HL Deb 01 December 1960 vol 226 cc1226-48

4.48 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHrose to ask Her Majesty's Government if, in view of the widespread concern that it has caused, the Lord Chancellor will refer to the Council on Tribunals, for consideration and report under the powers contained in the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, all the circumstances relating to the public inquiry recently held at Banbury under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, into the proposals for ironstone working in North Oxfordshire. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the Government the Question standing in my name upon the Order Paper, may I at the outset make it quite clear that I do not seek in the slightest degree to influence the report which the inspector holding the inquiry to which my Question refers will eventually make to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Neither do I seek to influence in the slightest degree the decision which the Minister may make. Of course, the report will be published, and the decision of the Minister can, if necessary, be debated at the same time in Parliament. What I am concerned to do is to establish aprima faciecase that the whole of the circumstances before and during this inquiry should be referred to the Council on Tribunals for investigation and report, so that they can make a full investigation to see if the procedure of this inquiry is in accord with the spirit and precept of the Franks Committee Report which was accepted by Her Majesty's Government, the precept being that statutory inquiries should be based upon openness, fairness and impartiality.

Your Lordships will recall the debates in this House upon the Franks Committee Report. Your Lordships will recall the debates we had during the passage of the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill, which eventually became an Act and provided for the setting up of the Council on Tribunals. May I here insert a personal word? I played some part in all those debates and controversies, and controversial questions were keenly debated. One of the most controversial questions which was debated—and the view expressed received unanimous support from the speakers—was whether or not those who presided over these statutory inquiries should be independent of any Government Department. And may I say to the noble and learned Viscount that all through he bore the brunt on the Government side of the House? There were times when the debate between him and myself became close and argumentative, but may I say to him that I count that experience as being one of the most pleasant that I have had in my career in your Lordships' House.

In my Question I mention the grave concern which this inquiry has caused, and I do not exaggerate that concern. It induced a well-known organ of public opinion, theSunday Times,to characterise it in these words—and I quote from theSunday Timesof November 13: The Banbury inquiry looks like another of those ugly cases which a half socialised society throws up of the State versus the People.

TheEconomist,in an article, said this: It would be intolerable for this issue to be settled by back stairs pressure from Government interests who will not state their case openly. If a firm can get development per- mission in a case like this just because it has prematurely spent money the whole elaborate procedure of public inquiries would become a mockery of the rights they are supposed to protect.

My Lords, the history of this matter starts in 1957. The Dowsett Mineral Recovery Company, a local company, applied for permission to mine ironstone ore in North Oxfordshire. In accordance with procedure, the matter was the subject of a public inquiry held in 1958. A decision on that inquiry has never yet been given. In 1959 the Dowsett company was taken over by Richard Thomas & Baldwins, under the title of Richard Thomas & Baldwins (Mineral Recovery), Limited. At some time in the future the circumstances of that taking over may furnish your Lordships with interesting debate, but that is not what is germane to-day. Months before the present inquiry was held the objectors to these proposals of the applicants, Richard Thomas & Baldwins (Mineral Recovery), Limited, a subsidiary of Richard Thomas & Baldwins, a nationalised concern, sought from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, from the Iron and Steel Board, from Richard Thomas & Baldwins, and information necessary for the proper conduct of the objectors' case, but every scrap of vital information necessary for the proper conduct of the objectors' case was withheld by all those parties.

Under Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the Minister of Housing and Local Government takes away from local planning authorities the right to decide in the first instance whether or not permission should be granted for ironstone working in particular areas and makes himself the sole and final judge. I have no complaint. But the first point I make is this. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government is going to take over the functions of the planning authority, he must also take over the responsibilities of the planning authority. In a circular that was sent out by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government after the Government had accepted the principles of the Franks Committee Report, the Minister himself said that in all these cases the planning authorities must provide the objectors with the fullest possible information to enable them to conduct their case properly. Am I not right in assuming that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government were remiss in so far as they refused to give any information?

