§ 5.42 p.m.
§ Committee stage resumed.
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 11 to following new clause
§ Compensation for land within ten feet of pipe-line.
§ ".If any person entitled to an interest in land situate within ten feet from a point on the surface of land whose position is vertically above any part of a pipe-line below the surface constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Act proves that the value of his interest is depreciated by the construction of the pipe-line the owner of the pipe-line shall pay him compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation."
§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment involves, I am afraid, a somewhat complicated concept, but I hope that I can explain it to your Lordships so as to enable the Committee to give it at any rate approval in principle. The real reason why I believe some such Amendment as this to be necessary is because of the provisions of Clause 25 of this Bill. That clause provides that where, after a pipe-line has been made, 1110 someone, whether unwittingly or not, builds any structure within ten feet of the place in the land where that pipeline is situated, he must pull it down again, or, if he does not do so, must pay the cost of somebody else's pulling it down.
§ I can envisage this sort of situation occurring. Suppose that there are two landowners, A and B, and that A has going through his land, and along the very boundary of it, a pipe-line. Suppose that the actual pipe-line goes along the very edge of the easement which he has been granted, whether by compulsory rights order or by voluntary agreement, and as a result it goes right up to the very edge of his land. Clause 25 would provide that landowner B, whose land immediately joins the pipe-line. would have ten feet of his land sterilised. He would not be able to build upon it, and, if he did so, he would have to take the building down again. But since that pipe-line did not go through his land at all, but rather through that of landowner A, he would neither have been compensated, as a result of the compulsory rights order, nor have received any payment by voluntary agreement with the pipe-line owner. However, as the Bill stands at present, he is entitled to no compensation for the sterilisation of his ten feet of land, and it seems to me only right that some such provision should be inserted in the Bill. This I have attempted by means of this Amendment. which I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ LORD CHESHAMI suppose it may be said that the set of circumstances which my noble friend envisages could happen, although I think they might be said to be operating in a somewhat remote and rarefied atmosphere. I should have thought the technical operation of laying a pipe-line would, on the whole, have made it difficult for the neighbouring owner to have been unaware of what was going on. Nevertheless, I feel that my noble friend may have raised a point of substance which perhaps needs some attention. I think that to deal with it may prove a rather complicated affair, and it may be that, in the consideration of it, other issues 1111 may arise. Perhaps they will not, but it wil certainly be quite complicated to consider. I can tell him, however, that I accept the principle of it, or that I accept that the principle does indicate that something needs to be done about it. If he will accept that, I would offer to deal with the matter at a later stage of the Bill, although at this moment I cannot be precise as to exactly when or how. But we will deal with it by means of an Amendment in due course.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI gladly accept that assurance from my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 12 [Registration of compulsory rights orders]:
§ LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out Clause 12. The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills, I should say that it is not a very complicated or difficult affair. It was thought that people should know where there were compulsory rights in being, and Clause 12 lays down that compulsory rights orders are not to become effective until they have been registered in the registers of local land charges maintained by local authorities. These registers were designed for the registration of local authorities' charges, and are still used only for these purposes and for the registration of charges of a public nature. On further consideration we thought that the principle of keeping the local land charges registers for charges of a public nature should be preserved, and therefore it would not be right to use them, and that they would not be appropriate for the registration of rights which accrue for the benefit of private persons, as do the rights in the present case.
§ We felt that the purchaser of land affected by compulsory rights orders would always become aware of the existence of those rights, because it is the duty of the vendor to disclose the existence of any encumbrances which affect the property and he would normally preserve a copy of the order with these data. He may also become aware of the existence of the pipe-line and of his consequent rights by reason of the markers he would 1112 see on the surface of the land, and, of course, searches of local authority registers, which would commonly be made by his solicitors, would reveal the existence of maps indicating such pipelines and rights which are deposited with the local authorities, as Clause 32 demands.
§ Therefore, Clause 12 is not required and the purpose of this Amendment is simply to remove it on that account. I think that I should also point out to your Lordships that the provisions in subsection (5) of the clause will still be required in Scotland and, therefore, the substance of that subsection has been put down as a new Amendment to Clause 56. It is on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 68A, which I shall move in due course. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 12.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 13 agreed to
§ Clause 14:
§ Power to place pipe-lines in streets
§ 14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person may place a pipe-line in a street with the consent of the appropriate authority for that street, and for that purpose and the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing, altering or renewing a pipe-line placed in a street in pursuance of this subsection or changing the position of a pipeline so placed or removing it, may open and break up the street and may remove or use earth or other materials in the street.
