Skip to main content

North-East Area

Volume 498: debated on Wednesday 2 April 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

14 and 15.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he will make a further statement on the erection of the small power station at Pontop Pike.

(2) if he will make a further statement on the question of a separate wavelength for the North-East.

There is no immediate prospect of a television station at Pontop Pike so long as the restrictions on capital investment remain. So far as sound broadcasting is concerned, the number of medium waves allotted to this country is not sufficient to permit the use of a separate one for the North-East coast. My noble Friend has recently reexamined the whole question and has announced that this area will receive priority both for a television station and for a very high frequency sound station as soon as the economic situation of the country permits.

With reference to Question 15, has the Assistant Postmaster-General given consideration to the point I made to him on Monday—whether Stagshawe could radiate on 434 metres?

That is one of the wavelengths which is no longer available to this country.

Is the Minister aware that his noble Friend refused the courtesy of giving that answer to a number of hon. Members who requested a meeting with him as far back as 6th December last year?

There is another Question on the Order Paper about that, but I can deal with that point now. My noble Friend did nothing of the sort. He invited a number of Labour Members to meet him and they ref used to do so unless they could meet him alone. He has still offered to meet them alone, and that offer is still open if the hon. Members wish to take advantage of it.

Is the Minister aware that his noble Friend made it a condition that Members of Parliament should tag on to the back end of a local authority deputation before he would meet them, and that he stated categorically that he refused to meet them separately until after the local authority deputation had been met—and then he would only meet them to talk over matters and not to discuss questions of policy?

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is quite misinformed—or rather, he is not misinformed, because he has the letter. The truth is that it was not Members of this House who first asked my noble Friend to meet them; it was members of local authorities, as early as last September. My noble Friend has said quite categorically that he is willing to meet Members of this House and the local authorities, but the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Ewart) and his hon. Friends did not choose to accept that invitation.

On a point of order. Is it in order for my hon. Friend to answer my Question in reply to a supplementary question from the other side of the House?

As this is a matter of interest to the North-East, in which I happen to be interested, may I ask the Minister whether he will not agree that it is customary and traditional in this House, if hon. Members wish to see a Minister, for that Minister ordinarily to see them without their having to be associated with any other body, however interested that body may be? Will he not agree that this is the usual custom?

I am aware that this is the usual custom and it is exactly the custom my noble Friend was prepared to follow. He has invited hon. Members from both sides to meet him, but hon. Members from the other side of the House did not want to go with anybody else and so my noble Friend said he would be quite happy to meet them separately, and he is still prepared to do so.

Do I understand that if I wish to see the Minister's noble Friend in any matter affecting the interests of my constituents, and if he insists that he can only see me when I am in company with somebody else, then I am bound to do as he says?

My noble Friend made no such stipulation. His offer to meet the Labour Members of Parliament, including, we hope, the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), is still open.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of concern in Northern Ireland? Might not a way out of my hon. Friend's difficulties, and out of all the trouble, be to put the transmitter at Stagshawe on the same wavelength as Holme Moss and give us our own frequency in Northern Ireland, solving all the trouble there?

I am given to understand that that is not practically possible. It would produce what is known as a mush area in Durham county.

Was not it showing extreme discourtesy to Members of this House when the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend agreed to meet Labour Members, when that meeting was postponed—

—and the meeting was postponed as a consequence of the King's death; and when, after that time, a request was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward) and local authorities to meet the Minister, the Minister, instead of renewing the date when Labour Members should meet him, attempted to compel the Labour Members to meet him along with the Conservatives and local authority representatives? Is not that extremely discourteous to the House, to say the least?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the correspondence between my noble Friend and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, before he makes such a statement. I think if that correspondence were released to the Press, the conclusions which his constituents would reach would be that the hon. Gentleman and his Friends were far more pernickety about their own dignity than they were about the welfare of their constituents.

In view of the misrepresentation of the facts which the Assistant Postmaster-General has given, supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward), would he not agree to consult with the Leader of the House in order to allow a day on which we might discuss this matter and have it fully thrashed out?

On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister, when Members exercise their traditional rights, to refer to those rights in contemptuous terms?

Order. I wish hon. Members in all parts of the House, whether they are Ministers or not, would leave out of their answers and questions terms of a contemptuous and wounding nature. I am bound to say that in my experience in the House that Rule is frequently transgressed.


asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for how long listeners in the North-East are likely to continue to be obliged to share a sound broadcasting wavelength with listeners in Northern Ireland.

The only hope of a solution to the present difficulties lies in the introduction of very high frequency sound broadcasting. The time when that will be possible depends on the national economic position. My noble Friend has, however, announced that this area will have priority for a very high frequency sound station when the situation permits.

Will the hon. Gentleman advise his noble Friend to discuss this matter with Labour Members of Parliament from the North-East Coast?

I can assure the hon. Member that my noble Friend will be delighted to do so.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider his decision to give this area priority in the event of very high frequency coming into use, because East Anglia at present has either to have the Midland or the Home Service, neither of which is really interesting from a regional point of view?

My noble Friend is convinced that when something can be done the North-East Coast should have priority.

Would it not be possible in the meantime to give to other regions the privilege of sharing a wavelength and give theirs to Northern Ireland and the North-East Coast?

There is no satisfactory way out of this, with the shortage of wavelengths, except on the V.H.F. system.


asked the Assistant Postmaster-General who were invited by his noble Friend to meet him on 18th March to discuss the lack of television facilities and the disadvantages of the shared wavelength on the North-East coast, and who refused to accept the invitation.

My noble Friend invited hon. Members for the constituencies and representatives of the local authorities in the area to a joint meeting. He regrets that members of the Northern Group of Labour Members of Parliament did not accept this invitation to a joint meeting.

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to publish the correspondence in the OFFICIAL REPORT? IS my hon. Friend aware that all this attack on his noble Friend has developed because Durham County Council did not wish to be associated with the other local authorities in their representations to his noble Friend?

I think we have spent quite enough time on this subject this afternoon. All I can reiterate is that my noble Friend will be only too pleased to meet Labour, or any other, Members of Parliament on this subject.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question, and the fact that I have been unable to put a supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment on the first opportunity.