointly might mean that it would have to be a much bigger pipe-line than would otherwise be the case, and if the Minister had thought of it only after the pipe-line had been constructed, it might not be the most convenient or economical way of achieving it.

I am glad my noble friend made his criticism of the drafting; it is very difficult to follow. I myself tried to find out what it meant, but by the time I had got half-way through subsection (1) I had lost the thread of it, and had to start over again. Would not the noble Lord look at the whole clause again? Even though I recognise that the Government have given it every consideration and that they have no doubt satisfied themselves that it is perfect in every respect, I still think it would be worth while looking at it again, not only from the point of view of the Amendments that are down but also from the point of view of the actual drafting.

LORD CHESHAM

I have now had three pleas to look at this thing again very carefully since I said that I would do just that. Therefore, I think it is only for me to repeat the assurance that I will look at it extremely carefully—I said only "carefully" before, I think— to see that the point of principle which the noble Earl has made is covered, because I think it should be covered. That I will most certainly do, and be convinced, if that is the case, that the existing wording does cover it, or, if not, propose suitable action at a later stage. So far as the drafting is concerned, I do not understand in the slightest what are the problems which Parliamentary counsel is confronted with when he is drafting such matters, and I should therefore prefer not to comment on it except to say that it may, of course, be an example of continuous-flow drafting suitable for a pipe-line Bill.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.54 p.m.

LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the second "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. It may be that when the noble Lord is looking at this clause again he will consider whether it needs amendment along the lines that I am putting forward. Clause 8, as has already been said, is a clause which provides for the joint user of certain pipe-lines. It provides that the Minister may require the joint use if certain conditions are satisfied, and there are three of them. The first is the likelihood of there being a demand—that will be strengthened, I hope, by the words of the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, namely, evidence of demand existing or likely to arise", or words of that kind. The second requirement is that it shall be for the same or similar kinds of products; and the third is that the route should be the same.

Now if those conditions are satisfied, then one would think, "Here we have a clear case of the Minister's making the requirement that there should be joint user"; but, under this clause there may be nothing of the kind. It is still left at the discretion of the Minister to make an order or not to make an order. He may or, presumably, he may not. If he does, then the clause goes on, in the later parts, to say what conditions he may lay down; but, equally, he may I not make an order in spite of the fact that all the requirements are met. He is not required, even, to state why he does not make an order, or to give the person who is refused the opportunity of using the pipe-line jointly the chance of making a case, of having an inquiry or of doing anything about it. Under this clause, the Minister is not obliged even to inform him that he is not using the powers that have been conferred upon him. My Amendment is therefore directed to ensure that, if the conditions are satisfied, then the Minister shall make the order for the joint user of a pipe-line. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD MILLS

This is a somewhat clearer issue. We think it is undesirable at this stage to remove the discretion in the way the Amendment seeks. We think there may well be—experience will prove—occasions when it will be unnecessary or undesirable for the Minister to impose multi-user conditions even though he is satisfied that there may be a subsequent demand for additional authorisations. We take the view that this is a matter which is better dealt with according to the circumstances of the individual case, and I should hope that the noble Lord would agree to leave the Minister this discretion by withdrawing his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am amazed at the noble Lord's request. I thought that the Bill was designed to prevent unnecessary duplication. Where it is proposed that two pipe-lines shall use the same route, or two users propose to use a pipe-line between two points, it would surely be contrary to the object of the Bill for the Minister to exercise his discretion and not to require the two pipe-lines to be constructed in one. As my noble friend has pointed out, under Clause 1 the Minister has a discretion whether to grant an authorisation at all, and, having done so, if, under Clause 8, he has to consider a second application for an authorisation, surely he can again exercise his discretion there. But, having established that there is a demand for larger facilities, it seems to me contrary to the whole object of the Bill that the Minister should not have to make the requirement as laid down.

LORD MILLS

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. The Minister has discretion under Clause 8 (1) to impose conditions, and we would rather keep it as a discretion till we know more about the conditions he will meet, than make it obligatory.