§ (5) The consent of an authority under this section shall not be required for the placing of a pipe-line by way of renewal of an existing pipe-line.
§
LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1), after the second word "street" to insert:
and of any statutory water undertakers who have apparatus in the part of that street in which the pipe-line is proposed to be placed".
§ The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lindgren, who unfortunately cannot be here at this moment, I beg to move this Amendment. With the Committee's permission I should like to discuss Amendments No. 34A and 34B at the same time. The new Clause 14 makes it possible for a person to place a pipe-line in a street with the consent of the appropriate authority for that street, which, I understand, would be the highway authority. Work done 1113 for the purpose of maintaining, inspecting, adjusting, repairing or renewing a pipe-line would again be done with the consent of the appropriate authority. There is some fear that this provision does not go far enough.
§ As we all know, in built-up areas many services are run under our roadways, such as electric power lines, sewage pipes and fresh water supplies. It is felt that where these services, by the force of circumstances, have to be in the road, and where a company has power to place a pipe-line in the road, there should be consultations not only with the highway authority but also with the other statutory undertakings concerned, in particular the water undertakers. It may well be the case that a highway authority, when giving permission for the laying of a pipe-line, will consult the other authorities, but we know from our experience that often there does not appear to be enough liaison between the various authorities when dealing with roads. Often a week after we see a new road being laid we see it pulled up in order that an electric cable should be put down. Therefore, it is felt that we should have in the Bill the requirement that, before a pipeline is laid, all the authorities who have services under the road should be consulted.
§ We do not know what may be carried in these pipe-lines. Certainly fuel and chemicals will be transported by this new means, and it may be that some of these commodities will be highly poisonous. Therefore, there should be agreement, particularly with the water authority, before a pipe-line is laid to ensure that, in the event of an explosion or leak, there would be no pollution of the drinking water. The first Amendment requires that this should be done. The second Amendment provides that the consent of a water undertaking shall not be unreasonably withheld and that any dispute should be determined by the Minister of Power and by the Minister of Housing and Local Government acting jointly, because we feel that in this case the matter should not be left in the hands of the Minister of Power as is provided in the Bill at the present moment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, after ("street") insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
§ LORD BURDENI should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I am glad that he has rather widened the scope of the Amendment, which, as I read it, refers only to statutory water undertakings. A moment's reflection will enable anyone to see that even the workmen engaged in opening the street might run risks to themselves if they came into contact with gas pipes, electric mains or the water main, let alone the inconvenience to and the real risk which might be run by the users of electricity, gas and water. In many cases, the water undertaking will be a private concern and gas and electricity will be run by statutory undertakings. I do not think that the responsibility should be thrown on the local authority to notify all these people of work which the new pipe-line people wish to do.
Further, although I do not expect an answer on this point, which goes a little beyond the Amendment, the clause gives authority, at the end of subsection (1), for opening and breaking up the street and for the removal or use of earth or other materials in the street. Is any obligation placed upon the new pipeline people to make good the street, or are they going to leave it as they open it up? It may be that there is a clause which I have overlooked in this respect. In any case, I do not expect the noble Lord to answer now, but surely we should have some assurance on the point.
§ LORD WOLVERTONMay I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is going to widen his Amendment? It relates only to water undertakers. Is he going to widen it to include the gas and electricity authorities?
§ LORD SHEPHERDIn answering that question I am in some difficulty. I have moved this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. As I study it and consider the various ramifications that arise, I would say that if the Government were prepared to accept it in principle, obviously what is a case for the water authorities would apply to the other authorities.
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not think the noble Lord could widen the Amendment at the moment. May I take the points in a slightly reverse order before coming 1115 to the main body of the Amendment? I am speaking without notice and without the book, but I think I am right in saying that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, about opening up the road and not closing it are unfounded. The Bill includes a form of words based on the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, and, therefore, I think the noble Lord's fears are unfounded.
§ LORD BURDENWill the pipe-line people be regarded as public utilities?
§ LORD CHESHAMI am coming to that point, because it enters into what I have to say on the main body of the Amendment. I should, however, like to say a word about the dangers of pollution and so forth mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. That matter would be looked after by another part of the Bill where safety precautions are laid down for individual pipe-lines. As the noble Lord said, Clause 14 permits a person to place a pipe-line in the street with the consent of the street authority. The important part of it is this: from that moment on, once the consent of the highway authority is given, for the purpose of Section 1 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act. 1950 the pipe-line is held to be laid in pursuance of a statutory power to execute undertakers' works in a street, and there are standard codes in the Act which will apply to it. Anyone who undertakes such a work will have to notify other undertakers having apparatus in the street and likely to be affected by it. Having done that, they are then protected in turn by the provision of the code laid down in the Public Utilities Street Works Act, notably in Section 26.
