My Lords, 1 beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the strength of the special constabulary in England and Wales on 31st December 1970 was 32,813; on the same date in 1975 it was 23,011; in 1980 it was 15,067; and on 31st December 1981, the latest date for which information is available, the strength of the special constabulary stood at 14,978.

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him why there was that regrettable decline during those earlier years and whether there is any hope of the improvement in 1981 being sustained? May I also ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there are many men, and perhaps women, willing to serve as specials? Therefore may I ask my noble friend what the Government will do to persuade chief officers of police to recruit more of them?

My Lords, my noble friend is right in attributing to chief officers of police the duty of recruitment, and the Government encourage them vigorously to do so. I should put this in context by saying that the decline in number in the last few years which I illustrated, has been going on for no less than 30 years. Last year's drop of 89 was the lowest in the whole of that period. In part, it was caused deliberately by chief constables who are successfully creating a younger and more effective reserve police force. By 1979, 85 per cent. of all specials were regularly on duty. That compares with 33⅓ per cent. in 1966. I am also happy to add that in some hard-pressed metropolitan counties the total number of special constables is actually increasing.

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, in spite of those reasons, or excuses, which he has just given, it is very deplorable that, over years, when the need for a disciplined special constabulary to aid with civil defence, if not for other purposes, has become greater year by year, the Home Office and chief constables together have been so complacent about this annual drop in numbers?

My Lords, I cannot answer for earlier years, but the efforts of the present Government are turning the tide, with the result that in the most hard-pressed areas the numbers are going up, the average age of the force is coming down and more special constables are more effectively on the beat. Things are better now than they were some years ago.

My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the use of special constables is not just a question of younger men on the beat? There is also advantage in older men bringing a different variety of experience to the police service which they otherwise have not got?

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Renton, who asked the Question, says in his publicationCoping With Emergencies in Peace and War, a principal function of the reserve constables is to carry on with many of the normal duties of the police while the regular police officers deal with emergencies. This is something which they have recently been doing, with some good effect.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what is the age limit for special constables? Would many noble Lords in this House be eligible to act as special constables?

My Lords, a police advisory board working party report on the special constabulary which was circulated to forces last summer reminded chief constables of their discretion to retain special constables for up to five years beyond the normal retirement age of 55, which I hope my other noble friend will regard as years of sufficient maturity to bring experience to the force. The report suggested that chief constables might wish to exercise this discretion to retain fit and able special constables.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister what are the criteria for acceptance as a special constable? Or is any applicant accepted without question?

My Lords, no. The criteria are stringent, though slightly less stringent than those for admission to the regular constabulary.

Was not my noble friend's answer rather regrettable, my Lords, because apparently I am now too old?

My Lords, I am sure that that is a matter for universal regret in this particular case, but in many others it would be a matter for jubilation.

My Lords, as part of the recruitment drive, has any attempt been made to encourage coloured applicants to come in as special constables?

Yes, My Lords, we are taking steps in this direction. A Home Office study group is at present looking at ways of encouraging more involvement of ethnic minority communities in police-related activities, such as that of the special constabulary. I do not think it should be restricted to that area alone.

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the special constables can form a very good bridge between the regular police force and the community?

Yes, my Lords, I would, particularly remembering that they are fully operative members of the civilian community and do not in fact get paid. Although they are reimbursed for expenses they do not get paid for their work. They therefore combine the best British traditions of voluntary work and disciplined service to the community.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy has taken account of advice from the Advisory Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power, and of other representations received, and has approved a programme of research and development into renewable energy which will involve the expenditure of some £11 million to £12 million in the current financial year. The programme concentrates efforts on the most promising and practical areas—especially wind energy and geothermal energy.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl the Minister for his Answer, may I ask whether he will now say whether the Government will reject the advice given by the advisory council on the basis that it was a non-representative decision due to the managers of the research programmes being no party to it, and that the research programmes themselves have not reached the stage of proper evaluation?

My Lords, my right honourable friend is being advised on the effects of the deliberations of the committee. There is no doubt about it but that the summary of the report of the committee which has been placed in both Libraries of the Houses of Parliament has attracted a lot of attention. The effect of my right honourable friend's deliberations will be that the more sensible options will be continued and the more useful forms of research and development will be continued and possibly enhanced. Those which appear to be less useful will be curtailed.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is true that there was a cut last year in the fusion research project and, in view of the importance of this project to our future energy needs, will he confirm that there will be no further cuts (if there was one)?

My Lords, the total amount which is to be spent on renewables is in the region of £11 million to £12 million. That figure compares with £2·5 million spent in 1978–79. I am afraid that I have no further information as to the actual figures of costs.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether, among the less useful renewable energy resources now being put aside, is wave energy? Can my noble friend tell the House whether it is the case that at least one wave energy scheme being developed at Lancaster University has, in preliminary studies, got the price down to 5p per kilowatt hour?

My Lords, so far as the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, I can confirm that wave power is regarded as being a less useful form of research, but I have no information as to the actual costs.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl about the preliminary design study for the Severn Barrage which, as he will recall, was recommended by the Bondi Committee and to which he referred when he wound up the debate on the Severn Barrage in February? Then, the noble Earl said that this was under consideration by the Government. Can he now say whether the Government have come to a conclusion, because there was a consensus in this House that it should be set up and the country is looking forward to hearing what the Government have to say about it?

My Lords, I am aware of the concern felt by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and by the House as to the Severn Barrage. I can tell the noble Lord that the advisory council, ACORD, has nothing to do with the Severn Barrage. The consideration which my right honourable friend is giving to the Bondi Report is quite separate and apart, and this decision has absolutely nothing to do with that.

My Lords, can my noble friend go further and tell the House whether or not it is the case that the wave energy studies at Lancaster University have achieved the design target that was set, or is that untrue?

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have that information, but if I can obtain it I will write to my noble friend.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that when the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board was formed, it was formed with the definite undertaking that it would be for the benefit of the Highlands? Unfortunately, that fact has been forgotten for a number of years, but is my noble friend aware that the closure of the Corpach pulp mills and, more latterly, the smelter at Invergordon is very largely due to the appalling price of electricity—when in the Highlands we have five other areas available for hydroelectric power and where the cost of production is as low as one can get?

My Lords, the Government have been giving almost unceasing attention to the problems which have been thrown up—if that is the phrase—by the closure of Corpach pulp mills and the smelter at Invergordon. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been giving this matter close personal attention, and I know that my noble friend will realise that there are hopeful signs. Having said that, I must tell my noble friend that his supplementary question goes quite beyond the scope of the original Question.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the private sector members of ACORD, who co-operated with the Government in good faith in the belief that renewable energy sources were part of the Government's policies, will be disappointed by the noble Earl's reply? Will he also say whether there will be simultaneous cuts in the Department of Energy of a balancing kind, to match those which are being made by the Government in renewable energy sources?

My Lords, if I may say so, the cuts are modest; naturally one would prefer none, but this is a matter of general Government policy. I can tell the House that very considerable expenditure, as I have said, is continuing to be incurred on renewable energy, and a number of quite exciting research projects of very different types are continuing to take place.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, no formal agreements exist between member states to limit or control the sale of arms to non-European Community countries. Nevertheless, the noble Earl will be aware that the Community have now imposed a ban on the export of all arms to Argentina.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for giving a reply which I must confess I did to some extent expect, may I further ask him, taking into account that unanimity in the EEC may no longer be axiomatic or automatic, whether he does not think it likely that the possession of a weapon such as Exocet may have encouraged General Galtieri in his rash adventure? Would it not be, in the Govern- ment's opinion, highly desirable to try to achieve within the framework of the EEC some form of limitation or control on the sale of sophisticated weaponry to countries which may well not have the responsibility to use them properly?

My Lords, we support the right of sovereign states to act in self-defence and to acquire arms to protect their independence. But, of course, I agree with my noble friend that it is most important to look at each case on its merits and indeed to keep the policy under continuous review. So far as the particular case which my noble friend cites is concerned, of course France has now banned the sale of all defence equipment to the Argentine.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that on 6th May 1978, when I went to see Mr. Ted Rowlands at the Foreign Office to ask him not to allow the sale of frigates to Argentina, he declined this proposal on the basis that it would be at least five years before the ships could be delivered, and that, in the end, although these frigates were to be supplied by West Germany, British sub-contractors had played a substantial part in the equipment that was to go in these ships? Is he further aware that his noble predecessor said, when asked about the sale of arms to Argentina, first of all that we would not sell weapons to a country guilty of torture, but subsequently had to retract that and had to say that we would not sell arms to such a régime which could be used against the civilian population? Does he not think that the experience with Argentina shows what folly it is to sell weapons to countries which are ruled by juntas, such as Argentina, and that we should reconsider the matter, not only in relation to Argentina but to other military dictatorships of a similar nature in Latin America?

