| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Barron : We shall still have steam plumes no matter what type of generation is used. The test is to be found in Her Majesty's inspectors' standards laid down for any environmental assessment of the plant. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that similar tests are laid down in respect of any form of power station to be built under the current EEC directives--and no doubt under more directives in future.
As with so many aspects of the Bill, the energy and environmental implications have given us cause for concern, especially in view of the absence of any debate about the direction in which the electricity generating industry in Britain is going following the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The country is worth more than that. These major issues should have been debated. I
Column 235
am sure that many members of the Select Committee on Energy would agree that they are of national importance and that they merit debate rather than silence. It is no good the Government dodging major issues that will affect future decisions, even though they were quite happy to sell off the industries to make sure that they made money for the Treasury.As I said when we first debated the Bill, it would be with reluctance that we would give permission for the stations to be built. No one thinks, however, that that will not be done. If there is a vote tonight on Third Reading, the Labour party will not be opposing it ; we have never said that we would. We have opposed the absence of a strategic and sensible national debate, which the Government have dodged. When we are in government, one of the first things that we do will be to give Conservative Members, who will be on the Opposition Benches, the opportunity to get involved in such debates which are, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth said, of major national importance.
9.35 pm
Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow) : I apologise to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) because I was not in the Chamber to hear all of his speech. However, I agree that we should have a post-privatisation debate on the power supply industry. That is a very good idea. I should at this point declare that I am a fellow elect of the Industry and Parliamentary Trust, doing my attachment with National Power.
We have heard and are still hearing a lot of dark mutterings from some sections of the Labour party about what they call the Government's hidden agenda. All sorts of things have been read into the Bill and there have been comments attached to it about an abuse of procedure, but the Bill should not be made to bear that burden. It is merely an attempt to amend a small and insignificant Act of 1905. If one wishes to change the law, one must pass a law to do so. The statute of 1905 was passed some time ago, but that does not alter the fact that it is still in force today just as much as if it had been passed only yesterday and just as much as a statute from 1500 is still in force today.
We have discussed such matters as thermal efficiency. It is certain that a combined cycle gas turbine power station which has a thermal efficiency of about 50 per cent. will be far less polluting and far more efficient than a conventional coal-fired power station, which has a thermal efficiency of only about 35 per cent.
I recently visited a power station in East Germany. It was supposed to be a state-of-the-art power station but when I asked the operators about its thermal efficiency, at first they could not tell me. They went to find out and then told me with great pride in their voices that it operated at a thermal efficiency of 26 per cent. I think that they were rather surprised when I was not exactly bowled over. The new power stations do not operate on either wind or hydro-electricity--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is moving towards a reference to the Bill.
Mr. Summerson : I should certainly not have mentioned that if I had thought that you were going to rule me out of
Column 236
order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had intended to move on from the alternative sources of power to the gasification of coal in the sea. That ideal would answer many of the issues raised by members of the Opposition, who seem to think that gas-fired power stations and coal- fired power stations are mutually exclusive, which need not necessarily be so. If the technology that I have mentioned is developed, as I am sure that it will be, power stations such as Killingholme will be powered not by natural gas from the North sea but by gas from the coalfields. I am sure that most people would agree that that would be a fit and proper use for coal.As we all know, the real purpose of the Bill is to enable the laying of pipes in the estuary of the Humber. When I last visited the Humber--indeed, whenever I have visited the Humber--I have never thought it an especially attractive piece of water. The waters of the Humber hardly sparkle. The laying of pipes in or under the estuary may improve its rather dismal look and may even improve the various varieties of wildlife which flourish in and around the Humber estuary. There will be some effect-- [Interruption.] I am enjoying standing here talking to myself. Some slight raising of the temperature in the waters of the Humber may be a good thing. The Bill may have that effect when it becomes law.
The mussels in the Humber will improve their growth once they feel the tingling effect of the slight warming of the rather dull and murky waters of the Humber. The Bill will produce a great improvement all round and I have no hesitation in saying that I support it. 9.40 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh (Doncaster, North) : The abuse of planning permission as a result of the Bill is very important. That aspect involves all of us. Local authorities and communities should be involved in planning. Hon. Members may say that it is a minor detail, but the Bill abuses the right of the planning authority.
