HC Deb 11 November 1926 vol 199 cc1310-3
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, at the end, to insert the words Provided that, in determining whether to give or withhold such consent or approval, the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme. This is an Amendment which I promised to move when we were discussing the new Clauses the day before yesterday. It is a proviso to ensure that while consent or approval has to be obtained from the Minister or the Electricity Commissioners, as the case may be, in giving that consent or approval the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme. It is to prevent the conflict which it was suggested might arise.

Mr. BALFOUR

This Amendment is by no means a mere formality. It is a most serious Amendment. If hon. Members will look at Clause 18, they will find that it says: Where the carrying out of any part of a scheme, or any arrangement or requirement in connection therewith, would involve any operation for which any consent or approval of the Minister of Transport or the Electricity Commissioners would be necessary under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act shall relieve the Board"— I would point out that "nothing shall relieve the Board"— or any authorised undertakers or other persons concerned from the necessity of obtaining such consent or approval. After that we get the words of the Amendment:— Provided that, in determining whether to give or withhold such consent or approval, the Minister or Commissioners shall have regard to the provisions of the scheme. Whose scheme? The people who are to approve are the people who are to frame the scheme, and it is perfectly easy to make sure that there will be certain little paragraphs which will get rid of all obstacles in the way of the Board or any other joint authority, if they wish to favour them—not that I suggest that there would be any question of favouring such an authority. If this were a nationalised scheme this provision would be perfect—that is, in a case where the whole thing is to be run as a State organisation, with one authority to prepare a scheme and a Board to approve the scheme. By the Amendment the protection of Clause 18 is only to be afforded provided the Minister or the Commissioners have regard to the provisions of the scheme, and in the scheme itself provisions may have been included—without anybody paying particular attention to them, because they are not specially linked up with this Clause 18—and we shall find the whole thing fixed in the scheme. The appeal will be to the very people who have put in the provisions, and there will be no other right of appeal. As it stands Clause 18 gives, I think, ample protection. If the appeal is genuine the Ministers or Commissioners will, no doubt, discharge their duties within the terms of Clause 18, but now they will be able to refer to the scheme and say, "Yes, but the scheme provides that that must be done or that thing must not be done, and it is in conflict with the scheme for you to appeal to us, because the scheme says no appeal lies to us." That seems to me a ridiculous provision, and I am astonished that my right hon. Friend has had the temerity to come down to this House and put it before us. I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that the parties who will be affected under the provisions of any scheme ought to have left to them some remnant of a right to appeal, but I cannot see how such right would be left to them if the provisions of the scheme barred appeal against certain things, because, under the terms of the Amendment, that would protect the scheme.

Sir J. NALL

I was rather surprised to see this Amendment on the Paper, because it very largely nullifies the protection given by the Clause. If I am wrong in that interpretation, perhaps the Government spokesman will say in what way it acts.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I will certainly do so if I am asked to do so. I understand that fears were expressed the day before yesterday that the Electricity Commissioners would not give consents which were necessary, and that thereby there would be a conflict between the Board which had made the scheme and the Electricity Commissioners which had a right to give or withhold consent. Clause 18, as it stands, preserves the necessity of getting the consents which are required under the Act of 1919. In order to meet the objection, as I understood it, of hon. Members behind me, I offered to put in a proviso that in giving or refusing consent they should have regard to the provisions in the scheme. If my hon. Friends do not wish that, I am perfectly prepared to withdraw the Amendment. It was put in to oblige them and to meet a contingency which I thought was never likely to arise, and if it does not satisfy them there is no purpose in moving it.

Sir J. NALL

I am very much obliged for that explanation. I can say at once that the Amendment does not meet the point I raised the other day when we sought to relieve the Board from the necessity of having to go to the Commissioners for consent in many matters of detail in the carrying on of their business. That is one point; but in this case, where the Board are adopting a scheme which may involve them, under the terms of Clause 18, in the necessity for getting consents from the Minister or the Commissioners before it will be possible for them to carry out particular work, it is an entirely different matter. If we say the Board may adopt a scheme and carry it out willy-nilly, the Minister being practically obliged to give his consent on matters of detail, a case might arise of high transmission trunk lines going across the middle of public parks, and the local authority concerned having no means of asking the Minister to withhold his consent to such details; and that is quite another matter. I am sorry if my right hon. Friend thought this Amendment met the point raised on this side of the House. I am bound to say it does not meet it at all. If put into the Clause it would, as I believe, prevent the Minister in certain cases withholding consent on some matter of detail where it would be in the public interest for him to do so.

Mr. BALFOUR

May I, by leave of the House, add a word or two? I am quite sure that it is the desire of my right hon. Friend to meet the point which was raised, but I think I have indicated that the Amendment would operate in a different sense. It does not give effect to the promise which he made, and I am sorry my right hon. Friend did not consult us about it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

If this Amendment does not meet what my hon. Friends desire, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.