LORD SILKIN

I just do not understand what is the case for leaving it to the discretion of a Minister. Under what principles could he exercise his discretion? He is already satisfied under Clause 8 (1) that there is a need. He is satisfied that it is for the purpose of carrying similar goods. He is satisfied that the route is the same. What is the discretion he wants to exercise, and on what ground could he possibly want to refuse? We feel that if the Government are really genuine in desiring that the fullest possible use should be made of these lines, then the Minister should be required, in those circumstances, having been satisfied of all the essentials, to make an order. He can make any conditions he likes, and that is provided for in other subsections of the clause. But the noble Lord has not explained why he wants a discretion to be given to the Minister; he merely says that it would be desirable at the present stage. But at what stage does it cease to be desirable? Really, the noble Lord must explain. If he rejects an Amendment, he must explain why a little more circumspectly, otherwise he will really be open to the allegation I made earlier. I do not want to persist in this.

LORD MILLS

It sometimes appears to me that, unless the noble Lord's point is met, there is no satisfactory explanation given to him.

LORD SILKIN

No. I have withdrawn Amendments in my time.

LORD MILLS

Clause 8 (1) deals with the likelihood of something arising, and gives the Minister power to specify the construction of the line, the size, and so on. We think it is far better to deal with every case on its merits, and for that reason we think the Minister should have discretion either to lay down regulations or not. It is as simple as that.

LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH

If the noble Lord agrees that all the things which have to be done are right, and the same sort of thing, or a substantially similar thing, is to be conveyed through the pipe-line, and so forth, then it seems to me that it is a fairly hefty responsibility to leave it to the Minister entirely to say whether or not full use is to be made of this new transport system, and that the Minister alone should have the power to decide. It seems to me that those words preceding "he may" may just as well be withdrawn from the Bill as wasted words and wasted print. I regard this as one of the most important things about the non-cross-country pipe-lines and the function they are going to fulfil.

If we are to avoid duplication—the very thing which I am sure every noble Lord wishes to avoid—then certainly we ought to hesitate before we leave this power purely permissive, for the Minister to determine. I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord has examined the matter properly in advance, but perhaps he has not quite seen the possibility which we think we can see—although we may be wrong, of course. But the noble Lord could not be wrong if he undertook to look at this question again in case there may have been a mistake; and I hope he will.

LORD MILLS

I do not think there has been any mistake. I said it was the simple issue whether it was desirable to compel the Minister to have pipe-lines constructed in such a way because of the likelihood of something else arising among people other than the promoter. I still think that is right, but I will consult my right honourable friend to see what he has to say about the matter.

LORD SILKIN

The noble Lord has shocked me. He is beginning to show signs of some kind of resilience to the arguments which are being put forward. But I do not want to discourage him, and I hope she will consider it. In those circumstances, I have great pleasure in asking for leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.6 p.m.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, in subsection (2) (b), to leave out "conveyance by the", and to insert: use or availability of the line for the conveyance".

The noble Viscount said: Among the conditions that the Minister may, under subsection (2) of Clause 8, impose upon the owner of a pipe-line which is constructed is one which regulates the charges to be made for conveyance along the pipe-line of various things of various classes. I wonder whether there may not be a lacuna in this case by which a great deal of abuse might be let in or might "float", since if you regulate the charge that is made for the conveyance you do not necessarily regulate the charge that is made to book the pipe-line. An unscrupulous pipe-line owner might be prepared to accept a charge in line with that regulated by the Minister for the actual conveyance, but might none the less require somebody who wished to convey his substance through the pipe-line to pay such a large booking fee that the whole object would be defeated. Moreover, of course, it does not necessarily mean, even if the pipe-line is booked by somebody, that he would actually send any of his material through it, and in that case it would be unjust if the owner of the pipe-line did not receive some form of payment for the booking, which presumably kept the line empty at the time in question. Therefore, I think that the conditions which the Minister is capable of imposing should certainly include one to regulate a booking fee as well as a charge for the actual conveyance along the pipe-line, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 3, leave out from the second ("the") to ("line") in line 4, and insert the said words.—(Viscount Colville of Colross.)