My Lords, the right to self-defence and to need arms in order to defend a country is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It is not, therefore, surprising that the countries of the European Community, including the United Kingdom, sell arms to different countries. What is important, and where I do agree with the noble Lord, is that this has to be kept under very close review.

My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the Falklands crisis has reminded everyone that, for whatever reason, in the past arms sales have been generally far too undiscriminating and that there must be some review of the situation? Why should the Community not, for example, at least keep a register of arms deals being negotiated so that in appropriate cases member states could make representations about them?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that the matter should be reviewed. I assure him that arms sales policy towards individual countries is kept under continuous review.

My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether there has been any consideration by the EEC regarding the illicit sale of arms to mercenary groups like those marauding and slaying in Southern Africa, and whether there is anything being done to try to reduce that and ultimately eliminate it?

My Lords, I am not aware of any review of the kind which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, asks me about.

My Lords, in view of the pressure which has been exerted by many Members of this House, would the Government seriously review the arms traffic policy? Is this not illustrated by the fact that last weekend it was revealed that Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness had built two destroyers for the Argentine Government, sister ships of HMS "Sheffield", actually fitted with the Exocet missiles? Will the Government reconsider the decision to hold an exhibition with 140 armament companies in this country showing their products to Governments of the world without regard to whether or not they are denying human rights?

No, my Lords.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not reconsider the last answer, and ask his right honourable and noble friends to do the same? Is it not the case that under all Governments—not only his Government but previous Governments—this sale of arms internationally has grown up to an alarming degree, to the extent that as we are talking, during every minute of our discussion, 34 children have died of malnutrition and for each minute £750,000 has been spent on arms? Is this not an unreasonable situation, and should we not try to do something about it?

My Lords, the original Question from my noble friend Lord Dudley was about EEC policy, and there are widely differing interests within the Community which make it unlikely that a common policy on arms exports will evolve in the foreseeable future. In saying that, I am not trying to be unhelpful to noble Lords who asked the last two questions. I agree and the Government agree that this is a very serious matter, which needs to be kept always under very close review.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he is aware that there are articles in the Treaty of Rome, such as perhaps 223 and 224, whereby common policy on trade in arms and military equipment could be made applicable under the treaty?

My Lords, I do not for one moment dissent from my noble friend in believing that a common policy can be reached by the Community on any matter on which the Community may see fit to reach a common policy. It is a matter of the greatest acceptability to the Government, and indeed to both Houses of Parliament, that there is unanimity at the moment in the Community on the question of the undesirability of selling arms to Argentina. But I cannot go further than that at the present time.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Government give direct support for play and recreation through grants to a number of voluntary organisations and through the Urban Programme. Organisations which have received grants are: the National Playing Fields Association; Fair Play for Children; the Pre-School Playgroups Association; the Toy Libraries Association and the National Playbus Association. These grants totalled £347,100 in 1978–79, £357,200 in 1979–80 and £441,000 in 1980–81.

Turning to the Urban Programme, in 1980–81, the only year for which I have reliable figures, an estimated £10 million was spent on children's projects, which include play schemes. Local authorities, health authorities, voluntary organisations and bodies such as the Sports Council are also active in this field.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for his reply, may I ask him this: could he tell us whether in future such sums might include other facilities for disabled children, for example, for handicapped adventure playgrounds?

My Lords, I think some of the funds to which I have referred have already been used for that purpose on a small scale. There can be no doubt of the importance of play and recreation to the mental, physical and social development of handicapped children, and indeed the DHSS is already making grants to the Save the Children Fund; for example, of £21,000 to help with play schemes for mentally handicapped children in hospitals. Another grant of £6,500, for example, has gone to the Handicapped Playground Association.

My Lords, while we welcome the noble Lord's Answer as regards the amounts that have been given to play and to playing fields, is he aware that to a child the importance of freedom to play is a great thing in the making of the future of the nation? Is he also aware that most of us welcome the Lord Mayor of London's intention this year to make his charity the National Playing Fields Association? Finally, is he aware that if children do not have the opportunity and the freedom to play and move about in the fresh air—and I do not count just watching television—it influences the adults of the future? Children who do not really play, when they grow up try to be children instead of men.

My Lords, of course I wholly endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord.

My Lords, is there a liaison structure between the relevant ministries in the planning of adventure playgrounds and other playgrounds?

My Lords, these matters actually cut across two or three Government departments. I know that my noble friend has recently written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on these matters, and my right honourable friend will be replying very shortly.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that 20 per cent. or 300,000 children between the ages of five and 10 years are left alone during the holidays and that 15 per cent. of 5- to 10-year olds are left alone after school? The figures for an older group of 11- to 15-year olds are 25 per cent. during the holidays and 20 per cent. after school. Does he think it sensible that hundreds of millions of pounds should be spent on school education and really a pittance spent on facilities after school and during the holidays? Indeed, the figures which he gave really do, I think, amount to a pittance.

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is asking me something slightly different. The matter which she raised, and very properly, in her supplementary question was covered at some length the other day in our debate on these matters, when I was able to record the Government's concern and, indeed, announce a grant.

My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that, despite the figures that he has given, a great number of voluntary organisations—of one of which I happen to be the head—organise playgrounds for disabled children to play with able-bodied children and do so entirely voluntarily without any funding from the Government at all?

My Lords, having regard to the number of applications received by my department and, indeed, others, I am surprised that no grant has been made to the organisations to which my noble friend refers; doubtless she will put that right.

My Lords, I should like to ask whether the figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady David, as to the number of children left alone during holidays and after school hours are due primarily to the fact that mothers are, in many cases, working during that time? I should like to ask my noble friend whether he does not regard the problems that we have with the younger generation in this country are to some extent due to the fact that there is no parental control when they come home from school and during the holidays owing to the fact that the mothers are working mothers rather than at home looking after their families?

My Lords, if I may say so, that is a rather profound supplementary, but not an inappropriate one. None the less it is a matter that is the subject of a good deal of research just now.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that by far the greatest impact the Government could make in this field would be to encourage the greater use of school buildings and school equipment? If the noble Lord looks in the archives he will find that about 12 years ago there was a circular on the dual use of school buildings. Is the noble Lord aware that if industry under-used its capital in this country to the same extent as educational capital is under-used, it would be regarded as a scandal?

My Lords, the Department of Education and Science does encourage local eduation authorities to make school facilities available to the community wherever possible, and there is no doubt that schools are being increasingly used in this way. A survey conducted in 1978–79, for example, showed that virtually all secondary schools and about two-thirds of primary schools were in use regularly in the evenings or at weekends during term time, and that a substantial number were also used during the holidays.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period. During this adjournment the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 32BA:

Page 20, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 21 and insert ("then, subject to subsection (5) and section 17(4) below, the Secretary of State may give directions to the Corporation in accordance with subsection (4A) below.

(4A) Directions under subsection (4) above may—

(a) require the Gas Corporation to secure that the pipe-line, or any length of it specified in the directions, shall he so constructed as to be capable of conveying not less than such quantity as may be so specified of gas of, or of a kind similar to, the kind specified in the notice under subsection (1) above;

(b) specify the sums or the method of determining the sums which the Secretary of State considers should be paid to the Corporation by such of the persons who made representations to the Secretary of State as are specified in the directions for the purpose of defraying so much of the cost of constructing the pipe-line as is attributable to that requirement;

(c) specify the arrangements which the Secretary of State considers should be made by each of those persons, within a period specified in that behalf in the directions, for the purpose of securing that those sums will be paid to the Corporation if it constructs the pipe-line in accordance with that requirement;

(d) provide that the Corporation may, if such arrangements are not made by any of those persons within the period aforesaid, elect in the manner specified in the directions that the requirement shall have effect with such modifications as are so specified with a view to eliminating the consequences of the representations made by that person.").

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 32BA, Amendment No. 32BB:

Line 11, at end insert ("and where such a requirement is imposed shall—").

Before the noble Lord replies, can he tell me whether there is anything in the Bill—I confess that I have not read it through very thoroughly—to control the kind of gas that is supplied by an independent concern? For instance, it would be impossible to mix within the same main coal gas and North Sea gas. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me about that.

I think that the noble Lord who has asked that question raises a matter of very considerable importance. Indeed, if he casts his eye down the Marshalled List, he will discover that there is an amendment in the name of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in respect of the compatibility of the gas that may be used. However, here we are dealing mainly with the pipe-line aspect of it.

We are dealing not with an existing pipe-line but with where the British Gas Corporation decide that, because of demands for gas, replacement or something or other, a new pipe-line is required. At the present time, as I understand it, the British Gas Corporation get capital approval and within that capital approval they can go ahead with whatever developments they want. But here now under this clause we have this specific order to them that they cannot proceed with any new high pressure pipe-line development unless they give notice to the Minister. With that notice they must provide all the information to show from which point to which point, a detailed map, sizes, and everything else. Then the department goes into operation inviting representations from somebody unknown who might want to use that pipeline for private gas, presumably to private customers.

