Power Stations and Overhead Lines (Hansard, 15 February 1988)

§ 1. Mr. Morgan
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received on Statutory Instrument (S.I., 1987, 2182) on the "Rules of Guidance for Public Inquiries into new Power Stations and Overhead Lines", since it was laid before the House on 18 December 1987; and if he will make a statement.

§ The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)
In addition to the report by the Select Committee on Energy, I have received two representations from the public on this matter.

§ Mr. Morgan
Does the Secretary of State agree that if nuclear power deserved even half the affection lavished on it by the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, proposed new power stations, such as Hinkley Point C—which will probably be the first subject of the public inquiry rules which are being promulgated under the statutory instrument — would be able to withstand a comprehensive and proper public inquiry, not one whose rules are rigged in favour of the CEGB?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It was the Select Committee on the Environment that suggested that the rules should be modernised, and that was in 1985–86, long before Hinkley Point was first thought of.

§ Mr. Colvin
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the object of changing the rules is to speed up public inquiries, and that the Sizewell B inquiry took far too long? Will he also confirm that the public inquiry into Hinkley Point C should take less than half as long as the Sizewell B inquiry, in which three quarters of the time was spent on discussing the PWR? Those arguments are already concluded, and the only question that arises from the Hinkley Point C application is the environmental one.

§ Mr. Parkinson
My hon. Friend is right. The inquiry at Hinkley Point will, in theory, reconsider some of the ground that was gone over during the Sizewell B inquiry. I stress, however, that the Government have no intention of shortening the inquiry or preventing objectors from having a say. We want a more orderly and comprehensive form of inquiry, which is what the Select Committee said was needed.

§ Mr. Eadie
How does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the charge that the rules were slipped through two days before the Christmas recess and that no press release was issued — which was very mysterious, because the Department of Energy works through press releases? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make clear to the people and Parliament that all this is not contrary to the public interest and that rights have not been taken away?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I repeat that a Select Committee of the House has said that public inquiries were too long and complex and were unfair to the objectors. It was because of the wishes of objectors, among others, that the new rules were introduced. The hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on a wholly fallacious point.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
Does my right hon. Friend agree that all those who want a public inquiry to be a genuine inquiry, rather than a restatement of entrenched positions, will welcome the rules of guidance? Will he confirm that the provision against irrelevant or repetitious statements should enable the Hinkley Point inquiry, which will take place in my county of Somerset, to concentrate on aspects that are relevant to Somerset and to that site, rather than allow a four-year re-run of the Layfield inquiry into a similar power station in Suffolk?

§ Mr. Parkinson
I believe that the Hinkley Point C inquiry should be comprehensive. I am afraid that, post-Chernobyl, there will be a re-run of some of the Sizewell arguments, but I do not think anyone stands to gain if the appeal procedure is used as a way of preventing decisions. That was never the intention of inquiries. We want a full inquiry, but we do not want a tedious, repetitious inquiry, in which people use the inquiry procedure to prevent a decision being made.