Without going into a lengthy explanation, I might also say that I think it would be undesirable to give any statutory undertakers, in addition to the street authorities, the right to withhold consent, even subject to the qualification which the noble Lord proposed. If these powers were given to statutory water undertakers, they would certainly also have to be given to gas, electricity, Posts Office, sewerage and other authorities who are in the position of being statutory authorities for this purpose. It is accepted that we are to have pipe-lines and that they must cross roads, and if all those authorities were also to have 1116 their consent sought, which is tantamount to a power of veto, in a sense, the work for arranging the crossing of streets and roads, which is the main purpose of Clause 14 and the next five clauses, would become incredibly complicated, and I do not think in the end would afford substantially any more protection to the statutory undertakers than they have already under the provisions I have outlined. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord may feel that I have not opposed this Amendment for the sake of resisting it, but it goes a little further than is necessary and would bring in a rather undesirable state of affairs.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI am some way relieved by the statement that has been made by the noble Lord although I am not sure that I go fully with him. In Clause 14, at page 12, the two Ministers are specified, and presumably the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport will act jointly if there is a dispute between a person proposing to place a pipe-line in the street and the appropriate authority. I should have thought that in these circumstances it would be right that the Minister who is responsible for the conditions of the street and the town, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, should at least be consulted. The noble Lord said that if the Amendment was agreed to it would amount to a veto against the development of pipe-lines. I do not accept that.
§ LORD CHESHAMMay I interrupt the noble Lord, because I do not want him to address himself to a wrong point? I did not intend to say it was a power of veto against the development of pipelines. It is a point I did not develop properly, I agree. What I meant was that it would give a statutory undertaker, in this case the statutory water authority, the power of veto on an individual crossing of a road, because (and this was a point I did develop) if the Amendment were accepted, and if the highway authority gave consent to the pipe going in or across the road, the water authority could then say, "No".
§ LORD SHEPHERDThat is, in fact, saying that the water authority would have the power of veto. The noble Lord will agree that when I moved this Amendment I also referred to Amendment No. 34A, which says that if there 1117 is a question of an unsolved dispute between the pipe-line builders and operators and a particular authority, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, should then enter and make a decision. There it is not a case where the local authority could veto for good any development. I still think there is something in our case, although I do not intend to press it now. I will consult with my noble friend, whose Amendment it is. But I feel that, knowing some of the failures and weaknesses which exist in consultation between various authorities, these statutory undertakers should be consulted before a decision is made.
§ LORD CHESHAMIf I may add a further word to that, I hope the noble Lord will look (as I am sure he will) at the provision I have mentioned covering this matter. I think he may well be satisfied by what he finds. I do not want him to attach too much importance to all the points I have made, because some are minor ones. The main point of my objection is that one could not very well single out one form of statutory undertaker who has to give his consent, and not the others. Taken to an illogical conclusion, if Amendment No. 34A were to be accepted, it would be deficient, because my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport certainly should be in on this, too, so to speak. Taken to an illogical and absurd conclusion, it would end up with all the authorities having to have a Cabinet meeting to settle the matter.
§ LORD SHEPHERDAnother job for Mr. Butler!
§ LORD SILKINMy noble friend has promised to look at this again, in the light of the reply, but I should like to clear my own mind. Is it possible for the local authority to give consent without the water undertaking or other public authorities knowing anything about it? Is that conceivable? Would the section of the Act referred to take care of the point that all the public authorities concerned who have an interest in this should be consulted, or would it be possible for them to know nothing about it until the pipe had been laid? If so, there is something fundamentally wrong. But if, somehow, they do get to know, what is their procedure for saying that their own pipes or works are going to be interfered with if this pipe 1118 is laid? To whom can they make representations?
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not know whether the noble Lord heard my first answer, but I will repeat it to make it clear. Once the highway authority have given their consent, that puts the pipeline proposer in the same position as other statutory undertakers under the Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950. The first thing he has to do is to give notice to any other statutory undertakers who are affected by what he is proposing to do, so I do not think there is any possibility that a pipe-line could be laid, or even proposed, without their knowing anything about it.