Preparing a pipe-line is very complicated. Here we have bureaucratic interference in a very technical matter. As to the degree to which there is interference, I would ask noble Lords to read the amendment. There are directions. The directions,

"require the Gas Corporation"

in respect of,

"the pipe-line, or any length of it specified in the directions".

The quantity of the gas is to be specified, and the kind specified. This is relevant to the point made by the noble Lord from the Cross-Benches. Then we go on to "specify the sums", and the people who made representations have to be specified. They then have to specify the arrangements in respect of the payment of those sums. Eventually they deal with,

"such modifications as are so specified".

This is bureaucratic interference of the worst and most dangerous kind. I have the highest respect for civil servants. They worked nobly for me for eight years when I was Secretary of State for Scotland. But, from my own parliamentary experience, this is not the kind of thing in which civil servants should have the last word. It is the kind of thing in which the gas board, who eventually carry the responsibility for the safety of the whole operation, should carry the last word. There are one or two amendments coming forward in respect of this to which I hope your Lordships will pay considerable attention.

This is the background to this particular clause. My noble friend sitting close to me is quite right. The Secretary of State has a discretionary power in relation to the directions he is giving. He can either give directions or not give directions. He has to be satisfied about certain things. But if he gives a direction and tells the gas board to do various things in detail, which they probably did not want to do in the first instance, then surely the responsibility for payment should not be theirs. Belatedly the Government have accepted that. To their credit they have done that. But instead of it being discretionary as to whether he does this, it really ought to be mandatory. If he decides that the pipe-line originally proposed by the gas corporation is not big enough and that they should make changes of all sorts and kinds, then surely the person on whose behalf these changes are made should pay. There should not be any doubts about it. It should not be a case of "may"; it should be a case of "shall".

This is a complicated matter. This is Mark 2 of Amendment No. 32B. Now, is Mark 2 right? I like to see a Minister nodding his head in the confidence that it is absolutely right. Will he then explain to me the meaning of paragraph (d)?

"provide that the Corporation may, if such arrangements are not made by any of those persons within the period aforesaid, elect in the manner specified in the directions that the requirement shall have effect with such modifications as are so specified with a view to eliminating the consequences of the representations made by that person".

What on earth does that mean?

If we go to the next clauses we find the word "modifications". The word "modifications" there applies to the directions that are given by the Minister to the gas corporation. They have "to modify", and "subject to modification". What is the purpose of this? This is the original direction telling them to go on with it. He has to include this as well. In fact, it would read better if it was without the "modifications". The purpose is to eliminate the modifications, I gather, put into the direction to suit somebody who had at one time proposed to pay for an additional supply, or changes in the pipe-line for the gas, but then did not pay. So the Government say, "If you are not paying, there is no reason why the gas corporation should make the modifications". May I have an explanation of that? I am only a simple-minded Scot, but I should like to know whether "modifications" means modifications which are entirely different from those mentioned elsewhere in the pipe-line section of the Bill.

Unless the Minister is going to answer that contribution immediately, I should like to make a point. I am sure the Minister will bear in mind what has been said. I have looked carefully at this and I agree that the clause put forward still does not provide for the payment to the corporation of the costs that they will incur. There are hidden costs if you extend pipe-lines anywhere in the country. While the gas corporation would be quite willing to take normal commercial risks when the corporation itself is assessing those risks, why should the corporation be asked to take risks for the extension of its pipes by assessors who have nothing to do with the corporation but are privately going to put gas through that area?

I am glad of the interpretation. I have read and re-read this introduction to Clause 15. Nothing has been said about maintenance. These will be dangerous substances running through all sorts of areas. We are asking for sophisticated contour maps in all kinds of areas throughout the British Isles, many of them suffering from mining subsidence. For two and a half years I was on the Mining Subsidence Committee dealing with the problem of mining subsidence throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Pipe-lines, like churches or buildings, can suffer in remote areas from mining subsidence. It could in this case involving gases, especially through wear and tear and time and their effect on pipe-lines, create all kinds of disaster.

Nothing has been said about maintenance. Who is going to take the responsibility for all these hundreds of miles of new pipe-line? These provisions have been put together too quickly. The matter has not been thought through in depth. The Government are trying to do too much privatisation, running things madly. I am not denigrating private enterprise—of course it has a paramount place in society—but the pace at which the Government are now putting through their changes in legislation is over-hasty. More time should be taken. I hope that this Bill is not rushed through this House before it again goes to another place.

I wonder whether the Minister could answer one question? How many extra staff, if any, are going to be required in the department to write these directions? This is one of the questions we have asked before on other occasions. Is the Minister going to say that no further staff will be required in order to implement this amendment? If extra staff are required, can he estimate how many? Are these included in those numbers stated in the introductory memorandum to the Bill?

I seem to have got quite a battering. Perhaps I should start by reminding the Committee that what we are talking about is the gas in a pipe-line belonging to the British Gas Corporation. The BGC already have gas in their own pipe-line, and the maintenance of and statutory requirements applying to that gas will not change in any way. We are talking about the same pipe-line operated by the same people. The fact that it might also have private sector gas in it does not affect the position in any way, and of that I assure the Committee.

I accept that, but let me explain the point using some elementary arithmetic. Let us say that my pipe-line is running at one point and the Minister says to me, "I am pushing some of my gas through". Is the noble Lord prepared to bear some of the cost of maintenance over the years, because some of his property is now running through my pipeline, or am I, when something goes wrong, going to have to protect him, myself and my customers? Is he not prepared to take a share of the responsibility from his customers to pay for the maintenance of that pipe, through which his gas is running? It is as elementary as that.

The noble Lord has put it in personal terms, and I make no complaint about that. If it is my gas he is talking about, and I am a private supplier of gas, then in order to come to a fair arrangement on the maintenance of my share of the pipe, I would expect to pay in my rent an allowance for that eventuality.

That is on the record now.

I hope I may be excused for answering the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, a little later; I am answering noble Lords in reverse order and, with a bit of luck, I should get the right answers to the right questions. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked about the kind of gas and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, said we would come to amendments on that very subject later, and that is right. However, I would point out at this stage that, to me anyway, it is fairly evident that if there are two sorts of gas in the same pipeline they must be of similar calorific value, of the same compatible type, for which the pipe-line was originally designed, otherwise it would be unsafe, and under the Bill the Secretary of State is given reserve powers to ensure that that is so; he will do nothing under the Bill to make the transmission of gas by pipe-line unsafe.

May I ask the Minister to enlighten us by saying exactly where in the Bill that is stated?

That was a rather fast ball because, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, reminded us, we shall be dealing with that later. The meaning of all this is contained in Clause 17(1). Lord Ross asked among other things about modifications. The answer is that in Clause 34, the definition clause, "modifications" is defined as including additions, omissions and alterations. The amendment provides that,

"the Corporation may, if such arrangements are not made by any of those persons within the period aforesaid, elect in the manner specified in the directions that the requirement shall have effect with such modifications as are so specified…".

I do not think bureaucratic interference—the noble Lord's phrase—comes into it. If the situation changes, surely the Secretary of State's advice from his bureaucracy, as the noble Lord put it, will change to take account of the new situation. Why, therefore, should there not be modifications in the way I have outlined? It seems perfectly reasonable. For example, a private company—heaven forbid!—might not pay. Would that not cause modifications to his directions? I think it would be bound to.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked, very fairly, about the differences between Amendment No. 33 and the Government amendments, and there are a number of reasons for preferring the text of ours to the Opposition amendment. I have already mentioned that the Government amendments specify who would reimburse the corporation and that they provide for a period in which, in the light of what the Secretary of State has in mind to direct, the private supplier can take a final decision on whether he judges his plans to be sufficiently certain to warrant his incurring expenditure in increased capacity for the BGC's pipe-lines. Referring to that, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked about the situation regarding new pipelines.

These are new pipe-lines.

Yes, and the noble Lord referred to that. I should have thought that if what I hope will become the will of Parliament, expressed by approval of the Bill, the Royal Assent to it, and the true competition in the gas supply industry which the Bill outlines comes to pass, it must be sensible to build a pipe-line of the right capacity in the first place. In other words, the Secretary of State must be able to know what is going on, as indeed must anybody else, so that the pipe-line does not have to be modified later on. Without the common carrier provisions I cannot see that there would be any competition in the gas supply industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also asked about the use of "may" rather than "shall". The Government amendments permit the Secretary of State to make provision as to reimbursement, whereas Amendment No. 33 requires it. In fact, the customary formulation in these provisions is to permit the Secretary of State to make such a provision. It is the formulation adopted in Clause 16 and in the corresponding provision concerned with offshore pipe-lines which the then Labour Government introduced in Section 21(5) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975. The Government do not rule out the use of these powers to issue a direction requiring the capacity of a planned BGC pipe-line to be increased and making no provision for the corporation's costs to be reimbursed, but such occasions, we consider, are likely to be rare. I have tried to answer all the points put to me in this short debate and I hope I have satisfied noble Lords oppsite.

