Public Inquiries (Improved Procedures) (Hansard, 9 February 1994)

§ Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision as to transcripts, oral evidence and other submissions to public inquiries, and for connected purposes. Presenting this Bill today is for me rather like a maiden speech, as it is the first time that I have introduced a ten-minute Bill.

My Bill makes two specific proposals that are modest and, on balance, will save taxpayers' money. I hope that it will have the unanimous support of the House of Commons, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I shall begin by describing the Bill's background. It stems largely from my recent experience of a public inquiry into the development of the A27 in the Worthing district. Alas, nothing in the Bill, even if it proceeds with the greatest speed, will have any effect on that inquiry. My experience of that inquiry showed me that it was worth while introducing a Bill to help those who are engaged in public inquiries in future. While we pass much legislation, and Government Departments introduce many procedures for our constituents, we do not always have first-hand experience of all aspects of that legislation.

Public inquiries into road schemes could be improved in two ways. The proposal in Worthing will not be affected by the Bill. I believe that Worthing should have a bypass, but the Government propose to put the road through the built-up part of the town. Our position is unique, in that there are two possible routes for the road.

The normal procedure is for the Government to propose a route, which is the only one to be worked up in great detail. The overall effect of that is to bias proceedings heavily against objectors and in favour of the Department of Transport's scheme, which should give the House considerable cause for concern. It is important that schemes should be considered and alternatives fully examined.

The other general matter of concern is that, although we introduced the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which did something to help those affected by road schemes, I am increasingly of the belief that the way in which some of my constituents are treated can only be described as a form of highway robbery. The Government have interpreted the Act in a restrictive way. They pay compensation under discretionary powers only to those within, in general terms, 100 m of the central line of the roads, which may be six lanes wide. That seems to leave a large number of people who live outside the limit, but who are seriously affected.

The Government have consistently taken the view that the crucial factor is whether the enjoyment of property is affected by the proposed road. Many people are unable to sell their property for a number of years, regardless of how difficult their personal circumstances may be. The way in which the matter is handled is a considerable disadvantage to constituents who take their case to a public inquiry.

There is much to be said for the French system, whereby substantially more than the market value of the house is offered, which avoids the delays and unfairness that would otherwise result.

The Bill essentially addresses two problems. The first is that, when a public inquiry begins, one is expected to present a so-called proof of evidence in writing. That is an 288 onerous undertaking, although I am amazed at the expertise in matters such as road programmes that emerges among constituents during such inquiries. None the less, one may have to write 80 or 100 pages of detailed analysis to present the so-called proof of evidence.

That is all very well, but the absurdity is that one is then required to read out that proof of evidence at the public inquiry, which can only be described as a field day for lawyers. [Interruption.] They are perfectly able to read the proof of evidence, but, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is suggesting, they earn a considerable amount in legal fees for simply sitting and listening to evidence being read.

In addition, a considerable number of officials from the Department of Transport attend inquiries. They could also read the proof of evidence, but instead sit and listen for day after day doing nothing.

The result is that the inquiry that I mentioned has continued for three months, and is likely to continue until Easter or beyond. Much of the time has been taken up by the absurdity of people having to read out their proof of evidence. My proposal, therefore, is that the reading out of evidence should not be necessary, or that it should be allowed only if the inspector believes that it is appropriate.

The second problem arises when constituents do not feel able to present an elaborate written proof of evidence, and instead give their evidence orally. The absurdity is that the decision about whether such evidence should be transcribed is at the discretion of the inspector.

I do not wish to comment on the case that I mentioned, but it appears that a transcript is not being provided, on grounds of cost. The scheme is likely to cost about £120 million, yet finance is not available for transcripts, which might achieve a result that is better, fairer and less biased in favour of the Department. We must correct that. My Bill, perhaps with a de minimis provision, would ensure that transcripts are provided.

The other absurdity that arises is that no transcript is provided of cross-examination—the interesting exchanges that are vital if one disputes matters at a later stage. As an objector's notes can be disputed, he is unable to present his case in a fair way, with all exchanges being recorded. That matter should be put right. It is absurd that constituents can attend an inquiry every day for three or perhaps five months, listening to the cross-examination, only to have their notes disputed.

For those reasons, I believe that the case is overwhelming. On balance, it would mean a substantial saving of public funds, and the saving of time and trouble under the first part of the Bill would more than compensate for the cost of providing a transcript.

It has been suggested that proceedings could be tape-recorded. A recording is not necessarily provided but, as the House knows, a tape-recording is not an adequate substitute for a written record. If one wishes to dispute a particular exchange, one cannot whip back and forth through a tape-recording which might run for some hours, but one can pick out and cite a passage from a manuscript immediately. Therefore, there is no reasonable argument for proceedings to be recorded.

I very much hope that the House will be kind enough to allow me to introduce the Bill. I also hope that, unlike some other ten-minute Bills, it might find its way on to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

289 Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Terence Higgins, Mr. Bob Dunn, Mr. Alan Williams, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Iain Mills, Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Gary Waller.