Proposed Transmitter: Bearley (Hansard, 19 July 1984)

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, the public inquiry provided a full opportunity for the investigation of the proposal and the Secretary of State is confident that the inspector's report will provide him with an account of all the relevant arguments for and against it. He has no reason to depart from the normal procedure of publishing the report with his decision. In short, the answer to my noble friend's question is, no.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, following that very disappointing reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the fact that in matters of this particular kind, raising national issues in respect of a place of national importance, Parliament also has a right to be consulted before, rather than after, the decision has been taken?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, my right honourable friend is not convinced that this is an issue of national importance in the way that the Windscale inquiry, for example, was. If my right honourable friend were to publish the inspector's report before reaching his decision, that would merely encourage those who disagree with the inspector's conclusion to seek to reopen the argument. It would, in turn, require all parties to the public inquiry to be given the opportunity to comment on any new evidence produced. Since there has already been held a wide-ranging public local inquiry at which it was open to anyone to seek to give evidence, my right honourable friend sees no justification for a further public debate that might in turn lead to a reopening of the public inquiry with all the delays that would be involved.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said about national importance, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government are aware that this proposed transmitter is of vital importance to the BBC's external services in their broadcasts to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, if they are to maintain audibility for Britain's voice?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
Yes, my Lords; this is, of course, one of the points that will have been taken into account by the inspector. All of us will read with interest what he has to say on the matter when the report is finally published after my right honourable friend has made his decision. When I talked about matters of national importance, I meant, of course, in the planning context.

Lord Morris
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that to use in the Question the term "massive…complex" is somewhat misleading in this context, bearing in mind that, in terms of transmitting power, the proposed transmitting station at Bearley will be the smallest of all the five transmitting stations of the BBC's external services?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I have not the least idea of the answer to that question. My noble friend may be right, or he may be wrong. I am quite convinced that the answer to it will be found in the inspector's report.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that whether the decision is made before or after a parliamentary debate, the principle remains the same—that the BBC is in urgent need of a first-class transmitter in order that its excellent services may be fully audible, that the transmitter must be built with minimum damage to the environment and to other people's electrical installations, and that the decision should be made with the cost as not the primary basis, but the secondary basis?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, again, the noble Lord might be absolutely correct. We shall await the inspector's report with interest. If my right honourable friend were to publish the report before coming to a decision on the matter, that would, in effect, produce an appeal against the inspector's recommendation. That, again, would be an undesirable precedent, with repercussions on our entire planning system. I remain unconvinced of the justification for proceeding in any other way.

§ Lord Nugent of Guildford
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in assessing the importance of this subject, the theatre at Stratford-on-Avon should be regarded as not only a national institution of importance, but also an institution of international importance? People come from all over the world to the theatre there. Is he aware that strong evidence shows that the interference in the theatre would be very significant from this transmitting station being set up just outside Stratford? Therefore, does he appreciate that this is a matter of very major artistic significance not only to us in this country, but to the world generally? Will my noble friend kindly take that dimension on board and pass it on to his right honourable friend?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I accept, of course, that the theatre at Stratford-on-Avon is of international importance. But this was one of the factors that led my right honourable friend, although he had no need to do so, because the site in question is Crown land, to set up 1623 a local public inquiry in the first place. As regards any possible technical aspects, my right honourable friend also had a scientific assessor sitting alongside the inspector so that those matters could be properly evaluated.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while it would be possible for the Royal Shakespeare Theatre to be put out of action as a result of this—

Noble Lords
No.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
Indeed, that is so. I do not wish to spend time upon this, but it must be accepted by noble Lords that evidence, whether it was right or wrong, was given to the inquiry by the Royal Shakespeare Company and other people suggesting that the lighting equipment and several other items of electronic equipment that the Royal Shakespeare Theatre uses would be put out of business by the very powerful 300 kilowatt transmitter, consisting of five masts 300 feet high. One does not wish to go into all these details, but having regard to them, and to the fact that three other sites are available to the BBC, as well as to the fact that you cannot take up the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and move it somewhere else, is this not a case for a public inquiry and examination in this House before the decision is made?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has misunderstood what I said earlier. What I said was that, although there was no statutory need for a planning inquiry, my right honourable friend thought that a planning inquiry was appropriate in this case. The planning inquiry has now been held, and my right honourable friend is awaiting the inspector's report. As to the technical matters to which the noble Lord referred, yes, evidence to that effect was given at the inquiry.

§ Lord Bancroft
My Lords, will the noble Lord cast his mind back to the terms of his original Answer and confirm that it constitutes an acceptance of the proposition that the sequence of decision, publication and debate of planning inquiry reports is governed by convention and not by statute, and that that sequence can be varied according to the dictates of fairness and common sense? Secondly, will the noble Lord cast his mind forward and confirm that the Government have intimated that the report of the Sizewell inquiry will be debated before a Government decision is reached? Thirdly, will he cast his mind back to the late 1970s and confirm that the then Secretary of State for the Environment took steps to ensure that there was a debate on the Windscale issue before a Government decision was reached? Finally—

Noble Lords
No.

§ Lord Bancroft
Finally, would he agree that a matter of national importance is a subjective issue?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I have already referred briefly, in a previous answer, to Windscale. But the Sizewell inquiry is, of course, still in progress.
1624 The Government recognise the public interest in the wide-ranging issues raised by the application of the CEGB to build a pressurised water reactor. The question of a debate will be a matter for the usual channels at the appropriate time. As to the noble Lord's conclusions that he drew from my original Answer, yes, I confirm that the procedure that has been established has become a normal form and that there is nothing statutory about it.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate, from the questions that have been put to him, the very widespread concern there is about this proposal and its impact on Stratford? Does he also appreciate that while everybody wants to ensure that the BBC gets a good, and a technically efficient, site for its most important transmissions, this proposal raises such serious public issues that it is quite wrong to exclude Parliament until a decision has been taken?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I accept that my noble friend has put forward a point of view, with which I must confess I do not agree. I should have thought that the logic of the tenor of the questions, both today and when I answered a similar question a fortnight or so ago, is that the House either does not trust the objectors to present their case thoroughly, or does not trust the inspector to make a fair report, or, as a last resort, does not trust my right honourable friend to come to the correct conclusion.

§ Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as the former Member of Parliament for Stratford-upon-Avon I was responsible for persuading the then Secretary of State for the Environment to set up this public inquiry? Is he aware that in doing so I was seeking to strike a fair balance between the legitimate apprehensions of my constituents and what seemed to me the very great urgency for the BBC to acquire a high-powered transmitter for its overseas services? Is he aware that I thought that what I was doing was submitting this proposal to a technical inquiry, to be followed by a quasi-judicial decision by the Secretary of State? It did not occur to me that this would become a matter of parliamentary debate between the submission of the report and the decision. I should have thought that it was better to leave this to the normal procedure.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps he can exercise his powers of persuasion continuously, rather than just on the original occasion.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the dangerous statement that he made in answer to the supplementary question before the last one? Is it suggested that Parliament, by carrying out its proper duty of examining anything which is in the public interest, does not have trust in either the officials or the Ministers of the day? Does giving that kind of an answer indicate that there is some conflict of view as to what are our various functions?

§ Lord Skelmersdale
No, my Lords; I do not think it is right for me to reconsider the answer I gave earlier, because what I was saying was that with that logic, as 1625 I see it, in view, it is not right to change the procedure which normally is adopted on these occasions.