§ LORD SILKINIn a laudable desire to be brief, the noble Lord, I think, had not made that point sufficiently clear.
§ LORD BURDENI am sure the Minister realises that this is a most important point for people in an area where a pipe-line is to be laid, and also to the other undertakers, such as those dealing with water, gas and sewerage. Can it be made perfectly clear, without any doubt at all, that when the consent is given by the local authority, then the relevant section in the Act to which the noble Lord referred applies? Can it be made clear to us where that statutory duty will be imposed on the new pipe-line people?
§ LORD WOLVERTONCannot we have that put in the Bill? I cannot see why not. I feel certain, as a member of a local authority, that before the local authority gave permission they would consult. But they are not obliged to do so, and I think it ought to be put in the Bill that they should consult other authorities, which is very important.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI do not want to press this matter, but I must say I am a little worried about it. Take the case of dangerous chemicals in a pipe-line, say, in Southampton, where the highway authority are responsible for the area in which the pipe-line is being built. There might be an explosion and a seepage of chemicals into the water supply affecting an area outside which the highway authority may have had consultations. In other words, the water may be polluted over a wide range because the pipe-line and the water supply have been 1119 too close. I would ask the noble Lord to see whether he could meet us in some way in this matter.
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not see there what there is to meet, because the point the noble Lord has again made bears out the reason why it is appropriate for the safety regulations to be made by the Minister. Not all water supplies are under roads. They exist all over the place, and all the other kinds of public utilities may be well away from the roads. It is for that reason, depending largely, of course, on what is in the pipeline, that it is necessary for the Minister to be able to lay down the various safeguards. I do not think it would be adequate to leave the laying down of the safety precautions to the local authorities, without some code of guidance for them. Therefore, I think it is better left in the hands of the Minister. As to being clear that this matter comes under the provision I have mentioned, it does not need to be laid down any further than this. I am informed that in law it is perfectly clear, and, in any case, unless I am wrong, there is a reference in the clause to definition and application and I do not think noble Lords opposite need have any worries about it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDI will consult my noble friends in this matter, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.19 p.m.
§
LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "in pursuance of" to the end of the subsection, and to insert instead:
works of the following kinds, that is to say—
may open and break up the street and may remove or use earth or other materials in the street.
§ The noble Lord said: We come now to a rather more complicated matter. I am glad to say—at least, I think I am—that it is slightly more complicated in explanation and in drafting than it is in substance. Clause 14, as your Lordships know, refers generally to the 1120 crossings of highways and roads by pipes, and I am going to ask your Lordships whether it would be convenient to consider this Amendment No. 32 with Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37. The point is that they hang together, and it is virtually impossible to explain exactly what I am endeavouring to do without reference to them all. But I will endeavour, as best I can, to make it clear what they do. Amendments 32 and 33, are in effect, no more than drafting Amendments. They alter the drafting of the Bill as it stands; they set the scene, so to speak, for the action which is taken by Amendment No. 34, which, in fact, is the only substantive one of the lot.
§ Clause 14 lays down conditions for the crossing of roads as I have said, by pipe-lines. Further consideration has led us to the conclusion that the protection afforded to the highway authorities was not sufficient and that it should be extended a little further; and the present Amendments do just that. In fact they enable the street authority to impose conditions of the following kind where it is necessary. There is a certain amount of reference here to streets, and I should explain perhaps that that is by virtue of reference to the same Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, in which motorways, trunk roads and Class 1 and 2 roads are referred to as protected streets. Minor roads and unclassified roads are referred to merely as streets, so I have adopted that description for them.
§ The extensions that Amendment No. 34 makes are for protected streets. The authority may require, if it is reasonably practicable. not only that the placing but that the subsequent maintenance or alteration or removal of the pipe-line should be carried out without breaking the road; and they may now do it not only when the pipe-line is laid across the road but also when it goes along it—that is, parallel with it or at an angle of less than 45 degrees. That is achieved by Amendment 34 (b) (i) and (ii); and in the case of these roads the burden of proving that it is not reasonably practicable to do the work without breaking open the street rests fairly and squarely with the pipe-line owner; and I believe your Lordships will think that is as it should be.
1121§ LORD SILKINDid the noble Lord say where the Bill says so?
§ LORD CHESHAMAt the end of Amendment 34, on page 6 of the Marshalled List, the last paragraph.