Will the Minister read again paragraph (d)?—because, quite frankly, I do not think that it exactly makes sense. I fear that the directions might be even more complicated than the Bill. He tells me to look at the definition of "modifications" —I understand it. But, remember, what we are dealing with is a requirement and a direction given on the supposition that somebody is going to go ahead with a project. So the original specifications laid down by the gas corporation are modified by the Minister to suit that particular purpose. Then someone refuses to pay up within the period, and so that is wiped out. One would surely think that the project would then go ahead without the modifications that were put in to suit the person in question, rather than with the modifications.

We must remember that the provision refers to the modifications specified in the order. So I wonder whether the order is to presuppose the eventuality of a person not going ahead; and is there to be included another arrangement in order to get round that? I ask the Committee to remember that the purpose is,

"with a view to eliminating the consequences of the representations made by that person".

I should have thought that if the consequences of the representations made by the person are to be removed, the modifications that were made to suit him should also be removed. That would be the position without the modifications, but the provision refers to the position with the modifications.

I see that the Lord Advocate is now taking a very keen interest in this point. He probably knows my concern that these matters should be absolutely clear to everyone in Scotland. I know that it might well be that the people of England can understand these things very well, but, as I have said, we are simple people, though we like to be confident of the rightness of all these projects. So I hope that the Lord Advocate will have a go at trying to enlighten me about this point.

I am not sure that the qualification of being a simple Scot is one which necessarily all of us would accept as applying to the noble Lord, but I think that perhaps he is not sufficiently taking account of the possibility that more than one person might make a requirement. Let us assume that the gas corporation has in mind constructing a pipe capable of carrying, say, two units—it could be millions of therms—and two other people, knowing that the pipe has been proposed, say that they have a requirement for a unit each. The Secretary of State therefore thinks that it would be a good idea to have a pipe that would carry four units over the stretch, but he says to each of the two private people, "It will be necessary for you to pay a certain sum by a certain date before the unit which is your representation will be put in".

If one of the people pays and one does not pay, we would want a pipe capable of carrying three units. So paragraph (d) is intended to deal with that situation and to provide,

"that the Corporation may, if such arrangements are not made by any of those persons" —

that is, if one of the two who have made representations does not pay his share in the period which has been selected—

"elect that" —

and this will have to be specified in the direction—

"the requirement"

which was to put on two extra units, to make the pipe capable of carrying four units, w ill be modified to the extent of eliminating the need put forward by the person who has not paid. In other words, instead of having four units, the pipe will be required to carry only three units because one of the persons who wanted the extra unit is not prepared to hack his representation with his money. That is the language which gives effect to that rather simple idea.

I think that we are all indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. What a remarkable demonstration he has given us of legal skill, but what a terrible example he has given us of how to run a business!

Hear, hear!

It really is impossible, efficiently or economically, to gather energy from our resources if you have to go through that kind of rigmarole. I appreciate that in the end the wording might have the result that the Lord Advocate stated, but the fact remains that going through all those procedures would take time and money, and would mean extra people in the Government department and in the corporation. Eventually it would mean extra charges to the consumer. I am prepared to take small bets that if the Bill is put on to the statute book, it will never be implemented. It is badly conceived, and as we as a country get into further trouble the evil of this kind of Bill will be more clearly seen.

However, I shall not go into the wider and deeper aspects of the matter, but rather come back to my simple amendment. All that I was proposing in my amendment concerned the situation where the gas corporation, having been required to put before the Secretary of State the specific proposal for a new pipe-line, is then told that there is a person or persons who may want to have the opportunity to put gas into the pipe-line, and therefore a larger pipe-line, or a pipe-line in a slightly different direction, is required. I suggest that if all of that results in changes to the corporation's plans and extra expenditure, there should be recompense. It is a question not of "may", but of "shall". Amendment No. 32BA at present reads:

"Directions under subsection (4)…may—specify the sums or the method of determining the sums which the Secretary of State considers should be paid to!the Corporation—".

I am glad that the Government have gone that far. I am now asking them to go a little farther, and instead of the word "may", use the word "shall".

moved Amendment No. 32C:

Page 21, line 5, leave out ("requirements") and insert ("requirement").

I thought it was quite interesting that when we started this afternoon the noble Lord the Minister said that the idea was to probe the Government's intentions. I must say that the questions which have already been raised by my noble friends and by noble Lords on the Liberal Benches have been very probing, but the intentions of the Government are not coming out very fast. While I admire the Lord Advocate's simple legal interpretation, he spoke as though it was almost like picking up a pipe and dropping it down in a field, and away we go.

I think noble Lords must understand that the building and the laying of a main gas pipeline is a formidable task. It takes a lot of planning, as one can well understand. In many instances the pipe-line will have to go through urban areas, and we all know what that means when one has to consider going under traffic routes and going through housing developments. We also know that in many parts of the country pipe-lines go through rural areas, and members of the farming community themselves get very concerned when such pipes are laid under their ground.

But what has been almost forgotten in the debate today is that any new pipe-line will be part of an integrated system. It is not just one pipe-line that goes from London to the East Coast; it is all part of a system, and then the gas system operates for the benefit of all the consumers. If there is a lesser demand in one part of the pipe-line then that gas can be used in other parts of the country to meet any additional need when it arises. Therefore, I think it is important for us to recognise quite clearly that the planning stage of a pipe-line is an important stage, and it will take approximately 12 months for the gas board even just to consider the planning of it and the necessity for it for their own use or for the use of the private developer.

What I think we must understand is that in this flexible, co-ordinated and pooled system we have got to take into consideration the interests of all the gas consumers. I want this to be clearly understood by all noble Lords—and this is where I should like the noble Lord the Minister to let us know what are the Government's real intentions. Does this mean that under the proposed system certain supplies will be dedicated to certain customers regardless of the interests of all the others, in which case flexibility will be lost and the BGC will not be able to use the flexibility that they already have?

I want to say that that might cause tremendous problems, problems perhaps of the kind we found in this year's bad winter when commercial interests had to be satisfied and some domestic gas consumers, particularly the elderly, did not get sufficient gas because the pipe-line was being used to supply others who had been given priority. We have to consider also those people that are the experts in the field, men and women that have devoted a lifetime to the manufacture of gas and the servicing of gas. We have to consider the skills they have built up over long periods. With all due respect to them, to have civil servants having to duplicate that work which is being done by gas board officials is, as my noble friend Lord Ross has said, bureaucracy gone mad—especially when required by a Government who tell us so often that they need to get rid of more and more civil servants. Therefore, the Government ought to consider this aspect quite seriously.

How demoralising it is for conscientious staff that have worked in the gas industry over many years to have to come to the conclusion when they read this part of the Bill that, in the eyes of Whitehall and in the Minister's eyes, they will never get it right; they will never get it right because they are working in a public enterprise and because what the Minister is trying, to do is to make quite sure that the private part of the pipeline is given greater priority.

Therefore, I think we have to ensure—and my noble friends have already put this point—that the overall discipline of running the pipe-line system must be in the hands of one set of people. They must take total responsibility for it. For anybody outside the gas corporation to be doing that is jeopardising safety. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to when he spoke about different kinds of gases. On 11th May, on the second day of the Committee stage of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said when talking about calorific value and chemical mixtures:

"Were this to go down, for example, a BGC gas main, this could very well make the gas in the BGC main impure, and nobody would want this to be done".—[Official Report; col. 193.]

One wonders whether there is some jeopardising of safety. Lord Skelmersdale went on to say:

"For example, the private supplier whose gas contained a higher proportion of impurities than would be accepted in the BGC system might build his own pipeline specifically suited to such gas". [Col. 194.]

What worries me and my noble friends is that the Secretary of State takes unto himself this direction; that he will decide if the gas has to go into the new pipe-line when it is built; he will decide if any conflict arises; he will also decide the actual amount of money which is to be paid by the private gas supplier. One wonders whether there is a priority being given to the industrial consumer, against the domestic consumer. The Minister has asked us to probe the Government's intentions. Can he give us a categorical assurance that the domestic consumer will not end up subsidising the private use of any pipe-line, new or old, and the cost of any modification made to the system that will facilitate private use.

