§ 39. Mr. Marloweasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the recommendations contained in paragraphs 347 and 350 of the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals are accepted by his Department.
§ Mr. NugentSubstantially, this recommendation can be accepted by my right hon. Friend. Advice given by the officials of my Department, technical or otherwise, could not be included, but, other than that, factual evidence obtained after an inquiry will in future be submitted to the parties before a decision is reached.
§ Mr. MarloweIf the Government have accepted this principle as my hon. Friend says, why have they not done so in the case of the Kingston By-pass inquiry, to which reference has been made? Was not the evil aimed at in a particular paragraph the growing practice of Ministers 1178 considering factual representations behind closed doors after an inquiry had been closed without any opportunity being given for cross-examination or comment by interested parties? Since in the Kingston By-pass case the Minister over-ruled the inspector, is it not clear that he must have heard further evidence or representations, and that interested parties have not had an opportunity of commenting? Why in these circumstances is my hon. Friend flouting the undertaking given by the Leader of the House?
§ Mr. NugentI am not doing so. The imagination of my hon. and learned Friend has run away with him. We had no additional factual evidence before us other than that which was produced at the inquiry; but, in considering whether the public interest lay in having one form of design at the junction rather than another, we decided that the inspector's conclusion was wrong and that therefore we should have an underpass.