Then, for the streets or minor roads, the authority may not insist that the pipe-line must be laid across the road without breaking it open. The reason for that is that there are a great many more minor roads than major ones and it costs, I am told, about four times as much to tunnel under a road as to break through it. It seemed in the case of minor roads, where the traffic is light and the road is smaller and not so important, that it was not reasonable to insist on the condition of not breaking open the surface. But the Amendment enables the authority to require where it is suitable—for subsequent maintenance operations, and so on—that repairs shall be done without again breaking the surface of the carriageway. This applies whether a pipe-line is laid across it or along it; and if it should be laid along it, which is defined as at an angle of less than 45 degrees, the authority can also impose the requirement of not breaking the surface when they place it there. The object, of course, of all these provisions is to reduce to the minimum the disturbance of the metalling of minor roads, which is not as strong as that of major roads; and if it goes on, then a lot of damage is done to the minor roads.
One final thing. The Amendment also has the effect of leaving out the last four and a half lines of Clause 14, paragraph (4), which enables the street authority of a motorway to make contributions to the owner of a pipe-line in complying with any conditions that they impose. That was a power which they were given so that they could make a contribution to statutory undertakers when they were required to divert their lines—to bury them deeper, or whatever modifications were necessary in the interests of the road. Since the undertakers had to spend an extra amount to comply with the requirements, the highway authority had the power to make a contribution towards the extra cost. That was originally included in the case of pipe-lines, but as we do not see that there is any real justification for it, the Amendment finally has the effect of 1122 removing that power in the case of pipelines. I am afraid that that is probably a rather clumsy explanation, but your Lordships will appreciate that the point is a little tricky to explain. If any of your Lordships wishes to ask any questions, I will do my best to amplify what I have said. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 46, leave out from ("of") to end of line 3 on page 11 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI was wondering when, in this Bill, the Ministry of Transport were going to look after their own interests and, therefore, the interests of the country; and I am delighted that this series of Amendments has been moved, and moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I can quite see what they are attempting to do, and I support wholeheartedly what the noble Lord has said. I do so because I had the responsibility and honour of piloting through your Lordships' House the Public Utilities Street Works Act, and it was rather grievous to me that some of my late colleagues seemed to have forgotten all about it.
§ LORD BURDENEx-colleagues.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI said "late", but I do not mind what you call them. They certainly seem to have forgotten the great discussions we had in your Lordships' House covering the very points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I can assure them that, unless that Act has been amended since 1950—which I do not think it has—the points they have raised are more than adequately covered.
§ LORD BURDENGood.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThere is one thing I should like to ask the Minister—I do not necessarily expect an answer now. I think it is absolutely necessary that we prevent the breaking up of our main highways. They cost, and are costing, tremendous sums to lay, and I visualise that in the future these pipe-lines will follow our national highways and also our national railways.
I am delighted to see that in the new subsection (4) (a) there is a condition 1123 requiring payments to be made to that authority in respect of the placing of a pipe-line in a street. As most of your Lordships are aware, a street or road also includes the verge; it is not just the carriageway. I can see further on in this Bill—if I may elaborate a point I am going to mention—that it will devolve upon the Ministry of Transport, in their planning of the future of the great national highways, to make provision for the acquisition of sufficient land alongside those highways for the laying of those pipe-lines. I think there should be in this Bill provision enabling them to recoup their expense and to charge, either by lease or rent or in some other way, their outlay. I do not know whether or not the Amendment goes too far. As I understand it, this clause covers trunk roads, Class 1 and Class 2 roads, but not Class 3 roads. I think I am right.
§ LORD CHESHAMNot quite right. I was defining the use of the terms "protected streets" and "streets". It covers the lot.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHAm I right in saying you do not put an absolute embargo on breaking up the surface of a Class 3 road? I thought the expression the Minister used was "minor road". Perhaps the Minister could answer that point. I welcome this and I hope that the Ministry of Transport will now assume some responsibility; because I must confess that with the discussion we have had I am fearful of the results that are going to accrue by placing the responsibility for the pipe-lines' construction in this country upon a Ministry—the Ministry of Power who really have not anything whatsoever to do with it. They are not responsible for transportation; they are not responsible for the usage of the land, and the whole of the complication we have had in this Bill and are going to have in this Bill arises because this Ministry have been nominated as the responsible Ministry to operate this Bill. If I had my choice, they would be the last body I should allow to have anything at all to do with it.