In a letter to the Oxfordshire County Council, which was the chief objector in this case, the Ministry said this: In the Minister's view it is undesirable that he should intervene in any matters relating to the local inquiry now that he has appointed an Inspector to hold it. In view of the urgency of the matter, your Council's suggestion"— that is, the suggestion that they should produce this evidence— has been referred to the Inspector appointed to hold the inquiry. He also feels that it would not be proper for him to join in discussions at this stage. Not until he has an opportunity to consider the matter of the evidence and information available at the inquiry would he be able to assess the importance of the Minister obtaining further information. The law of the land prevents him from obtaining any further information after the inquiry is over unless he holds another inquiry, and that additional information and evidence has to be given publicly.

I have said that the Iron and Steel Board and Richard Thomas & Bald-wins refused to give any of the information that was vital to the proper prosecution of the objectors' case, and they were supported in that by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. The inquiry opens and counsel for the applicants straight away seeks to obtain immunity for Richard Thomas & Bald-wins under the guise that they are only carrying out the policy of the Iron and Steel Board, and the Iron and Steel Board stand in all regards as a Government Department. He says that therefore he has advised them, that he does not intend to call any witnesses at all or to produce any evidence which can be subjected to cross-examination on whether the policy of mining ore is right or wrong. That is a fallacious, a dangerous and a quite erroneous statement. The Iron and Steel Board stand in no other regard than an ordinary statutory authority, such as the British Transport Commission or the B.B.C. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, only this afternoon made it quite clear, without any doubt whatsoever, that the policies of a statutory body were not in any way to be considered Government policy.

But that was counsel's opening statement. I can assure your Lordships that, as the case proceeded, it was hotly contested by counsel for the objectors. Counsel for the applicants went further and said, "I call four witnesses; three are just officials of Richard Thomas & Baldwin (Mineral Recovery) Limited, the other being an official of the Iron and Steel Board. For this official I require protection under Circular No. 9 from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He is not a civil servant, but he stands in the same light as a civil servant, and I have advised him that he need not answer any questions before this inquiry on the policy that this inquiry has to deal with." That is another completely wrong statement.

A third observation of his was: "I do not intend to bring any evidence or to produce any figures regarding economic costs, because that would disclose to my clients' competitors vital information." He went on to say: "But I am prepared to go behind the back of this inquiry and provide these figures confidentially to the Minister when it is all over." That brought forth from counsel some pretty heated stuff. One counsel said that if that sort of thing were to happen it would be a fraud upon the public. Counsel for the other objectors said that if those cost figures were to be taken into account by the Minister in arriving at a decision to permit this working, that decision would necessarily be corrupt and invalid and would probably amount in Common Law to conspiracy. Counsel who made that observation was not an apprentice barrister; he was a leading Chancery "silk". The other Queen's Counsel was a leader at the Commercial Bar.

That is how that inquiry opened; that is how that inquiry proceeded, and it ended upon that footing as well. Does that add up to the precept that inquiries should be based upon openness, fairness and impartiality? The inquiry started on November 8 and finished on November 18. Through the whole of the eight or ten days of the hearing counsel were protesting that they could not let any information and that nobody was put up whom they could cross-examine. It was only by dint of some clever work by counsel that some information was—I was almost going to say "winkled out" of these witnesses. The bulk of them did their best, but they were not competent: they could not answer the questions. Nobody—no single official or director of the applicants—attended who could be cross-examined on any policy whatsoever. This is what happened.