Part III concerns lands and refers to such new rights "as they may require" over any of the lands. That means that almost anything can be done on the land. Clause 20(3) says :
"References in this section to rights over land include references to the right to do, or to place and maintain, anything in, on or under the land or in the airspace above its surface."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, that means that there may be plans for other development. The Bill will give the relevant bodies permission to do anything that they desire under the ground in the given area.
Although this is a private Bill, it seems that all Conservative Members support it. The Bill may be used to allow something else, such as nuclear dumping, and people will say that the Bill was passed by the House. The Bill says :
"on or under the land or in the airspace above its surface." This must be the only country that gives permission for anyone who owns land to do anything in the airspace above. In America, a great place of enterprise, someone who erects a building does not own the airspace above it. One can sell the building, but one cannot do what one likes in the airspace above it.
The provisions in clause 20 are deplorable. They may be a small matter, but they are important to people involved in planning. The people who are supposed to own the land
Column 237
now could sell it or other people might buy them out. They would have a golden opportunity to do anything that they desired below the ground, on the ground or above the ground without going through any planning procedures. That is not right. I believe in local government and local planning so that the individuals concerned and the community can study proposed developments.I have pointed out what is being asked for in the Bill and, if the Bill is passed, it will be what Conservative Members have deemed their sole desire. I do not think that environmentalists will like that, but I do not know. Conservative Members are not bothered about the environment--many of them could not care less about it. That is their choice and I am not criticising it. However, our choice is to be bothered about the environment and we should like to know what is happening. We should also like the local planning committee and the local community to know what is happening so that they can hold inquiries before planning permission is given. If Conservative Members are not bothered about the local community or planning matters, that is okay--there is nothing wrong with that. Their love of private enterprise means that they overrule anything that happens outside the Chamber. That is okay if it is their wish and desire. They are the Government and they can do it. However, I am afraid that individuals outside the House may disagree with Conservative Members on occasions and may even disagree with them on important matters. I turn now to the way in which the Bill deals with land. Clause 21 begins :
"If the deposited plans or the deposited book of reference are inaccurate".
That means that if the applicants--the faceless ones--have produced something that is inaccurate, even with all the money at their disposal, they will still be protected. Such an undertaking should not be allowed to produce inaccurate plans, but it has covered itself if it does so. If the House agrees to that, it is agreeing to inefficiency. Again, I am not condemning that because if you believe in inefficiency--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not bring me into this.
Mr. Welsh : With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not mean to do so and I apologise.
If Conservative Members believe in inefficiency, so be it. I am not complaining about that. They can condone inefficiency, but the Opposition do not and we have no intention of doing so.
Clause 21 also refers to what would happen if those responsible "are inaccurate in their description of any land, or in their statement or description of the ownership or occupation of any land".
In such circumstances, the company may apply for a correction. The promoters have paid for this country's greatest expertise, but they are asking to be excused if they are wrong. How terribly nice. I find that unbelievable and deplorable, but it is part of the Bill-- [Interruption.] Well, I am reading from the Bill. I may be wrong, but I do not think so.
Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : Does my hon. Friend agree that if the planning suggestions contained in the Bill were put to a local planning committee, they would be thrown out?
Column 238
Mr. Welsh : As my hon. Friend says, such suggestions would be thrown out ; or if the council was Labour, it would discuss the plans with the applicant to try to come to some amicable agreement. That is what a Labour council would do and that is what good planning is all about, but the Bill is not about good planning.
To return to clause 21, if the plans are inaccurate, the provisions refer to
"the appropriate company after giving not less than 10 days' notice to the owner, lessee and occupier of the land in question may apply to two justices having jurisdiction in the place where the land is situated for the correction thereof."
The 10-days provision is fair enough, but we are talking about a democracy. Anything that is passed in the House is important, irrespective of to whom it applies. I know that you are smiling, but I also know that many of your hon. Friends who are landowners go away for a month
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that all hon. Members are my hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman must not keep bringing me into these matters.
