HC Deb 20 April 1953 vol 514 cc627-9
13. Mr. Snow

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will inquire into the circumstances in which a public inquiry into the routing of the Drakelow-Smethwick overhead cable was delayed from May, 1952, when objections were first lodged by certain Elford, Staffordshire, farmers, to 8th January, 1953.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd

The British Electricity Authority applied to me for consent to a compulsory wayleave on 18th December and the inquiry was held on 8th January. There was, therefore, no undue delay.

Mr. Snow

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although objections were lodged in May at the request of the officials concerned, during the period from May, 1952, to 8th January, work was begun on the interim route to which objection had been taken, thereby prejudicing the whole case of the farmers concerned? Does he consider that this was just?

Mr. Lloyd

I was not aware about work having begun, but I will make inquiries into that. I think there is some confusion between objections that were made to the British Electricity Authority, and the endeavours of the Authority to meet these objections. This went on between May and December, which is the normal process of negotiation between two parties. In December, B.E.A. decided to ask for an inquiry with regard to a compulsory wayleave, and it was on that that there was no delay. The two processes are distinct.

Mr. Snow

Will the Minister look into the question of work being started after objections had been lodged?

Mr. Lloyd

Yes, Sir.

14. Mr. Snow

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what information was laid before his inspector as to the additional sum involved in routing the new Drakelow-Smethwick overhead cable in such a way as to avoid Catton Hall, Staffordshire.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd

No proposal to bring the line over Catton Hall was made before my inspector, but the representative of one of the objectors suggested a straighter route to the west of Catton Hall. This route went too near the approach to an aerodrome and involved some difficult construction in the river valley. Moreover, the planning authority considered a line to the west unsightly. My inspector informs me that he considers that there would have been no significant difference in cost.

Mr. Snow

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the direct line would have gone some several hundred yards to the west of Catton Hall? Although I have no desire to alter the beauty of the scenic effects of this house and the locality, is he aware that the line now proposed goes on the skyline and is much more a danger to aircraft?

Mr. Lloyd

I am not aware of that personally, but I am informed that the alternative proposal would have meant that the Air Ministry would have insisted on taking the line at a lower level than the normal.

15. Mr. Snow

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what inquiries were made by his inspector into the methods by which consent for part of the proposed overhead cable from Drakelow to Smethwick was obtained from certain tenants and owners in the Elford District; and if, in this connection, he will examine correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd

Such inquiries are not among the duties of an inspector appointed to inquire into an application for consent to a compulsory wayleave and no such inquiries were made. I will write to the hon. Member about the correspondence which he has sent to me.

Mr. Snow

While realising this also hinges on the answer given to Question No. 13, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that officials, presumably, in this case, B.E.A. officials, secured consent in a way which is open to very great criticism and is the subject of the correspondence I sent to the Minister? Will he inquire from B.E.A. as to the method in which these consents were obtained?

Mr. Lloyd

I will inquire.