The evidence makes interesting reading for any of your Lordships. I have read it through. One witness said that Richard Thomas & Baldwins had already spent £2 million on the erection at Newport of a specially designed strip mill, and this money had been spent because of the peculiar and particular properties of Oxfordshire ironstone. He said that unless they had this planning permission the bulk of the money that had already been spent or earmarked would be lost. One can just imagine the furore that caused. Counsel said: "Do you mean to say you have come here and put a pistol at the head of this inquiry; that unless you get what you say you want you will waste nearly £2 million of the taxpayers' money?" The answer was, "Yes", but it was not true. In another place on November 28—only two days ago—the honourable gentleman the Member of Parliament for the area concerned asked the Minister of Power [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 631 (No. 20), col. 11]: How much money has been spent by Messrs. Richard Thomas & Baldwins on capital development at Newport for the specific purpose of receiving and handling Oxfordshire iron ore? The Minister replied: I understand that the company has spent about £250,000 and is committed to spend a further £1,350,000 for this purpose, but I am told the plant can, if necessary, handle ore from other sources.

The Minister went on to say later: I am informed by the company, having made inquiries about this, that if the decision were to go against it there would have been incurred very little nugatory expenditure. The evidence that was given was not true. Why was not the person who gave that information to the Minister put up at the inquiry? Why did they allow false information to be given? I want to ask the question: Why was the inquiry ever allowed to proceed? Who is there to protect the interests of the objectors? There were 4,700 aores—70 farms—at stake. The local authorities, Oxfordshire County Council, Banbury Rural District Council and a host of others had to employ counsel and spend—and this is the expenditure—nearly £5,000 of their money, and the ratepayers' money, in answering or attempting to answer a case that was never put.

Why was it allowed?—because the powers of the Inspector holding this inquiry under the Local Government Act, 1933, were these: for the purpose of any such inquiry, the person appointed to hold the inquiry may by summons require any person to attend, at such time and place as is set forth in the summons, to give evidence or to produce any documents in his custody or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry, and may take evidence on oath, and for that purpose administer oaths, or may, instead of administering an oath, require the person examined to make and subscribe a declaration of the truth of the matter respecting which he is examined. I ask your Lordships what would have happened if a barrister of standing, somebody learned in the law and experienced in taking evidence, had been sitting in charge of that inquiry? Do your Lordships think this would have been allowed? That is what happened. Have I made aprima faciecase that the whole of this procedure is entirely wrong? It should never have been allowed. Witnesses who could give evidence as to the effects should have been produced; and I repeat that right the way through, from first to last, every scrap of information vital to the objectors' interest was refused.

I know the debates that were held. I recall, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will recall, that this is what I said would happen. The Permanent Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department, giving evidence before the Franks Committee (and your Lordships may have read that evidence) said: There is grave disquiet amongst the people of this country at the way thesequasi-judicial inquiries are held. It is increasing. How many times have I stood in your Lordships' House and made speeches against the totally autocratic and bureaucratic methods of the Electricity Authority in their impudent way of trespass? I will not embarrass the noble Lord sitting opposite, but when he was a Back-Bencher he once joined me in a fierce protest about it. It will go on until Parliament determines without any equivocation that there shall be no inquiry of a public nature where people give evidence of this kind of thing that is not presided over by someone who is learned in the law and who will protect the objectors.

Here in this case we have a wealthy—I hope I am not wrong in saying "wealthy"—County Council spending ratepayers' money, quite properly; and a rural district council and every conceivable authority—the Society for the Preservation of Rural England, the Land Owners Association, the National Farmers' Union, and many others. I believe I am right in saying the total number of objectors there from the County Council was 60. What about the poor people who could not afford to pay legal costs? Who is going to defend them in these cases—the one who presides? I wonder what would have happened in a court of law if counsel had got up and made three completely erroneous statements. I wonder what a Judge of the High Court would have said to him—but I know.

Nobody in this country has given greater evidence of his determination to see justice properly done than the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack. I remember what was said right the way through the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill. Your Lordships may remember that the original Bill stated that this Council on Tribunals, which was to be put up as the watchdog to preserve the rights of the common man—that is what it is there for—could deal only with matters that were referred to it by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or the Secretary of State for Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Marquess, Lord Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and every speaker in the House was not satisfied. The words used by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, about this were, that if the Council thought there was some shocking matter of a procedural kind which had not been referred to them by the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland, and without keeping everything under continuous review, they should consider and report to him as a Council on that particular matter. And the noble and learned Viscount met the wishes of the House, and that is in Clause 1 (1) (c) of that Act.

