§ 16. Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now take steps to widen the rights of objectors at motorway inquiries.
§ Mr. John SilkinThe rights of objectors at these inquiries are amongst the matters being considered in the review of public inquiries procedures that I announced earlier this year. I will ensure that any suggestions the hon. Gentleman wishes to make are considered in the review.
§ Mr. BrittanI deplore the use of disruptive tactics at these inquiries, and recognise the need for the Minister to have the ultimate say in planning matters, but does he not accept that there is a powerful case for a highways appeal tribunal in those instances where the Minister is inclined to reject the inspector's report, so that the grounds for the proposed rejection can be adequately scrutinised and challenged by the objectors before the ultimate decision is taken?
§ Mr. SilkinI am glad that the hon. Gentleman made the point with which he started about disruption at inquiries. However strongly people feel—and they are perfectly entitled to have feelings and to express them—they are not, in my view, and, I am glad to note, in the hon. Gentleman's view, entitled to disrupt the proceedings. With regard to the second point that the hon. Gentleman made, I do not think that the House would wish me to go into details at this moment. The point of announcing a review in January of this year was to see what procedures would be adequate. First, we have had the Lord Chancellor's rules, which came into force in June. We are at the same time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, considering the whole question of the review procedures. It is right that these should all be considered and that the composite statement should be announced in due course.
§ Mr. SpearingDoes my right hon. Friend agree that one of the irritants to those who object at inquiries is not only that the need cannot be questioned but that the calculation of need is based on cost-benefit criteria, which, among other things, value the time of those travelling in motor cars, whether for leisure or other purposes, according to the salary that they might be expecting? Is that not something that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues should consider in the current review, and does it not explain the exasperation of some of the people at these inquiries?
§ Mr. SilkinYes, in the sense that we shall be looking, and are looking, at the whole question of the review procedure. As to my hon. Friend's first point, it always has been the case, as he will know, that local need can be challenged at an inquiry. The question of general need is clearly not a matter for a local inquiry, though I agree that it might be a matter for this House.