§
Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 46, at end insert new Clause B:
(1) Every application for the consent or authorisation of the Minister under paragraph (b) of section ten of the Schedule of 1899 (in this section referred to as 'section ten (b)')—
(2) Where such an application made by an Electricity Board states that all necessary way-leaves have not been agreed as mentioned in paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, the Minister, if he thinks fit, may give notice to the Board that he does not propose to proceed with the application until he is satisfied, with respect to all the land over which wayleaves have not been agreed, that the Board have taken such action on their part as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section forty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926 (which enables applications for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) and applications in respect of
567
wayleaves to be taken concurrently); and where the Minister gives such a notice under this subsection—
(3) Where an application for consent or authorisation under section ten (b) states that all necessary wayleaves have not been agreed, but the Minister does not proceed concurrently as mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section forty-four, the Minister, if he gives his consent or authorisation under section ten (b), may give it subject to the condition (either in respect of the whole of the line or in respect of any part of it specified in the consent or authorisation) that the work is not to proceed until the Minister gives his permission; and in determining at any time whether to give permission for the work to proceed, either generally or in respect of a part of the line, the Minister—
(4) In the application of this section to Scotland, for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. MaudlingI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a more substantial Amendment which introduces a new idea which I want to explain in some detail. This new Clause concerns all applications for overhead electric lines—excluding service lines to the consumer—which are lines for which the Minister's consent has to be obtained under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule of 1899, to which reference is made in the first subsection.
The first subsection specifies the way in which these applications for consent shall be made—they shall be in writing, there shall be a map, and they shall state whether the necessary wayleaves have been agreed with the owners and occupiers of the land which it is proposed the line should cross. The next two subsections are designed to meet a grievance 568 which has been expressed from time to time. The grievance is to the effect that when the electricity authorities come to ask for a wayleave—to negotiate a way-leave, or, if necessary, to apply for a compulsory wayleave—the owner's position is prejudiced if the Minister has already given planning consent to the line.
It is said that if the Minister has already agreed that the line shall go from A to B, crossing over a certain number of properties, then the position of the owners or occupiers of those properties is prejudiced when it comes to deciding whether the Authority shall have a way-leave to put pylons on the land, or whether a transmission cable shall be allowed to cross that land.
The Clause tries, I think successfully, to meet that objection in two ways. In the first place, in subsection (2) it says that when an application for planning consent to lines of this kind is made to him, the Minister may insist that before he deals with it all the necessary way-leaves shall have been obtained, or, if the wayleaves have not been obtained, that the objections shall have been stated. Under subsection (2) the Minister will be able to say, when an area board applies for planning consent to run a line from A to B, that it must, at the same time, ask him to deal with compulsory way-leaves, if objections have been raised by the people occupying the premises along the route of the line. Therefore, he will be able to deal simultaneously with both planning consents for the line and with any question of compulsory wayleaves which may have to be granted for sections of that line.
It should be an administrative improvement to conflate the two processes and it will be an advantage to the owner or occupier, because his objection will be heard simultaneously with any objections to planning consent to the erection of the lines. I should make it perfectly clear that this procedure can apply only in fairly limited circumstances. Clearly, it would not apply to very long transmission lines, because so many people might be involved.
When one is considering planning consent for a considerable length of line, so many routes may be involved that it may be impossible to say in the planning consent how many people may be asked 569 to grant wayleaves, or how many applications may be made for wayleaves over individual properties on the possible routes over which the line may travel. This procedure of conflating a wayleave consideration with planning consent will probably apply most of all to short transmission lines from power stations, feeding into the grid, and possibly also to distribution lines of the area boards.
Provision for the longer main transmission lines is made in subsection (3). In those circumstances, if all the necessary wayleaves have not been obtained, the Minister need not say that planning consent must await the wayleaves. He can give planning consent, but not permit a particular section of line to go ahead until he is satisfied that wayleaves can be granted. The effect of that will be that the Minister will be able to insist that approval for the necessary way leaves will proceed some way ahead of the actual construction of the line.
4.30 p.m.
The thought behind that is that people say—with some justice—that if the line is run absolutely up to their properties and they then say, "We do not want the line to run over our property," their position is a little prejudiced by reason of the fact that the line is already on their border and the cost of diverting it will probably be considerable. We want to see that people who object to wayleaves being granted are able to object before the line has advanced to the point at which their objections will be prejudiced.
The purpose of subsection (3) is to enable the Minister to phase the physical progress of the transmission line with the legal process of obtaining the wayleaves, so that the electricity authorities have a few miles in hand, and so that nobody is faced with the position where the line is right up against his land and his objection is thereby prejudiced. That is the purpose of the Clause, which is basically intended to deal with the fairly general feeling that individual owners and occupiers may be prejudiced in their objections to the granting of wayleaves, either because the Minister's planning consent has already been given or because the line has advanced so near to their property that a diversion around it will be too expensive for the authorities to contemplate or for the Minister to feel able to give his permission to it.
570 I believe that the Clause meets the point which these people have in mind. I do not think that the new procedure will lay any burden upon the authorities or the Department which will hinder or slow down the progress or development of these overhead lines.
§ Mr. PalmerWe could hardly complain about the Clause in view of the fact that its principle at least was suggested by a Member of this party in the other place. It seems generally sensible and, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it certainly goes quite a long way towards meeting a substantial grievance on the part of property owners when electricity authorities propose to extend their lines. We therefore support the Clause in general.
