HC Deb 05 October 1944 vol 403 cc1268-72
Mr. Silkin

I beg to move, in page 27, line 32, to leave out from "imposed," to end of line 33, and to insert: reasonable compensation for any damage sustained by him by reason of such extinguishment or imposition. (9) Any question as to the right of a person carrying on a statutory undertaking to recover compensation under this section or as to the amount thereof shall, unless the authority or Minister concerned and the person carrying on the undertaking otherwise agree, be referred to and determined by an official arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. Provided that—

  1. (a) in assessing such compensation no regard shall be had to any decrease in the net receipts of the undertaking attributable to a reduction in the number of persons or properties served by the undertaking or to an alteration in the uses of land where such reduction or alteration arises out of action taken by the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, under this Part of this Act;
  2. 1269
  3. (b) there shall be set off against the amount of compensation otherwise payable any benefit accruing to the person carrying on the undertaking directly attributable to any adjustment of the carrying on of the undertaking rendered necessary by or resulting from the action of the authority or the Minister, as the case may be, giving rise to the claim for compensation."
This is a very complicated Amendment and I will do my very best to make it clear and simple. This Clause deals with the extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers. It permits a local authority to close a street or to require a statutory undertaker to cease erecting, continuing and maintaining any apparatus under the street or over it. In other words, it authorises the local authority to interfere to a certain extent with the apparatus of statutory undertakings, and it provides compensation to statutory undertakers in Sub-section (8) of the Clause as provided in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. The local authorities take the view that the compensation laid down in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill is inappropriate to the purposes of this Clause, and they have set out an alternative method of paying compensation. That is the Amendment. I do not desire at this stage to argue the merits of the Amendment as against the Fourth Schedule, although I am prepared to do it if the Committee wish me to do so. In view of what I wish to say later, however, perhaps it will not be necessary.

6.30 p.m.

This interference with the rights of statutory undertakers is, of course, not a new thing. It arises frequently in connection with housing operations, and in the Housing Act of 1936 the method of assessing compensation has been laid down. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General, when giving a reply, can explain why the methods adopted in the Housing Act have not been provided in this case. In other cases, particularly in the case of private improvement Acts, there is always a specific provision as to the method of compensating statutory undertakers in respect of interference, but I am advised that never in any of these cases has compensation been provided on the generous lines laid down in the Fourth Schedule. Particularly, statutory undertakers have never been compensated hitherto in respect of interference with their appliances on the basis of loss of receipts, and that is a thing to which the local authorities par- ticularly object. I understand that my hon. Friend the learned Solicitor-General has taken a considerable interest in this matter and has had discussions with the statutory undertakers as to the basis of compensation to be provided in this Bill. Unfortunately, he has not had similar conversations with the people who will have to pay the compensation. That is a rather unfortunate omission, because they are somewhat interested parties. Moreover, it seems as if he has not entirely satisfied even his statutory undertakers, because I see they too have an Amendment on the Paper dealing with compensation.

This is a very technical and difficult matter, and I do not think it is entirely appropriate to discuss the details at this stage. In order to save time I would make this suggestion to my right hon. Friend. Will he, between now and the Report stage, give the representatives of the local authorities, and possibly myself as sponsor of this Amendment, the opportunity of having a talk with him on the whole question of the basis of compensation to statutory undertakers? Perhaps I should also mention that the same thing applies to Clauses 29 and 30 of this Bill. Will he give an undertaking that he will inform the Minister and that appropriate Amendments will be introduced into the Bill? In order to put things right, my hon. Friend who is moving an Amendment on behalf of the statutory undertakings must do the same so that the status quo is preserved. If the Solicitor-General can give an assurance that he will take into full consideration the representations of the local authorities in this matter I shall be most happy to withdraw my Amendment.

The Solicitor-General

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) for the most constructive suggestion that he has put forward. He knows better than most the difficulties that lie in the way for anyone who is trying, for the first time, to bring statutory undertakers within a planning structure. I will not attempt to prove that by reference to past Acts which are well known to many Members. Statutory undertakers with their Parliamentary powers and Parliamentary protection, and also owing to the fact that they are practically never locally restricted—the undertaking is nation wide and, therefore, involves many other localities—are in a particularly difficult position. I welcome the opportunity of discussing the difficulties and hearing the point of view of my hon. Friend and I am very happy to give him the assurance that I shall gladly meet him and report our conversation with the greatest fullness and detail to my right hon. Friend

Captain Duncan

I do not in any way wish to object to the suggestion that conversations should go on, but I would like to point out that statutory undertakers have certain privileges by Acts of Parliament. They also have certain duties to perform in their localities, and their rates of remuneration are fixed by Parliament. They should have the sympathy of Parliament when we are considering any alteration in the law. Statutory undertakers, whether supplying gas, water or electricity, have to plan in advance of what they want immediately. They have to look forward to the day when their areas may be further developed, and there may be the necessity for an extension of their plant or network. If land is to be taken from them it would upset their whole programme, and it is only right that fair compensation should be given. I therefore hope that the Solicitor-General will bear in mind the point of view of the statutory undertakers.

The Solicitor-General

I do not desire to occupy the time of the Committee with personal matters but as Chairman of an Inter-Departmental Committee I have already seen every statutory undertaker and have spent hours getting their points of view. I think my hon. and gallant Friend may take it that their points of view have been fully put, but I am anxious that they, the local authorities, and my right hon. Friend should be successfully tripartitely wedded.

Mr. Silkin

I am sure that the Solicitor-General is well able to look after himself against me, and does not need the support of the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan). In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.