Mr. Welsh : I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many individuals on both sides of the House go away for a month. The matter comes up within 10 days. Indeed, some people go away for three months. I do not criticise them for that. The best of British luck to them. Sometimes they go to the Caribbean, a place that I do not claim to know. However, the time is limited. That is the issue. The matter should be open all round. That is to ask for nothing but democracy.
Mr. Moss : I am almost loth to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flow. He talks about democracy. If he continues, he will have read the whole Bill out to us. Is he aware that in the Committee stage on 27 March no Labour Member attended, no amendments were tabled and the Bill went through in record time on the nod ? If the Labour party is so incensed about the Bill, why did it not participate in the democratic process ?
Mr. Eadie : I hope that when my hon. Friend answers that point he will bear in mind that, although the Bill is supposed to be a private Bill, time without number throughout its stages we have seen the payroll vote wheeled in. There has been an official vote on the Bill. How can the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) talk about democracy when the use of the payroll vote has been an abuse of democracy ?
Mr. Welsh : My hon. Friend is correct. If you use the payroll vote to steamroll a private Bill through the House, you cannot expect Opposition Members to treat it with anything but contempt. That is what it is about. If you allow complete freedom, there would be more democracy in this Chamber and that would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Another important point arises from clause 22 and compensation claims. You talk about backing two horses in a two-horse race. If the Bill becomes an Act, any private individual who has a small factory and employs three or four men would not be able to extend that factory one bit but would receive no compensation. When you give permission, as you most probably will, people will probably be told three years before construction starts. A man in private enterprise might think, "I have got a good thing going here. I will employ another 10 men. There are
Column 239
8,000 unemployed in the area." If he then cannot extend his factory, he will receive no compensation. Compensation is paid only when the Bill is enacted.Mr. Eadie : My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I find it difficult to understand one matter. I wonder whether my hon. Friend can correct or assist me. I understand that it was a Tory Government way back in the 1950s who amended the Land Acts to the effect that one paid only the value--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. It is difficult to find any connection between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and the Bill.
Mr. Eadie : With all due respect, it is my fault and not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend was making a point about values and how they will be affected by the power station that is being built. My hon. Friend asserts that owners of adjacent land will suffer a loss. As I understand it, an Act away in the 1950s changed the basis for assessing the value of land from the existing use to the value at that particular time.
An existing use facility in, say, an area resembling a desert would warrant a small amount of compensation, but if the value of the land became enhanced, the value of the existing use would increase substantially. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal in more detail with the question of the value of land and existing use, remembering that land with no value--
Mr. Soames : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are some hon. Members who hold strong views on this issue, who have attended the debates on the Bill through thick and thin and who have listened to all the arguments today. We are being forced to listen to unadulterated claptrap from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). Disguised as a point of order, his remarks plainly amount to a speech. We crave the protection of the Chair for the rights of Back Benchers who have something to say other than the filibustering that is now taking place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I understood that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), to whom reference has been made, was intervening and not making a point of order. I reproached him, and he then volunteered the point that he was making.
Mr. Welsh : My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) makes a vital point. It proves that a business man with a small factory who wishes to expand and to provide more employment may not receive more compensation after extending his factory than he would have otherwise received. That will be the position when you have passed the Bill. You will be depriving--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Not me.
Mr. Welsh : I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government will remove the freedom of choice from employers to extend their works in that way. Conservative Members may not object to freedom of choice being removed. We have no intention of allowing that to happen. In a democracy, freedom of choice is vital.
Pathways run across a great deal of land, but clause 23 begins :
Column 240
"All private rights of way over any land which may be acquired compulsorily under this Act shall be extinguished on the acquisition of the land".In other words, all private rights such as byways--
Mr. Knapman rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House divided : Ayes 228, Noes 104.
Division No. 178] [9.57
AYES
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Alton, David
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Beith, A. J.
Bellingham, Henry
Bellotti, David
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Bowis, John
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Brazier, Julian
Bright, Graham
Browne, John (Winchester)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carr, Michael
Carrington, Matthew
Carttiss, Michael
Cash, William
Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Colvin, Michael
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
| Next Section
| Home Page |