§ LORD SILKINI am sure the Committee will welcome the return of the 1124 noble Lord now that the warm weather has come along, and we congratulate him on his maiden speech in 1962. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, had made his Amendment as clear as might be reasonably expected. I thought I understood him. I am right, am I not, in saying that there is no embargo on the breaking open of streets? It is only that if it is reasonably practicable to do it in some other way, then those wanting to carry out the work are required to do it in that other way. But there will be circumstances in which it will not be reasonable and practicable and the roads will be broken.
I rose really to say that I think I now understand what this Amendment seeks to do. To speak for myself and my few colleagues who are here, we are prepared to let it go today on the understanding that we shall look at it with the explanation that the noble Lord has given us and, if necessary, we may return to it, although I have no reason to think it will be necessary.
§ LORD CHESHAMI am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for what they have said. Naturally, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. must look at it in that way, although I think when he comes to do so he will find any shortcomings he discovers are in my explanation rather than in the drafting of the Amendment. Of course, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made, that roads must be protected, is a good one and that is the purpose of this clause. I think he would agree that you could not have an all-covering embargo on ever breaking a road at all. That would be unreasonable. But the point he made about the major roads costing so much and not being spoiled is a very good one of which we are all very much aware. I am glad that he welcomed the payment provision. I did not mention that in my explanation because it was already in the Bill and therefore it did not form any kind of innovation in the Amendment. It is for drafting purposes and therefore I thought it was not necessary to mention it.
The point which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised about the appropriate Minister to be responsible 1125 was one that came up on Second Reading when my noble friend Lord Mills, as I recollect, explained to the House that it was thought appropriate for the Minister of Power to be responsible because his Department had the expertise and the knowledge of what was wanted in these circumstances. He said at the time that the Government's mind was not closed on this matter; that there was provision under existing Statute for a change if ever one was thought desirable. Indeed, I shall say no more, because I see there is an Amendment later on dealing with just that and no doubt we shall discuss the matter again.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThat is why I referred to it only briefly. I did not want to anticipate the discussion which will undoubtedly come on the Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But may I here and now tell him that he is going to receive my wholehearted support?
§ LORD CHESHAMI shall myself remain sitting on the fence for the time being. All I want now is the opportunity, which I forgot to take before, of explaining that Amendments 35, 36 and 37 are drafting Amendments consequential on No. 34. I am at the moment dealing with Amendment No. 32.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 6.38 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 9, leave out from ("so") to end of line 16.— (Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 11, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The consent under this section of an appropriate authority may be given subject to reasonable conditions, including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, any one or more of the following conditions, that is to say—
and, for the purposes of paragraph (b) of this subsection, the placing of a pipe-line or the carrying out of works by a method which does not involve the opening or breaking up of a street shall he taken to be reasonably practicable unless the owner of the piper-line shows that such is not the case.").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 11, line 45, leave out ("subsection (4) of").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move the next Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 11, leave out from ("under") to ("on") in line 12 and insert ("this section").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMI beg to move this Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 13, leave out from ("street") to end of line 14.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1127§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 15 agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Application of provisions of section 18 of Public Utilities Street Works Act, 1950, as to liability for nuisance]:
§ LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out Clause 16. The noble Lord said: I almost felt that if I had said "I beg to move" I might have got away with it. In fact this is a small Amendment which goes with Amendment No. 69 which we shall come to some time in the future. The effect of it is to place beyond doubt that nothing in the Bill will exempt pipe-line owners from action for nuisance if their activities cause inconvenience or annoyance. Clause 16, which we now propose to omit, provides for this only where they cause nuisance by the presence of works in the street. That, again, was by reference to the Public Utility Street Works Act. The present Amendment, which I hope in due course will be accepted, gives the liability a general application, and therefore the narrower application in Clause 16 is not required. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 16.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17 agreed to.
§ Clause 18 [Restriction on breaking up, for execution of pipe-line works, highways in London Traffic Area recently closed for repair]:
§ LORD CHESHAMThis Amendment, which incidentally is linked with Amendment No. 64, is consequential on the acceptance of the group of Amendments Nos. 32 to 37. All it does is to move the definition of "carniage-way" to another part of the Bill, to Clause 55. The definition of general application previously within Clause 18 now needs to apply to Clause 14 as well, and it is better there. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 19 agreed to.
1128§ 6.45 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved, after Clause 19 to insert the following new clause
§ Pipe-lines to be below ground where possible
§ ".The Minister shall ensure that, so far as is practicable, any pipe-line constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall be constructed below the surface of the ground."