But I would like to put one point to the right hon. Gentleman. Does this mean that the Minister or his representatives are now open to be questioned in this House on every such proposal, where their responsibility is involved? It may be that I should not put that question to the right hon. Gentleman, but he may have some views upon it. There is also one further point. We are all in favour of greater protection being given to owners of property, in the interests of amenity—and that point of view has been widely expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the other place but we now run the risk of the pendulum swinging a little too far in the other direction. We must be a little careful about the matter.
When we discussed the question in Committee upstairs, where the question of consent to electricity works was first raised, I understood that it was the intention—I give the Government credit for it to speed up power station and transmission line projects. It may be that the net effect of these changes will be rather in the opposite direction, and will slow these projects down. I just put that thought to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is satisfied on the point.
Only the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, drawing attention to the loss of electricity supply in many parts of the country due to the recent thunderstorms and lightening disturbances. The point 571 which my hon. Friend very reasonably made was that the electricity authorities should provide more alternative sources of supply. If the authorities are to do that kind of thing, and extend their lines to give a greater reliability of supply, it is not much good having a procedure which is so cumbersome and is likely to stand in the way of their doing something on these lines.
§ Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)We must be careful before we accept this proposal, despite the fact that it was moved by a member of my party in another place. I say that particularly in view of the fact that there is a further Amendment on the Notice Paper which I shall vote against later on, namely, the new Clause C.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) has said, the Clause now under discussion changes the whole question of the Minister's responsibility. As I see it, as a result of the insertion of the Clause it will be quite in order for the Minister to be questioned here, and for the Minister of Power to be questioned in another place, in connection with every single wayleave to which objection is taken and to which hon. Members may be referred by their constituents. I do not think that we can run an industry of this character if that procedure is followed.
Unless assurances are given by the Minister in this respect, in view of the necessity for a practical and efficient working of the electricity supply I shall certainly vote against the Clause. I am reinforced in my view by the foolish and inane later Clause to which I have already referred, and which it would be out of order to discuss now. We must have assurances from the Minister before we accept the Clause.
§ Mr. MaudlingTwo very important points have been raised by hon. Members opposite. First, I do not think that the Clause will make any difference to the degree to which the decisions of the Minister are open to question in this House or in another place. Application already has to be made to the Minister under Section 10 (b) of the Schedule to the 1899 Act, and the Clause in no way affects the authority and responsibility of the Minister for giving or withholding 572 planning consent. The Clause makes him no more and no less accountable to this House than he was under the 1899 Act. The Clause, in effect, is concerned not with the decisions which the Minister makes but the procedure adopted before he makes those decisions, and the circumstances in which he makes them.
§ Mr. HobsonIt is all very well for the Minister to say that, but the position is not quite so simple. In view of what he says, if we are not satisfied with the ways and means in which these wayleaves have been asked for, and our constituents complain to us about them, in view of the Minister's statement at the Box just now it will be quite in order for us to question him. Therefore, the logic of my argument follows, namely, that we shall be able to raise the question of every single objection to a wayleave that is put forward.
§ Mr. MaudlingIf that will be true in the future it was equally true of the past. My point is that the Minister has to decide whether to grant these wayleaves in every case in which his consent has to be asked, and if he were subject to challenge in Parliament in the past over his decision in regard to any wayleave he will be no more and no less responsible to Parliament in future. The Clause does not affect the liability of ministerial decisions being challenged in this House.
My own impression—speaking rather off the cuff—is that if the Minister gives a planning decision he is always liable to be questioned in this House as to why he made that decision. That has always been so, I would have thought, and it is probably only a matter of practice that he has not so been asked. But there is nothing in the Clause which will make Ministers' decisions upon wayleave procedure any more subject to challenge in this House in the future than they were in the past.
I very much share the fears of both hon. Members opposite about the possible delay. I am very worried about this. Half way through the Committee proceedings we started trying to speed up the procedure, and everyone was in favour of that in principle. Having produced some ideas, however, we found that no one liked the ideas. It is rather like Government economy; everyone is 573 in favour of economy in general, but nobody likes it in particular. In the Bill as it left this House we introduced certain improvements to speed up the procedure. Too often however, people think that this matter is very simple, and that we can have electricity supplies without the erection of power stations and of transmission lines. It is bunkum to think that. It is an attitude which colours the minds of too many people.
Much of the opposition to the erection of power stations and transmission lines comes from people who already have an electricity supply. They should remember that if we are to be able to supply electricity to every part of the country, we must be able to produce it and carry it. I am, therefore, grateful to both hon. Members for underlining what should be underlined more often, namely, that although we are anxious to preserve the amenities of this island—and I know how anxious and how sensible the electricity authorities are in this matter—we cannot have electricity distributed without pylons and transmission lines. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing that out.
With that background, and having looked at the proposed new Clause, I am satisfied that it will not slow down procedures. I hope that, in practice, it may speed them up a little. By putting together two stages, planning consent and the granting of wayleaves, subsection (2) may enable us to speed up a little. The Clause is designed to meet a legitimate cause of grievance by owners and occupiers of property. After some consideration, I am satisfied that it will not hold up the development of the electricity supply system. For those reasons, I hope that the House will be prepared to agree to the Lords Amendment.
§ Question put and agreed to.