Can the Minister in his reply answer the question about the extra numbers that I asked on Lord Beswick's amendment? We are getting worried not only about the tangle of pipes and the other things we are getting into in the intricacies of the various Government amendments, but as to whether the Bill is workable at all in this clause. It would appear so far that more and more requirements from the department are necessary to make the Bill workable. This means more and more forms, applications and directives. This fits in with our view that the Secretary of State has over-armed himself with powers. If he so wished, or if members of the department so wished, they could make this Bill unworkable.

We are merely trying to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that the more powers that go to the Secretary of State, the less workable the Bill will become in the more complex subjects. The subject of gas mixtures in the same pipe is one example. On this question, would the Minister confirm that there are no problems on this in Europe where mixtures of gases go down lines of varying qualities depending upon the equipment to receive them at each end? Presumably in Europe there is legislation to safeguard the consumers and to produce an adequate safety factor. Are we with this Bill going out on our own without looking across the Channel at what is happening in a perfectly workable system on the Continent of Europe? I think that the Government are making unduly heavy weather of their legislation and of their practical application of this Bill. We are asking this. Is the Bill workable and how many extra civil servants are required to make it workable?

While expressing reserve about the issues of principle which the noble Baroness has raised, may I, under the Motion that this Clause shall stand part of the Bill, speak on the unintelligibility of paragraph (d) in the Government amendment. I found crystal clear the explanation furnished by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but on going back to paragraph (d), the translation of his crystal-clear explanation into lingual gobbledegook I found totally unintelligible. I suggest that it is a disgrace that this clause should go forward in this type of English.

I am very glad that so distinguished a scholar as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has had the same difficulty as I have myself. "Crystal clear" used to be one of the favourite phrases of the Secretary of State. After I pointed it out to him a few times, he changed the phrase; but it is coming back. If ever we required crystal clarity it was in this connection. It may have been a good explanation, but I think we must ask the Government to promise that with every publication of this Bill (when it becomes an Act) there shall be appended, for the benefit of all who read this clause and subsection (d), a copy of the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate; although I doubt whether he would like that. I hope that the Government will read this between now and the next stage of the Bill and will see whether there is an easier and simpler way of putting the point. I do not want to offer them my help in drafting it. I know what the intention is, but I do not think that it is very well spelt out in the amendment.

The noble Lord who replied said that this was not bureaucratic intervention. If it is not, what is it? We are dealing not with existing pipe-lines but new pipe-lines. At the present time, having obtained the agreement of the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, to a capital expenditure, so long as it worked within that, there is no one, no bureaucrat in Whitehall or any department, to say "Yea", or "Nay" to anything that the Gas Corporation do within their statutory duties and obligations.

As from the passing of this Bill, before they can have a new pipe-line—and in fact it does not say they can have a new pipe-line—the clause begins with the words "They shall not unless", and they have to give notice which they do not have to do at the moment. They have to give notice to the department. They have to give maps and details. They have to sit and wait while the Government publish this in some newspapers of their own selection. Then they wait for representations to come in. Then the Government decide on these recommendations and may give orders about modifications of their original plans to the British Gas Corporation. That is not interference? It certainly is.

All this is going to take time. If we need gas for some new project that could have gone ahead if gas was available, people are going to be saying "Why is this?" The delay is not with the Gas Board; the delay is with the Ministry introducing this new bureaucratic tier of consents and new powers.

What is the additional delay likely to be under this procedure? That is my first question. Secondly, many of the representations that are made may not come to anything. I am sure every Member of the Committee is anxiously waiting to hear my speech later on planning permission fees in respect of Scotland. If my neighbour wants to put an extension on to his house, he has to make an application, and it now costs a few pounds to do it. The Government say that this is to pay for the administrative work of the department. Who is paying for the administrative work in respect of the matters we are now discussing? Have the Government thought of charging people for the representations that they are going to make?

Some of them may waste the department's time. There is going to be a lot of time spent; and there is going to be a lot of time spent by the British Gas Corporation. Has the question of payment for the application been considered? I sincerely hope that the Government will look at these points. Personally, I think that they would do far better to drop this and the next two clauses. I am not asking very much: just drop these three clauses. If they do that, the Government will probably decide how daft they are. Here is something that is working well with no complaints from anybody about it. But political dogma comes in and, as my noble friend asked, is this the way to handle a successful business?

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, always holds this House enthralled—I think that is the expression—and we always listen to him very carefully, But I cannot believe my ears when I hear him query the fact that planning permission for a pipe-line would have to be obtained from either the Ministry or BGC. If it is not, then anybody would be able to put a pipeline through the noble Lord's property perhaps without consent.

It has to be properly planned and it must be planned by one specific authority. Perhaps I am woolly in the head but I cannot understand why the noble Lord is querying that people should have to conform to a plan, and complaining that that plan will take time. Of course, it will take time, but it would be quite improper, surely, to have anything unplanned going on, especially in laying a pipe-line.

Of course it takes time and requires planning permission. It requires all the negotiations about easements and everything else. All that is the position at the present time. Local authorities deal with planning permission and the landowners deal with easements. The clause says:

"The Gas Corporation shall not at any time execute any works for the construction of a high pressure pipe-line unless".

This is what is new. This is what I am objecting to in respect of the clause. The noble Baroness is quite right about all the other things. However, there is no change in them.

This has almost been a Second Reading debate on the general principles of the Bill. May I say straight away that the general principle on which this Bill is based is that nobody knows—and I am not prepared to damn anybody for this—how efficient the Gas Corporation is unless competition is introduced into the gas industry.

Really!

Yes, really! I have been asked various questions on planning and various things. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked about the number of pipe-lines spanning the country from coast to coast, from North to South and everywhere you can think of. Why does she think that we are going to enormous trouble in these clauses to make a common carrier provision?

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asks why this should be hedged around with decision-making powers and directional powers of the Secretary of State. I have already said that when this Bill gets Royal Assent it will be the will of Parliament. The Secretary of State is answerable to the will of Parliament and unless he has such powers he is in danger of being frustrated in the general objectives of the Bill. That is why he has to have these powers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, asked about the domestic consumer and the effect that all this would have on prices. The intention is that charges and tariffs specified in directions issued by the Secretary of State will be worked out on a fully commercial basis. It will be the BGC which does the working out. In these clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, takes such exception, we are talking about what is going on with the full knowledge and consent of the BGC in their pipe-lines. Of course they must make the decision on charging. I do not think that there should be anything between us on this aspect.

There is one difficulty. At the moment gas in a main has to be at a given pressure which has to be maintained because that governs the pressure at which it is consumed at the user's point. Supposing another firm comes along and wishes to introduce more gas—its own gas—into that same main; either the gas corporation has to reduce its own gas so as to lower the pressure in order to admit the other or else the pressure is going to be, in the main, too high. What is the solution?

We are talking about additions to the BGC mains in the next clause we shall be discussing. I accept that this is a very technical subject, but my understanding is that an increase in capacity will not effect the pressure of the gas coming out, and when we come to the next clause I shall be able to furnish the noble Lord with a proper answer.

I was disappointed that the Government were not able to accept the amendment we moved. Had they done so, it would have justified the claims made by the noble Lord earlier about listening to Parliament. Also it would have given us some slight encouragement to support this clause: otherwise I am bound to say I think this clause should be taken out. It is a bad clause.

The noble Lord asked how we know that the gas corporation is efficient. One reason I know is that I go home and I have practical experience of their efficiency. We have gone through a very difficult winter and I have every reason to be grateful to the people who work within the gas corporation for the service they have rendered. We can make comparisons also with other gas undertakings overseas. Does the noble Lord mean to tell us that all the provisions in this clause are in order to prove whether or not the gas corporation is efficient? Are we really going through all this travail, are we really considering all this expenditure simply to prove whether or not the gas corporation is efficient? There are different methods of checking the efficiency of an undertaking without going through this immense expenditure of money and energy.

Clause 15 is a bad clause and really goes contrary to all that is best in conservative thinking about the public sector. The Conservatives themselves have said time and time again that there should be less intervention from Whitehall, and this clause of this Bill particularly requires more intervention from Whitehall. They have said more than once that productive industry cannot afford to have these non-productive people on their backs and that there should be fewer bureaucrats, as my noble friend Lord Ross has already mentioned. But this clause will mean more bureaucrats—the noble Lord cannot dispute that. There will be more people required in the administration both in the corporation and in the government department.

The Conservatives have said they want to encourage initiative and professional pride, but this clause will frustrate initiative. It will discourage professional pride. I hear the noble Lord asking, "Why?" Can he not understand that if the professional person is given responsibility for carrying out a contract job what you want to do is to let him get on with it? Give him responsibility and let him then fulfil himself and serve the nation by getting on with it—but do not, as is required by this clause, put these plans before the Government, to have another lot of second-guessing and to have the thing crawled over again by another lot of people who have no more expertise to offer than the British Gas Corporation people themselves. I am second to none in my admiration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the way in which he answered my noble friend Lord Ross. We are really grateful to him for that, but otherwise there has been no one at all from the Government Benches who has explained how we are going to get a more efficient gas industry in this country if this clause is accepted. I hope the House will throw it out.