LORD CHESHAM

It seems to me that the argument my noble friend has put forward again contains a sound point. It seems to me that if the availability of the pipe-line is to be what one might call commercially equitable, there should be such payments, and I would accept the Amendment in principle. I am not convinced of the Parliamentary soundness of the drafting, and I should like to look at it again. In other words, if he will withdraw the Amendment, as I accept the principle of it, I should like to look at the drafting.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

The Minister is giving way very gracefully and very quickly to this demand. I should like enlightenment as to what it really amounts to. I thought that noble Lords opposite approved of the free play of the market. I thought it was a question of supply and demand; somebody supplied facilities for transport, and charged those who wished to use them. I am surprised to hear any talk of booking fees, because I have never heard of booking fees on railways, on the telephones, or on anything else. You just pay for transport at so much a mile.

LORD CHESHAM

I do not think the noble Earl is quite right. One pays booking fees on all kinds of things and for all kinds of transport and one does not usually get the fee back if the facility is not used. There are powers in the Bill to regulate certain aspects of pipe-lines when jointly used, including charges that may be made for sending goods up the pipe-line. Surely that cannot be done without some form of prearrangement between the parties concerned; and if the pipe-line is not in full use, as it is hoped all pipe-lines will be, I think that there should be some provision for the pipe-line owner to have some kind of protection, if the person with whom he has arranged to use it sends nothing up the line. That, I understand, is the principle behind this Amendment, which I find acceptable. I would add that I should not have used the expression "booking fees ".

LORD STONHAM

Hire charges.

LORD CHESHAM

Perhaps some expression like that. But I think that the principle is properly conceived and should be acceptable to your Lordships.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I apologise if my phraseology has been at fault. I believe that there is a real point here and I should like to tell the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, the sort of thing that might happen. If one company owned a pipe-line and another company had an arrangement by which it could send oil (for the sake of argument) up that pipe-line from a dock to their refinery, it would be necessary to make the arrangement to do that some time in advance, and that would be capable of a separate charge from the actual charge for the conveyance in the pipe-line. Suppose that a tanker was held up and could not arrive at the dock to discharge, the pipe-line would be empty for the entire period for which the arrangement was made and not producing anything in the way of revenue to the owner, so a separate charge should be made for hiring the pipe-line as well as the charge for the actual conveyance per ton per mile. I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Chesham for promising to put this into correct form and re-introduce it at another stage, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 8, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

6.13 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR or INCHRYE

There is a point of substance, of which my noble friend has had some notice, which I should like to submit to the Committee, in the hope that when the Government reconsider this clause, as they have said they will, they will take this particular point into consideration. It is the completely inadequate penalties in subsection (3) for offences against the Minister's powers, given to him in subsection (2). He is given power to impose requirements in regard to, first, the other user; secondly, reasonable charges and thirdly, no obstruction. In fact these powers given to the Minister aim at fulfilling what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said was the main purpose of the Bill—which is, the orderly development of pipe-lines in this country. If these powers are defined and the offender is taken to court, he is liable under the Bill to a fine not exceeding £100, and then, if he continues the offence—that is to say, refuses to allow someone to have other user or tries to impose exhorbitant charges or obstructs alternative user—he is liable to a fine of only £20 a day.

In this Bill we are dealing with big money interests, and £20 a day is a derisory sum. It means, in fact, that for an initial £100 fine and a penalty of not more than £6,000 a year the Bill in this particular respect could be nullified. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider stiffening these fines very much. I should like to see an initial fine of £1,000, and £100 a day subsequently, which would begin to mean something to the large oil interest concerned with this business. I put this point forward now, hoping that the Government will be good enough to consider it during their reconsideration of this clause, which has already been promised to the Committee.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said and ask the noble Lord to consider not merely the penalties in Clause 8 but those in Clauses 1 and 2, because both the original sum and the extra amounts per day if the offence continues are really derisory. What on earth is such a fine to a company like Shell or the Imperial Chemical Industries? Even a fine of £1,000 does not go very far with companies of that magnitude, and therefore I hope the noble Lord will look into this point.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I, too, should like to support my noble friend.

