§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if it is intended to publish the report of the inspector who held the public inquiry into the proposed erection of an atomic power station at Trawsfynydd; if not whether they will publish it; and further whether they will delay any ministerial decision until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering the report.]
§ THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS)My Lords, this inquiry was held jointly by inspectors representing my Ministry and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and copies of the report will be made available with the Minister's decision. Parliament has prescribed the procedure for dealing with such cases and has laid the responsibility for a decision upon me, as Minister of Power. The parties to the case have complied with the statutory procedure, and it is now for me to reach a decision as soon as I have considered and taken account of all the relevant factors.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, according to Press reports, the expert evidence given by the representatives of the Atomic Energy Authority at this inquiry on the vital question of public safety was somewhat divergent from the statements which the noble Lord himself has made in your Lordships' House, and that it is therefore thought that they must be the subject of some comment in the report which will be made to the noble Lord by the inspector? May I ask the noble Lord this question: Does he not 282 think, with his considerable and, if he will allow me to say so, well-deserved, reputation for being so jealous of the interests of the general public in matters of safety, that he might be given the opportunity, before he comes to a decision on this matter, to elucidate to Parliament, the divergences between what was stated at the inquiry and what he has stated in your Lordships' House? If there is any other way of doing this, would he please inform the House?
The other question I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. He has said in his reply that there were two inspectors, one his own official conducting the inquiry, and the other an inspector from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Are we to expect two reports or only one? If there is to be only one, how are we to be cognisant of any divergences of view upon the question of amenity between the inspector who sat there, like Tweedledum, and his own official, who officiated as Tweedledee?
§ LORD MILLSMy Lords, with the best will in the world, I find it quite impossible to answer either of the noble Lord's questions, because the report or reports has or have not yet reached me.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWould the noble Lord appreciate the difficulty in which Parliament finds itself?—I am sure he is very conscious of this. Would he take cognisance of this fact: that when he publishes the report, which will be the first time that Parliament will be able to have official cognisance of the evidence and the views of the inspectors, the noble Lord will have made his decision? When noble Lords who are Ministers make decisions, those decisions are very difficult to upset. Does the noble Lord not think that if there is a divergence of evidence between the experts of the Atomic Energy Authority upon this vital question of safety and the noble Lord's statements in this House, he should be provided with the opportunity of clearing them up?
§ LORD MILLSMy Lords, I again find great difficulty in answering what is, I think, a rather hypothetical question. I have not seen the report. I do not know what conflict of evidence there has been. I do not know what my decision will be. Therefore I would rather not anticipate it by trying to look into the future.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWould the noble Lord mind answering the second part of my question, whether there will be two reports from the inspector or only one that will combine the opinions of the two?
§ LORD MILLSMy Lords, I thought I made it clear in answer to the first supplementary question that I was unaware whether there would be one report or two.