Before the noble Lord rises, I am really concerned about one point. He did not answer my question about payment. Will there be any initial payment by those who make representations which may or may not lead to the direction to be given by the Secretary of State to the gas corporation? There is nothing in the clause about it and I instanced the fact that, in relation to an important order which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will deal tonight, people are going to be charged for all sorts of things in relation to their own homes. For example, if they are going to put up a gate or build an extension to their house, and so on, there is going to be an increase of 10 per cent. on the already unjustified charge that the Government have introduced. Have they thought about this, because the expenses are going to be very heavy on his department?

My noble friend asked about the people who are going to do it. I would fancy that the Department of Energy at the moment have not got the people to do it. I do not know where they are going to get them, unless they poach them from the gas corporation so that they could do exactly the same job as the Gas Board have been doing for themselves at the present time. I listened very carefully to the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lady Fisher about the question of the rent by the people using the pipe-lines. He said that would be up to the gas corporation, in negotiations between the gas corporation and the private suppliers. Is he correct about that? Otherwise we will need to look not only at paragraph (d) of 32B but at some of the others because, so far as I can see, this all-seeing, all-powerful Government are going to specify the sums or the method of determining the sums which the Secretary of State considers shall be paid to the corporation by such a person. Is it the Secretary of State who is going to specify them in his directions or is it a matter which the British Gas Corporation themselves will decide? That is a very important point and one that should be cleared.

We are talking about two different things. I was talking about the costs which would give rise to rental charges. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, is talking about charges, as I understand it, for civil servants' time. Is that correct?

Yes, as well.

I can tell him that applicants will not be charged for this. This has received consideration, naturally, and we recognise that if such a charge were made it would, firstly, disadvantage the potential private supplier compared to the BGC; and our objective is not to disadvantage anybody in this respect, It is to treat the two sides in an even-handed manner. as indeed was asked for by the Front Bench opposite on Tuesday of last week.

Under Clause 15(5) of the Bill the Secretary of State must within six months give the gas corporation details of what he proposes to include in his direction, so there is no question, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, appeared to be suggesting, of the gas corporation being kept in the dark about the ideas the Secretary of State and the department were having on this subject. Over the last half hour or so I am afraid I have been rather discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. He asked me several times last week and has asked again today about the number of staff involved in all this.

Where the problem is for the department, it will obviously mean an increase in departmental staff. As is stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to this Bill, eight to 10 extra staff will, we think, initially be required in the department and, eventually, a total of 40 to 50 could be required. That is not just because of this clause; it is for the entire provisions of the Bill. I also said last week that the Secretary of State would alter his staffing requirements in the light of experience, and I am afraid that I am unable to go any further than that.

I promised the noble Lord, Lord Somers, an answer on pressure. The noble Lord was quite correct in saying that gas must, for safety reasons, be supplied at or above a certain minimum pressure. That is why Clause 13 provides for standards of pressure to be prescribed—again, by the Secretary of State. It is mandatory in respect of all gas supplies, both BGC and private supplies. So, again, there will be no difference in approach to the two organisations.

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but that still does not explain one thing. If a private gasworks is going to supply gas into the existing main at that pressure, that means that, somehow or other, the pressure from the original gasworks will have to be slightly reduced; otherwise, the gas will not be able to get in.

In winding up a few moments ago, the noble Lord the Minister said that we seemed to be talking about two different things. I imagine that it rather appears to your Lordships that the answers rarely fit the questions. I know that this is a technical Bill and one might be excused for thinking that your Lordships' House ought not to be involved in such detailed, technical, scientific, commercial, financial and legal matters, but that is inherent in this Bill. It had a long session going through the other place, and I must say that many questions which have been posed today, and indeed in the last two sittings, have not been answered; hence, the noble Lord is able to claim that we seem to be having lots of Second Reading speeches. But this is a matter of life and death, because we are dealing with gas; we are dealing with an established set-up of known repute and the Government are throwing the whole thing into turmoil.

The noble Lord says as a justification for Clause 15, and indeed for the Bill, that we do not know how efficient the thing is until we have competition. Is that an indication that the Government will denationalise the railways? The airways are already on the slate, but what about electricity and the coal mines? How do we know whether they are efficient until competition is allowed to fan them? This is not my suggestion, but the noble Lord has given it as the reason for changing something to which tribute was paid by Ministers in both Houses on Second Reading, who talked about the considerable success, the profitability and the efficiency of the undertaking. The votes in the last session of the Committee indicated acceptance not only of the degree of efficiency and accountability, but of the almost affection in which the Gas Council and its employees are held.

If the noble Lord wants to avoid all this turmoil of enforced competition, I recommend that he looks at the current issue of Which? under the title "Dealing with the Gasman". In the last sitting, we had a warning that the gasman cometh, and, if noble Lords read some of the questions and answers in this issue of Which?, they will find that there is no need to go to all this trouble of importing private enterprise and creating uncertainty. One question is:

"If you suspect a gas leak, your call will he dealt with quickly and free of charge.

True or False?

True. Under the Gas Act 1972, British Gas has to deal with gas leaks within 24 hours of their being reported. One in six of our members had reported a leak in the past two years: over half these cases were investigated by a fitter within an hour, and the average time was just over two hours".

Another question was:

"The service given by British Gas has deteriorated over the past few years.

True or False?

False. You can see from Table 3 that our members rated British Gas much more highly in our latest survey than they did in 1974 (when the gas industry had just been reorganised and was converting us all to North Sea gas). For example, more people now seem to be given appointments for their service or repair, fewer appointments are broken by British Gas and more work is completed in only one visit. Overall the number of members dissatisfied with the way their last request for service or repair was handled has fallen substantially".

One could go on with quotations like that.

Quite naturally, there is a feeling that the gas enterprise has proved its worth. It is not a matter of whether it is publicly or privately owned. The Gas Council and the gas undertakings are responsible to the Gas Consumers' Council and to the public generally, and the council has done an extremely good job in acting as a sounding platform for public opinion. The noble Baroness opposite, who spoke a few moments ago, has played a noble part in that.

We are worried about safety, and that is paramount. Other aspects of administration, such as the problems of planning delays, are probably incidental to it. In commenting on Clause 15, my noble friend Lady Fisher justifiably detailed the problems of planning, of negotiating with farms and local authorities, and of dealing with sewers and other areas where pipes have to pass. There are also planning consents, agreements and so on, which can add quite considerable delay.

During all this process, the gas undertaking will share a great degree of responsibility, and one can understand the dread and fear that established routines will be uprooted and dedicated teams of people will be broken up. Great uncertainty will be thrown into the whole situation.

The clause refers to the role of the Secretary of State in all this. It seems to me that the Secretary of State will have very little else to do, if and when this Bill becomes operative, but be in his office giving consents, making directions and getting involved in the day-to-day affairs of the undertaking. It is certainly not a situation where the Government are justified in saying that they want to get the state off people's backs and to let the enterprise run its own affairs. I think that the Committee is even more concerned that the very important questions asked on these matters are not really being answered, and it may show its displeasure with the present situation, and about the Government's lack of planning or ideas as to how they should proceed, by joining us in the Lobby on the Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill.

Before this goes any further, may I make two points on what the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, has just said? First, he said that the Secretary of State will not have any time left to do anything else on energy—

No!

That is exactly what he has just said, if the gas provisions and the direction-making powers go ahead, as they are currently stated in the Bill. But has it not occurred to the noble Lord that those arguments suggest that there is such an overflowing demand for private gas that there will be all these numerous applications and that therefore all these numerous decisions will have to be taken by the Secretary of State? I really cannot see the force of that argument.

The noble Lord referred to the Consumers Council. Again I cannot see the force of his argument, because in their Which? report the Consumers Council were presumably talking about private consumers of gas—in other words, those people who take 25,000 therms a year or less, or who are within 25 yards of a British Gas Corporation main. We do not know—the noble Lord has not said—but I doubt whether either of those questions was asked of the recipients of the questionnaire. As the noble Lord well knows, the Bill deals with a completely different class of consumer —to a very, very large extent the industrial and the commercial consumer.

I apologise for getting to my feet so often, but there is one point I must raise here. When the noble Lord spoke before he said that this was going to introduce an element of competition. I admit, of course, that in some cases competition is excellent. If there is competition between, say, one newsagent and another, it is very likely that it will bring the service of one or the other up to a very much higher level. But there will be no competition whatsoever here, because the gas from the BGC and the gas from the independent supplier will be mixed together in the one main. The consumer will have no idea which gas he is using. He will not be able to say, "So and so's gas is much better than this". The result will be no competition whatsoever. I cannot see that that element will have anything to do with raising the standard of the BGC or of the independent companies.