LORD SILKIN

I wish to do the same as the noble Viscount, but also to point out that these fines are the maxima—that is, they will be imposed in the extreme case. I should imagine that in less serious cases it could be as little as £5. I fully endorse everything that the noble Lords have said.

LORD AIREDALE

I should not like the opportunity to pass without its being said from this section of the House that we on the Liberal Benches also support what has been said.

LORD MILLS

I would just explain that these penalties follow those in Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, for breaches of planning control. I have no doubt that that was the reason why these penalties went into this Bill. But I will consider the views of noble Lords and see whether anything can be done.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

The world has changed since 1947; so has the value of money, and so have the assets of the big companies.

LORD SILKIN

And so have the matters we are dealing with. We are dealing with much bigger things than we normally deal with under the Town and Country Planning Act. The penalties in that Act may have been appropriate at that time; I do not remember any objection being raised to them then. But even those penalties would not be appropriate to-day.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

1947 penalties are no longer relevant.

LORD MILLS

I have already said that I will have this point considered.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause

Provision for making full use of pipe-lines

.—(1) On the application of a person desiring to make use of an existing pipe-line, the Minister may at any time, if he is satisfied that the pipe-line has sufficient unused capacity and could properly be used for the conveyance of the thing or, as the case may be, things of the class proposed by the applicant, by notice served on the owner of the pipe-line require him to make the pipe-line available for the conveyance of the thing or class of things specified in the notice; and the Minister may in the notice impose such requirements as he thinks it necessary or expedient to impose for all or any of the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2) of section eight of this Act.

(2) The Minister shall not serve a notice under the last foregoing subsection without first affording to the owner of the pipe-line an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose and considering the report of the person so appointed.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (3) of section eight of this Act any requirement imposed under subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to have been imposed under subsection (2) of section eight.

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment attempts to plug what I believe to be another gap in the Minister's powers to control properly the complex of pipe-lines which may, and I hope will, spring up under this Bill. The Minister's power to make regulations under Clause 8 have already been discussed by your Lordships and they take into account all the important matters upon which he should have powers to instruct the pipe-line owners where pipes are being used by more than one firm. There is, however, the great disadvantage under the machinery in Clause 8 that he can impose conditions of that sort only if he thought about it at the time when he first gave the pipe-line construction authorisation. Suppose, therefore, that the Minister, as soon as this Bill is passed, were to give such an authorisation for a pipe-line from London to Birmingham, and at that time there was no other user in the field and no possibility that one might come on the scene, and there was no reason for the Minister to impose any conditions under Clause 8; and suppose, further, that later on another potential user arrived on the scene and wished to share the pipe-line, which had a capacity to be shared by that second person; then the Minister would have no power under the Bill to do anything whatever about it, and would have no option but to allow the second person who came on the scene later to build another pipe-line for himself or not to have a pipe-line at all.

I have tried to draft a clause (I know it to be deficient in many respects) in order to raise the issue, which would allow the Minister at that later stage to find out whether there is excess capacity in any pipe-line he has already authoraised, and then to propose that that excess capacity should be used and shared by somebody else, at the same time giving the original owner of the pipe-line an opportunity to make a valid objection to the proposal. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this to be an important and valid point; otherwise I see the very duplication of which your Lordships have talked so much this afternoon and about which you are so worried. I hope that, even if the particulars of the Amendment are not very precise or accurate, none the less its principle is acceptable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new Clause.— (Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORD MILLS

It may be necessary to give further consideration to the drafting of this Amendment to ensure that it carries out the intentions of the noble Viscount. From that, your Lordships will probably gather that the Government accept the principle covered by the Amendment and will give it attention with a view to putting down a Government Amendment at a later date.

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

I am obliged to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MILLS

I believe it has been agreed that we should adjourn the Committee stage at this point and resume on Thursday. That being so, I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Motion agreed to: House resumed accordingly.