§ 31. Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the Minister of Transport what are the reasons for which the Electricity Commissioners have revoked the Fringe Orders of the Chester Corporation under Section 6 of the Electricity Lighting Act, 1909, under which electricity is supplied to certain premises in the parish of Sea-land, in order that henceforth the supply may be made to this district by the Hawarden Council; what expenditure is involved in this change; whether any local inquiry has yet been held into the matter; and what action it is now proposed to take?
§ Mr. PYBUSThe terms under which Fringe Orders are made authorising temporary supplies of electricity in the area of one authorised undertaker by another, provide for the revocation of such Orders at such time as the authorised undertaker of the area in which the supply is being given is able and willing to take over the supply and give it on reasonable terms. There is the further condition that the undertaker taking over the supply shall reimburse the undertaker who previously gave the supply the capital expenditure incurred in connection therewith. The parish of Sealand is in the rural district of Hawarden and the council are the authorised distributors in their own area. The Commissioners see no reason to continue the powers of the Chester Corporation to supply in the area of the Hawarden Council. The capital cost to be refunded to the Chester Corporation has, I understand, not been determined; no local inquiry has been held into the matter; and no further action is proposed.
§ Sir C. CAYZERDoes not the Minister consider in this case that the unnecessary displacement of a perfectly satisfactory existing supply could not possibly promote the interests of the public?
§ Mr. PYBUSI have answered the hon. Baronet's question at great length. He is well aware that this is a complex and almost historic difference of opinion. I am not justified in taking up the time of 1638 the House in endeavouring to explain it any further.