In fairness, perhaps I should say that I was quoting from Which? The survey was not connected with the Gas Consumers Council, but 3,000 Which? members helped to answer important questions about British Gas. The report can be read in full. I am sorry that the noble Lord has not answered the important questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, about gas in pipes, because the noble Lord expressed concern. May I refer the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to cols. 193 and 194 of our proceedings last week. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, at col. 193:

"For example, a supply of a specific calorific value or chemical mixture may be permitted for a specific purpose. Were this to go down, for example, a BGC gas main, this could very well make the gas in the BGC main impure, and nobody would want this to be done".

This suggests a lower level of gas, or a different standard of gas from the BGC gas. In col. 194 the noble Lord said:

"For example, a private supplier whose gas contained a higher proportion of impurities than would be acceptable in the BGC system might build his own pipe-line specifically suited to such gas".

Is there a question of "might" or "would have to"? We have been told that incompatible gases cannot go down the same pipe, but the noble Lord said that a private supplier might build his own pipe-line. These are important technical details, and the Committee is anxious to get specific replies to these questions because they concern the public interest and public safety.

There was nothing incompatible, if I may use the word, between the two statements I made last week, which the noble Lord mentioned just now, and the statement which I made earlier this afternoon. Let me start from the beginning. I think that I said originally to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that where two supplies of gas go into the same pipe-line it is quite obvious that there can be no distinction when they come out of that pipe-line: whether it is a private cubic foot of gas or whether it is a corporation cubic foot of gas.

They will be a mixture.

Yes, exactly. In that case, the private sector gas has to meet the specification of the BGC, otherwise the BGC will be in clear breach of its own statutory duties, and this will not be allowed to happen. It may be that a private pipe-line is laid for the purpose of supplying a particular piece of machinery in a particular factory, which will be allowed under the terms of the Bill. There is nothing to say that so long as both the pipe-line and the machinery are adapted to take the gas which is being supplied it should not be allowed. This is why I say that one might have different purities, for example, or different calorific values of gas in different pipe-lines. But where they are mixed in a BGC pipe-line the private gas has to meet the BGC specification. I do not see any incompatibility between what I have just said and what I said on the earlier occasion.

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I am advised that the British Gas Corporation will have to drop its pressure so that the private gas can get into the system.

BGC will have to reduce its pressure?

It is not so much a question of BGC gas. The capacity will be used, so I do not see that the noble Baroness can laugh at this explanation.

But the BGC will have to drop the pressure.

The pressure, yes, but not necessarily the amount of gas. There is no question of the British Gas Corporation having to drop the pressure of its supplies if this would prejudice the conveyance of gas which the British Gas Corporation requires to perform its statutory duties and contractual obligations. This is to be found in Clause 17(2)(a) of the Bill. In such a situation, if the private gas is at too low a pressure to enter the corporation's pipe-line, then the private supplier would have to instal a compressor to bring his gas up to the appropriate pressure. If the British Gas Corporation pipe-line is not of sufficient capacity to take additional gas, whether its own or that of the private sector, the Secretary of State would not issue a direction to force the British Gas Corporation to transmit it.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, also said that in reality there is no competition. I would contend that it may be that consumers will be unable to tell one kind of gas from another—as I have said several times this afternoon—hut they will be able to tell the difference between the prices charged by the different suppliers, the service provided and the availability of new supplies of gas to meet new demands. That is what I call competition.

How can the Government say that competition will bring about lower prices, in view of the fact that it is the Government who have forced the British Gas Corporation to increase the price of gas? To my knowledge, many people took gas appliances because gas was far cheaper than electricity as a form of energy. However, because of the recent Act the British Gas Corporation has been forced to increase its charges. So how on earth can competition bring down the price, unless the Government are going to maintain that the British Gas Corporation must keep their gas at a high price, whereas the competitor will be allowed to supply gas at a lower price? It is a totally unfair situation which I am sure no Government could defend.

The only reason why the price of gas was put up was in order to build up a reserve for the further exploration of gas fields.

I find this very perplexing. I have listened with some interest to what the noble Lord has said—not about two types of gas but about gas coming from two different sources, the private source and the BGC source, and going through the same pipe-line. Then he talked about differentials in price. What will he the price of the gas emerging from the pipe-line if part of it comes from the private sector and the other part comes from the public sector?

I think that the Committee should come to some decision upon this. When the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, cross-questions me on the price of gas generally, I really do think it is way outside the scope of the debate on this clause.

No!

On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked me a very direct question on this clause. He asked me what the price would be of each individual unit of gas coming out of the end of the pipe-line. Obviously, both suppliers know what they put into the pipe-line because this will be metered. BGC will charge its own price for the gas that it supplies and the private sector will charge its own price to the consumer for the gas that it supplies. Therefore, there will be a true differential and we will know exactly who is competitive with whom.

Is the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, saying that a household must have two meters?

No, certainly not. The meters would be on the input end and not the output end of the pipe-line.

Can the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, go a bit further? He has just said that the British Gas Corporation will charge its own price and that the private sector company putting its gas through the same pipe-line will charge for its gas. The noble Lord then made the statement that consumers will then be able to judge the difference between the two prices. Can the noble Lord give an undertaking that the Government will impose the same levy on the private supplier as on the gas corporation?

Not at this precise moment, no.

Will the noble Lord get back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock? The noble Lord the Minister began by asking us to probe the Government's intentions; so may I ask the noble Lord a question? My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock explained to the House in great detail how the gas corporation works now; that it has its capital programme and capital approvals, and then it goes forward to build its pipe-lines, to give its services, et cetera. When it can, the corporation accepts for use private gas at the present moment. It is doing that quite competently at the present moment, without all the ramifications of these clauses. Why do the Government want to stop what is quite an orderly procedure, and to stop it at Secretary of State level? Surely it makes common sense for a nationalised industry such as the gas corporation to work compatibly, so far as it is possible, with private enterprise for the benefit of the nation, and bearing in mind that gas is a finite resource.

Before my noble friend replies, as of course he will, to the noble Baroness, I wonder, are we not stretching a clause stand part debate a little far? We have now been 57 minutes on it. While my noble friend will, of course, reply to the noble Baroness, would ask, since we have a fairly heavy programme could we not after that get on a bit?

The noble Baroness asks, in essence, a question concerning a point raised originally by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock: why interfere with the status quo? The answer to this is quite simple. The answer is that, when this Act gets on to the statute book, it would not be appropriate for any individual or corporation to frustrate what will have been expressed as the will of Parliament. The Secretary of State needs these powers in order to avoid the danger of this happening. I really cannot go any further than that. That is what I very strongly feel.

With due respect to the Government Chief Whip, we have been anxious to make progress. A few moments ago, I suggested that we might take a decision on this matter in the Lobbies. I assure the Chief Whip that Members on all sides of the Committee are rather anxious about safety; and there are other aspects which are, rightly, of concern to us all. We hope that if we can get more direct answers (and I make no personal complaint at all) on explanations of Government policy, then greater progress will be made.

I certainly appreciate the sincerity of noble Lords opposite and the fact that they have their worries about this Bill. I just felt that I ought to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that what is a clause stand part debate is developing not into a Second Reading debate, because the rules are even a little more fluid at Committee stage, but into rather a long debate.

May I draw the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Whip to the fact that we have still not received answers to questions that have been properly put?

I hope that the Committee will accept that I am doing my best to answer questions put by noble Lords, but I accept the criticism made by my Chief Whip; that is, that this is taking a rather long time. One of the questions asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was will the Government impose a gas levy on private suppliers as they have on the British Gas Corporation? The answer to this is, no. The gas levy imposed on the British Gas Corporation reflects the fact that the British Gas Corporation receives substantial supplies of gas under contracts which have been in existence for some time. The prices under these contracts were fixed prior to the 1973 oil price rises and the British Gas Corporation alone has the benefit of such contracts. So a gas levy would be inappropriate in the case of the private sector.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Minister and I shall study with great interest what he has said. I think it is necessary to read what he has just said and this most important announcement. It drives a coach and horses through the entire Bill, if he is telling us that the purpose of this great change is so that we can make a comparison of prices, and is now saying that the Government will impose a levy on the corporation price, but not on the gas from private sources. This is a most remarkable confession, which I think we will have to consider very carefully.

moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 21, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("give") in line 44.

Very often it is not guaranteed at all; it is interruptible. That is one of the problems.