I expect, my Lords, that it is not strictly legally necessary for the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to refer this matter. I could do it; any citizen could do it. The objectors at Banbury, jointly and severally, could protest against this "shocking matter of a procedural kind"—a description which fits this case like a glove. But what do I want? I want it to go with all the dignity and force of the noble and learned Viscount as a reference from him—not in any way to question what the decision will be; I am not interested in that at the present time. But I say this to your Lordships quite sincerely: nobody who is interested in this matter, including the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor himself, and every lawyer in the country whose soul must revolt against this, will ever be satisfied that the rights of the citizen have been protected until this terrible thing, this terrible bureaucratic thing, is altered and not only is justice done but it is made quite apparent that justice is being done, to the gain of the public as a whole.

5.22 p.m.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, as one who was born and bred in Oxfordshire I should like to add a few comments on the Question which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. I can certainly bear direct witness to the great beauty of the countryside -which is now threatened with irremediable damage and to the profound and general anxiety by those who know the area best and attended the inquiry, both as to the danger involved and also as to the course which the inquiry took in the respects which were emphasised and explained by the noble Lord. I think it may be useful, before I develop my general argument, to add a few phrases from the statement which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, quoted from the Minister of Power in another place a few days ago. Referring to the evidence given as to £2 million spent or committed, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 63.1 (No. 20), col. 11]: … if it is suggested that this expenditure was incurred in order to blackmail the Minister of Housing and Local Government … anyone who knows my right honourable friend would think that was ineffective. I hope and, of course, I believe that that is true.

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in saying that the course of the inquiry was grievously handicapped by the extreme reluctance of the applicants to give information that is relevant and essential to any reasonable judgment of the issue which was being discussed. The applicants stated that they would not indicate what was the extent of the economic advantage which they anticipated from the proposal for which they were asking permission. They relied upon a ruling of the Iron and Steel Board of some years ago, to the effect that there should be the maximum economic use of home ore. They further said that that meant that they regarded it as their duty, or their right, to exploit home ore right up to the point at which there was an actual economic loss by such exploitation. So, my Lords, if the economic advantage was £1 and, on the other side, there was a prospective destruction of the whole countryside, that was still, in the terms stated by the applicant, the economic exploitation of home ore.

It is obvious that in any case of this kind there is necessarily a weighing of the expected economic advantage against the prospective damage or destruction to the beauties and amenities of the countryside affected. The line taken by the applicants in this case would surely make an inquiry quite useless. I would not go so far as to suggest, as some people inferred from the statement about the £2 million investment, that this indicated that the Government had already prejudged their decision without waiting for the result of the inquiry. That suspicion, if it existed, has, I hope, been refuted by the statement made by the Minister of Power in the other place a few days ago. For if such a charge were true, it would of course mean that the Government had misled the objectors into an expensively fatuous inquiry; and, more than that, they would be flouting the plain intentions of the Legislature in passing the Act of 1947.

My Lords, even though information was so obstinately refused at the inquiry. I think such facts as emerged and are otherwise available give us every reason to believe that the economic advantage, if any, to be set against the prospective destruction of the countryside is doubt- ful, or, at best, small. The area in question is over 100 miles from Newport where the iron is to be worked. Even if there were a slight economic advantage at the time when the Iron and Steel Board reported, that advantage could obviously be cancelled (as, indeed, I think perhaps it has already been cancelled in the last few years) by a reduction in the price of foreign ore, by a reduction in freight rates, or an increase in railway rates in this country. But, in any case, no one can reasonably form an opinion, or discuss, either in this House or elsewhere, the issue involved without the information which the applicants sought to deny to the inquiry.