§ The noble Viscount said: I think that this clause is perhaps not in exactly the right place in the Bill, but I hope that your Lordships will none the less consider it. When one thinks of a pipeline in this context, I suppose it is natural to imagine it as running underground, except no doubt where it has to pass over a valley and has to be carried on a viaduct. As a general rule, however, I should expect a pipe-line to be underground unless there was some good reason to the contrary. This Bill does not say that, as a general rule, pipe-lines should go underground, although I should have thought, from the point of view both of amenity and probably safety, that it was preferable that they should do so. It may be that the Minister in granting a pipe-line construction authorisation will, in most cases, do so subject to a condition that the line shall be underground, but again, so far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill, or in what the Minister has said, to assure your Lordships that this will be so.
§ I do not know whether this is a matter which can be put in a clause such as I have attempted to draft for the purposes of this Amendment, but I think your Lordships' Committee would like to know what Her Majesty's Government envisage as being policy in this matter, and whether we are likely to have pipelines going on the surface, criss-cross across the country, or whether there shall be a general rule in the Ministry that they go underground. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give some answer on this point. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
§ THE EARL OF LUCANI should like to support the noble Viscount in this point, for safety reasons, to avoid unnecessary disturbance and to preserve 1129 amenity. One noble Lord said on Second Reading that it would be much cheaper, in constructing a pipe-line crossing a valley, to take it overhead on a viaduct. That would affect amenity considerably. I see that the Minister can take powers to regulate the minimum depth below the surface of the ground at which the pipe-line is to be laid. If he does that, it seems to presume that the line will in fact always be underground. But I agree with the noble Viscount that we should have an assurance that that is the policy and, moreover, that it can be enforced under the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEIt is said that there are in this country 700 miles of disused canals, 400 miles of which are in England and Wales, and that the people who will promote pipelines envisage putting pipe-lines along the canals. That might destroy the bank. They might simply put the pipeline in the water, to one side of the towpath. Has my noble friend anything to say about that?
§ LORD STRABOLGII, too, should like to support this Amendment which has been so ably moved by the noble Viscount opposite. I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is not in his seat at the moment, because in previous debates, when he took perhaps a more active part, I remember that he used to say "put it in the Bill ". I feel that the Government ought to have a look at this point and, if it can be put in the Bill in some form —not perhaps in this clause, but somewhere else—it ought to be put in the Bill. One remembers when pylons were first constructed in this country. How much better would it have been if some such clause as this had been put in that Bill, because, well designed as they are—and one knows that the Ministry always make an effort to run them over country where they will not disfigure the landscape unduly—nevertheless, I think it must be admitted that in certain places they are an ugly blot on the landscape. One does not wish the same thing to happen in regard to pipe-lines.
LORD SOERSI should like to support this Amendment wholeheartedly, with perhaps this possible exception, which perhaps my noble friend will deal 1130 with—namely, that where pipes are to go alongside railways, I wonder whether an exception for the sake of accessibility and also in regard to cost of construction might be made.
§ LORD CHESHAMSo far as I am concerned, I have but little hesitation in agreeing with all noble Lords Who have spoken that it is most desirable that, wherever possible, a pipe-line should be underground. I hope I can claim that we should like to be thought of as having as much regard for amenity as anyone else has. I have no hesitation in agreeing with that point.
I think, however, it might be wrong to impose a statutory obligation that they must be placed underground whenever practicable, because there might well be cases where, although it would be practicable to put a pipe-line underground, it would be unnecessary or undesirable to do so. It occurs to me that on many occasions probably very little harm would be done to amenity or to safety by the placing of a pipe-line used for some fairly innocuous substance alongside railway tracks, or actually in the bed of a disused canal—either in the water or on the bed of what had been a canal if there were no water left in it. In that case I do not think it would be entirely reasonable to require the pipe-line owner to go to the expense of actually putting it under the bed of the canal. A line conveying chalk-slurry from a chalk pit to a lime works along a disused railway cutting would probably be neither a danger nor an eyesore, and there would not be much reason to insist on that being buried, even though it would be practicable to do so.
There are a number of short pipelines linking chemical and manufacturing works which are laid on the ground, or even on supports above the ground; those pipe-lines will now come within the scope of the Bill as local ones. But there is no reason, so far as I can see, to insist that they should be placed underground if the local planning authority, when they consider an application for permission, see no need to impose a requirement. That deals only with the undesirability of forcing them underground wherever practicable. I think that is going a little too far.