They are statutorily bound to give supplies. There may be difficulties at some times. I do not know whether a private company in which the noble Earl might be interested would give us any better supplies. I can assure him that the supplies that were given by the British Gas Corporation in Scotland during a very difficult time indeed were available there only because of their ability to control an integrated system and to use supplies from elsewhere and so put them into the area that was using most of the gas. The position now, under this clause, is that they can be compelled to increase the capacity of their pipe-lines at the direction of the Secretary of State. On the application of any person—presumably, of course, a person who wants to supply gas from somewhere; it may be a very well known company, it may be one of the cowboy companies that have got hold of gas in some way and want to get it through the pipe-lines of the gas corporation—the Secretary of State can give directions, if he thinks it is all right, that the pipe-line can and should be modified by installing a junction through which another pipe-line may be connected to it, or in the case of the high pressure line itself that the capacity should be increased by modifying apparatus and works associated with the pipe-line.

If the last thing was tricky, this is even more tricky. If the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, is interested in breakages, if he is interested in any stoppage of supply, where are these accidents or failures to supply more likely to occur? It may well be by a misplaced junction.

Will the noble Lord give way? I know that noble Lord does not want to misrepresent anything, but surely he is aware that the British Gas Corporation has contracts to supply gas to certain industrial users on what is known as an "interruptible" basis? It is interruptible; it is not guaranteed. The whole point is that it is interruptible.

With all due respect, a contract is a contract. I do not know what the noble Earl is talking about. If they were not complying with the terms of the contract the noble Earl would have some justification for interrupting, but we are talking about their statutory obligation as regards supplies which they guarantee to most of their customers unless they are of the specific type which the noble Earl quite irrelevantly introduced in his interruption. That is what we are dealing with now. We are dealing with the directions to be given by the Secretary of State. We do not know who advises him, but I am perfectly sure that he has not got the people at the moment, and he will need to get them. He is dealing now with a very intricate point in respect of an integrated system which can be broken by doing the wrong thing.

I have had plenty of experience in respect of trunk roads in Scotland. One of the most difficult things about trunk roads, and the new motorways was that all sorts of people wanted to get junctions so that they would get immediate access to the benefit of the trunk road. The Secretary of State is responsible, certainly in Scotland, for trunk roads and usually the local authorities deal with the other roads. But, apart from the planning permission aspects of it, we were conscious of the fact that accidents most often occur at the junction points when someone is seeking to take advantage of the main road system.

It is exactly the same with an integrated gas system. We can put the junction at the wrong place. Who are the people who are best able to tell that?—not the customers who want the supply, because they want it at the quickest and nearest point; not the private person who is supplying the gas that the customers are going to use: it is the people who are responsible for the whole supply—namely, the British Gas Corporation. I am not dealing here with the question of whether or not they should have access to the pipe-line. What we are saying in Amendment No. 34, which is the paving amendment for Amendment No. 35, is that if we are to have modifications, and if we are to direct the British Gas Corporation to do those things, then the people who should have the last say from the point of view of safety are the people who are to carry the responsibility—namely, the British Gas Corporation. So my amendment is to leave out the words:

"after giving to the Corporation an opportunity of being heard about the matter".

Does anyone think that it is satisfactory that these words should satisfy anyone that the power of the Secretary of State has been properly and safely exercised? What we have suggested instead is that:

"Before giving any such direction the Secretary of State shall consult the Corporation and shall thereafter inform the Corporation of the modifications he proposes to specify.… If the Corporation is of the opinion that the modifications proposed would prejudice the safe and efficient operation of any of its pipe-lines it shall so advise the Secretary of State who shall have regard to such advice in framing the direction".

I do not think that there is a noble Lord, not even the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who could object to that.

It has been said by Government Ministers that if the junction, which the Secretary of State is going to determine should be put in a certain place, is inserted, and if, after all this has been done and all this apparatus has been introduced in respect of the gas corporation, anything goes wrong, it is not the Minister who makes the direction and tells them what to do who is responsible. The Ministers have already said that it is the gas corporation. It is a very important matter. I have said before that I do not think that it is a matter where civil servants should come in at all unless it is to see that the directions are complied with. But the type of technical detail here is surely a matter for the people who will ultimately be responsible, the people who know about it, and that is the gas corporation. So the amendments give the final say, in the way of modifications and what is to be carried out, to those responsible for the safe and efficient operation of the pipe-lines.

May I say that I do not know in Europe or elsewhere of another system where the Government are taking this power to order the gas corporation—it may well be against their own wishes from a safety point of view—to take such actions affecting a transmission system? The Bill as drafted empowers the Secretary of State to do all this. I think that noble Lords opposite who have been voting for this Bill should be very uneasy about this kind of power that they are giving to the Secretary of State. To suggest that he should say where a junction should be, what kind of junction it should be, and make these specifications, is quite intolerable. I said before that it was bureaucracy run wild; it has run dangerously wild when it comes to this kind of point.

There are cases where the BGC will not be able to carry private gas direct to the customer's premises and it may be necessary for the private supplier to construct his own pipe-line. But when it comes to the question of a junction, it may well be that the nearest way is the most dangerous way and that it should be left. Gas travels through Britain and it does not necessarily get from A to B directly; it might go via C and D and then to the particular point you want. The problems of combining these delivery systems and bulk transmission has been recognised in all previous legislation, but not in this Bill. I think that it is wrong that a direction from the Secretary of State should be such that it would mean someone getting a supply in a particular way that presently the gas corporation would not agree to because of the safety questions involved and the safeguarding of the system itself.

It was in another place that the Under-Secretary said that if the system leaks after the modifications have been carried out, it is clear that the sole responsibility must be with the British Gas Corporation. Is that fair if they are asked to do something which they certainly would not advise? The Secretary of State himself said that it is inconceivable that any Secretary of State would make directions which flew in the face of safety. Let us put the ultimate responsibility in respect of the modifications that are necessary for this change where they should be, and that is with the people who carry the responsibility for safety. If the Government are prepared to make statements like that, then they should agree that the intention should be in the Bill and that the last word should be left with the British Gas Corporation.

This is probably one of the most important amendments that we have so far put forward. I am referring not to Amendment No. 34, which is just clearing the way and removing words, but to the new subsection (2) on the following page which is the real part that matters. I beg to move.

Before I answer the substantive points of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, he introduced his amendment by making a most astounding statement about statutory supplies and the ability of this Bill to interfere with the corporation's statutory supplies. May I ask him, to clear in my own mind, exactly what he was talking about? With which statutory supplies does the noble Lord think the Bill interferes? In other words, which statute are we talking about?

We are talking about the obligations of the British Gas Corporation to provide supplies throughout the whole country. It may well be that if the wrong modifications are made and the wrong apparatus is put in, for which they are not responsible, it could—I do not say that it will—impinge upon their ability to carry out their statutory duties under the original Gas Act.

The noble Lord seems to be modifying his tone. He now says "could"; originally he said "did".

No.

He did. We shall all be able to read it tomorrow and perhaps be able to settle this argument out of court, as it were.

The statutory demands upon the British Gas Corporation in this situation are, first, to supply on demand—in other words, if they are asked for it; secondly, to supply within 25 yards of the BGC main. This is under the Gas Act 1972 and there is nothing in this Bill which interferes with those two. It may be that contracts run out and are changed, but that has nothing to do with statutory requirements.

In replying to the discussion on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, the noble Lord is talking about Clause 16 in the Bill which deals with modifications to existing BGC pipe-lines. The procedures are intended to strike a balance between the needs of the private sector owner of gas and the position of the corporation who, as owners of the national gas transmission system—the noble Lord is quite right; it is not just restricted to a length of pipe-line, it is the system about which we are talking—clearly have a right to expect that their essential interests will be safeguarded.

It is fair to ask—as I believe the noble Lord has in his fashion—how the clause does this. It is a fundamental feature of Part II of the Bill that conditions should be created to enable real competition to be established for the supply of gas to a major part of the market. However, such competition cannot be effective if the private sector has no ready means of transmitting its gas to potential customers. This is why the Government have introduced the measures in Clauses 15 to 17 which ensure that the private sector will, wherever possible, be enabled to have access to the BGC transmission system for the purpose of having its gas transmitted.

But, as I have indicated, the essential interests of the corporation have also to be looked after. Bearing in mind that the corporation will continue to have operational responsibility for their pipe-line system, it would be quite wrong for the Government to impose requirements on them to modify their system before adequate consultation and discussion had taken place with them as to what was entailed.

The Government have no intention of doing this. I am prepared to accept that the purpose of this amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is to spell out the need for such consultation and discussion, and I accept the spirit of the proposal. But the actual amendment which has been moved is, I would contend, quite unnecessary. Clause 16(1) makes it clear that the Secretary of State must, before giving a direction, afford the corporation an opportunity to be heard about the matter. The noble Lord has already said this.

If the noble Lord will allow me, have I misheard him? He said, on Clause 16, that the Secretary of State "must". As I read it, the Secretary of State "may". Which is correct—the noble Lord or the Bill?