I would point out, moreover, that at no great distance from the area now under consideration, there is a field of exploitation of iron ore already in progress which could be very largely expanded without the objections that apply to this area, and this would quite likely be sufficient to meet the requirements of home ore of the company in question. I will not weary your Lordships with a long argument on this question, but I assure you that if you take the trouble to go into the facts you will see that the case which I have just briefly indicated is a very strong one against the anticipated, but doubtful. economic cost advantage of exploitation in this particular area.

I confess, as one who has tried his best to study the case both carefully and fairly, that I could not resist two impressions. One was that one of the main reasons why the applicants had refused this information was that they were themselves conscious of the extreme weakness of their economic case. The other impression was that, so far as they desired the right to exploit in this area, it was very largely, not because they feared either that all the ore they would have from other resources would be inadequate in amount or that it would be excessive in cost, but that they desired to have direct control and ownership of the area from which they drew their ore. I would ask those who are interested in this case to contrast, on the one hand, the great authority and wealth of evidence of those who objected to this application—led by the Oxfordshire County Council and supported by a number of other local public authorities and by such great non- Government bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England—and, on the other hand, the extreme reticence and denial of information by those who were supporting the application in question.

My Lords, I speak on this matter without a personal interest in the narrow sense of either being a resident in the area in question or of having any kind of financial association with the industries involved. But I have a broad and general interest, both through having been until last year the Chairman of the Oxford Preservation Trust, whose sphere extends up to the borders of the area now in question, though it does not actually include it, and, also, as President of the Town and Country Planning Association. I have in both respects a deep interest in the fair and effective working of the Act of 11947 and its provisions for public inquiries.

If the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, were in his place at this moment, I would venture to recall to him a discussion I had with him at the time he was piloting through the other place the Act of 1947. I then said to him—and he scarcely dissented, I think—that whereas the Act would probably prove powerful enough to deal with the kind of damage that was inflicted in the nineteenth century by private industrialists, he would probably find his greatest difficulty with his own colleagues, buttressed by their respective experts, representing the Services or the national industries or other industries in which the Government had the same kind of interest as they have in this particular company of Richard Thomas & Baldwins. It is from such sources—from Government Departments or from industries in which the Government have themselves some concern, or from local authorities—that nowadays the great bulk of the threat to the amenities of the country comes; not from private industrialists. I think it is of the greatest importance that every possible step should be taken to secure that the real purposes of that Act, in seeing that there is a proper balance between the interests involved, including the interest of preserving the beautiful countryside from destruction or desecration, should be made effective.

I will not follow the noble Lord into the question of the precise time at which it may or may not be desirable to refer this whole question of procedure to the Council on Tribunals. In regard to this case, having studied it with some care, and being confident as to the weakness of the applicants' case and the strength of the objectors'—and having, at the same time, confidence in the Minister himself—I await the result with the deepest interest and without undue apprehension. But, whether now or on a later occasion, I do feel very strongly that the whole way in which these inquiries are conducted requires a fuller investigation than it has yet received.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILIVORTH

Before the noble and learned Viscount replies, I have just found the circular to which I referred, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote three lines from it. This is the document that the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent out after the Franks Committee Report had been accepted by the Government. It says: The Committee recommended that acquiring and planning authorities should be required to make available, in good time before the inquiry, a statement in writing giving full particulars of their case. The Government have accepted this recommendation in principle; … That is a quotation from paragraph 4 of Circular No. 9/58; and my point was that, if the Ministry of Housing and Local Government took over the power of a planning authority, they were bound by that. That was the point, and I am much obliged for the opportunity to make that clear.