1131 The more important point—and I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will be glad to hear it—is that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary because adequate powers already exist under the Planning Acts to ensure that pipe-lines are buried when it is desirable. These powers are available both to the local planning authority when they are dealing with local pipe-lines and to the Minister when he is granting deemed planning permission for cross-country pipe-lines. In addition to that there is the Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mills which is to be moved after Clause 39, which seeks to place a duty on both the pipe-line promoter and the Minister to have regard to the desirability of preserving amenity. It is not necessary to put this power in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, because it is already on the Statute Books in the Planning Acts. I hope, in that case, that the noble Lord will feel that the position is adequately covered and will not wish to pursue his Amendment.
LORD SILKTNThe noble Lord has made two points. First, while he said he accepted the principle of the Amendment, he thought that there were circumstances in which it would not be necessary to have the pipe underground. I imagine most of us would agree. But that, after all, is only a quarrel with the language of the Amendment, and if the noble Lord had seen fit to do so he could have given an undertaking that he would look at the language again and make some kind of provision that this should apply only where it is necessary, but otherwise not. If he had done that, I imagine that the noble Viscount would have been willing to do a deal on that basis. But he went on to say that it is already provided for in planning legislation. But is it? There is nothing in the planning legislation which provides that pipe-lines should be underground. It certainly gives local authorities the power to make it a condition of an application that they should be underground, but they need not be.
What the noble Viscount wishes is that there should be virtually a direction in the Bill which would go a very long way, at any rate, to require them to do so. That is certainly not provided for 1132 in the legislation, nor does the Amendment which the noble Lord is going to move later on make that provision. It would require the Minister to have regard to amenity, but it does not go so far as this. Since the noble Lord has said he favours the principle of this Amendment, I would have thought that he would be willing to look at it again to see how far he can incorporate it in the Bill itself.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMay I also point out that the Minister in the last Committee stage said that so far as the immediate future goes it is contemplated that pipe-lines will be mainly for oil products, petrol and so on—highly dangerous substances. Although there may be occasions when such substances as chalk slurry (whatever that be) are needed to be carried by a pipe-line, we must think of the more dangerous substances for which this Bill is primarily intended. I think that the safety factor alone is a very strong argument for something of this sort to be put in.
§ LORD CHESHAMIn that case the Minister already has adequate powers to impose safety conditions. If we are to have regard to the safety factor, he has full powers to require the whole line to be buried 100 feet down if necessary. That does not come under the particular Amendment which we are discussing now, of course.
I do not think that I have done anything unreasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I thought helped me in what he said, because he pointed out that planning authorities had not a specific power to put pipe-lines underground except on an application. That is precisely the point, because every pipe-line application has to be considered individually, either by the planning authority in the case of a local pipe-line, or by the Minister acting as a planning authority in the case of cross country pipe-lines. That power on an application, as the noble Lord put it, exists in this case and really is a safeguard in this respect. If the Minister or the planning authority did not use it—certainly if the Minister did not he would then be ready to be "shot at" for not paying due regard to amenity which he is going to be under a duty to do. I hope I have now convinced 1133 your Lordships, including my noble friend, that this Amendment is in fact unnecessary.
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORDI should like very briefly to support the Minister on this point. There are many pipe-lines which criss-cross the country already. So far they have given cause for no trouble whatsoever. The reason for this is that they have been subjected to the existing requirements of planning permission which have worked perfectly satisfactorily, but the reason I venture to intervene in this particular discussion is that the same does not apply to power lines. Overhead power lines, if needed to be put up, require a specific Ministerial approval over and above planning approval. I have had experience of the delay, the expense and the complexity that that involves, and I am perfectly certain it is quite unnecessary. I hope your Lordships will not seek to repeat that error in regard to pipe-lines as well as overhead cables.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSNoble Lords on the other side of the House have succeeded in drawing my noble friend Lord Chesham a certain way along the road, and he has said, as I fully admit, that the power exists to make these pipe-lines go underground. I wonder whether I can urge my noble friend to go a little further and to say that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to use that power whenever possible.
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not know whether I am in a position to lay down that it is the policy that the Minister should use that power, and to make a categorical statement to that effect, but I hoped I had said enough to indicate that the Government are in sympathy with what the noble Viscount wants, and that it is certainly visualised that pipe-lines largely shall be underground. I have sought to do no more than to show that it is unreasonable, in my view, that they must be underground even when they do not need to be. That is as far as I wanted to go. But otherwise I would certainly agree that, by and large, from the point of view of amenity and very often of safety, they certainly should be underground.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSI think the noble Lord has now gone 1134 quite a bit further than he did before. He has, at any rate, satisfied me, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ House resumed.