5.37 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, I need hardly say that everything which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said in his speech will be most carefully considered, but I am most distressed and worried by the speech of my noble friend Lord Salter. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was most careful at every moment in his speech not to deal with the merits of this problem at all; because he knows, as I know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Salter, really ought to have known, that the inspector has not yet made his report to the Minister.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth made an eloquent plea, not for the first time, for preserving the independence of Her Majesty's inspectors at these inquiries. One of the matters which he recalled shortly, though he and I have no doubt about it, was our discussion on that point; and I will come to that later. But the noble Lord, Lord Salter, with his great influence, has beseeched the inspector and the Minister to come to a decision on a matter that issub judice,and has made a strong speech from your Lordships' House trying to induce him to do so. My Lords, I think that if Parliament is going to take that sort of step when an inquiry is pending then the question of the independence of, and the absence of influence on, inspectors really is put in a parlous state.

LORD SALTER

Might I say this to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? This of course was a public inquiry, which, I suggest, is not really comparable to a court of law trying a criminal or a civil offence. It has been discussed in the Press of this country and elsewhere fully and freely. If we are not able, in matters that have been publicly inquired into, to make any comment until an actual decision is taken, then we shall find that, by trying not to be premature, we shall every time be too late to express usefully the opinions which I should have thought were meant to be provoked by a public inquiry of this kind.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I must comeback, and I do so in a most serious way, because my noble friend is a great student of the machinery of government. That is not what we are attempting to do. What we are attempting to do, and what we all have as our objective, as the noble Lord would have seen had he followed the debates on the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill in this House and elsewhere, is to infuse into the operation of these inquiries a real sense of independent judging, with full responsibility, of the issues which are raised. Therefore, if inspectors who are in the course of dealing with inquiries are going to be made the subject of appeals to and potential attacks in Parliament before the matter is decided, then all that has been said about our attempt to make this procedure independent is something which no one will take seriously.

My noble friend says, "Why should I let the matter wait?" It would have been perfectly possible for him to give evidence at the inquiry. As he has told us, there were half a dozen bodies in which he was interested. He had only to write to them to say that he would give evidence and be cross-examined on his evidence. But to attempt to prejudice a man who is engaged on an inquiry in this way is something about which I must tell him again I am intensely worried; and if he reads the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, he will see how careful the noble Lord was. Never for one moment during that speech did he go into the merits of this matter.

Now, my Lords, let me remind your Lordships of the position. At the local inquiry recently held at Banbury, which lasted eight days, from November 8 to November 18, the inspector announced that he would visit the areas concerned on November 29. If my calendar is correct, that was the day before yesterday. As I said, his recommendations have not yet been put to my right honourable friend, and I do not think that his severest critic, the noble Lord, Lord Salter, would blame him for not having the report in on December 1, when he made his inspection only on November 29 and the inquiry finished on the 18th.

LORD SALTER

My Lords, may I apologise so far as I was wrong in crossing the line to the extent I did and to which the Lord Chancellor has called attention. I meant to put my main stress upon the extent to which the course of the procedure of that inquiry was open to criticism, in the way in which Lord Lucas of Chilworth also explained. But it is true that I did also go further into the actual merits of the question upon which the Minister will ultimately have to decide.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, of course, that is quite enough for me. My noble friend has most generously said that he did cross the line of merits, and I hope he will take it from me that the only reason why I spoke rather strongly on the matter is that one of my greatest tasks is to try to get the whole of the machinery of justice in this country working well. I am responsible not only for the Judiciary with legal training; I am responsible for 16,000 lay magistrates who deal with 97½ per cent. of the criminal work in this country and an enormous number of domestic cases. I am responsible for something over 30,000 members of tribunals, and, as I shall show in a moment, I am also responsible for these inspectors.

I happen to believe, having practised Common Law, that the position of justice in this country largely depends on the fact that we have been able to associate laymen, not merely trained lawyers, with the administration of justice. It is my task to see that the standard is as high as I can possibly make it. That is why I spend a considerable number of my speaking engagements dealing with magistrates, in order to help them in their work. Therefore, I ask both noble Lords to remember that it is only if we get what I call the spirit of the Common Law, a real love of justice manifestly being seen to be done, into all the tribunals which we have to use, that our system of justice will continue to flourish. That is why, if I spoke with a little strength on the question of going into the merits before the inspector has given his report, I hope your Lordships will forgive me, and I entirely accept what my noble friend says.

My Lords, may I deal briefly historically with the point, because the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, raised the question as to what had happened with regard to the first inquiry. The reason I did not interrupt my noble friend, Lord Salter, is that the last thing I want to do is to appear to be keeping anything back from your Lordships. The inquiry related to six applications made by Richard Thomas & Baldwins (Mineral Recovery) Limited for permission to work ironstone by opencast methods from some 4,200 acres of land, or a little more, within the rural districts of Banbury and Chipping Norton. The applications were made at various times—three in May, 1957, two in August, 1958, and one in August, 1960. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to these dates.

In common with all ironstone applications, these applications were, to use the common term, called in for decision by the Minister under Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This section enables the Minister to give directions to local planning authorities requiring that applications of any class specified in the directions are to be referred to the Minister instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority. I think that all of us who have given attention to the law of town and country planning agree that this is necessary, because it brings these important matters involving questions of amenity under the direct consideration of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament.

But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, the 1957 applications were the subject of an inquiry held in July, 1958. Before a decision could be reached on them, however, a new factor of material importance was raised by the Ministry of Power. They announced first, that Richard Thomas and Baldwins were to construct a new steelworks at Newport, Mon., and, secondly, that the Oxfordshire ore was wanted for these new works. That fact was communicated to the principal parties concerned and it was decided to reopen the inquiry in order to allow this fresh factor to be taken into consideration, and to deal with the later applications at the same time so as to obtain a comprehensive view of the ironstone problem in North Oxfordshire. That, I think your Lordships will agree, was a rational method of dealing with a big problem.

The issues raised by the applications are the economic need to extract ironstone for the new steelworks from this part of Oxfordshire and the effect of this upon amenity and agriculture. Nothwithstanding its complexity, this is essentially a planning issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, the applicants were supported by the Iron and Steel Board, whose policy is to use as much home produced ore as possible, and the main objectors were the Oxfordshire County Council and an organisation of local residents. That is the background picture as objectively as I can state it.

As I said, my right honourable friend has not yet received any report of this inquiry. The noble Lord will appreciate that until a report is available it would be premature for me to consider referring the matter to the Council of Tribunals. I must plainly consider the inspector's report before deciding whether to refer to the Council for advice; and, in these circumstances, I cannot discuss the merits of the inquiry. Again, I hope that your Lordships will not think that on this point there is any desire on my part to burke the issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, with his usual generosity, said that on the point of giving the Council on Tribunals the right to consider and to bring in their report, even though the Secretary of State for Scotland and I did not refer the matter to them, I met the wishes of the House. That is in the Act of 1958. The relevant paragraph is Section 1 (1) (c) which provides that the Council is to consider and report on such matters"— as I may refer to 11— or as the Council may determine to be of special importance, with respect to administrative procedures involving, or which may involve, the holding by or on behalf of a Minister of a statutory inquiry, …". It is clear from this paragraph that the Council has full jurisdiction to consider the circumstances of an inquiry on its own motion as well as by reference from me. The noble Lord said that he hoped I would make the reference. My answer to that is that I am perfectly ready to consider the matter, but I think it is right that I should wait until the report is presented and I have had the chance of considering the report, which is bound to deal with some of the procedural matters which the noble Lord has raised to-day.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount confirm this for me? The Council on Tribunals has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the decisions of the Minister; the only thing they can do is to make a recommendation about procedure. The procedure now is over. The inquiry has been completed, so that the result, the inspector's report and the decision of the Minister, cannot affect past procedure. There is nothing to inhibit the Council, if it so desires, from considering the procedure before the report is published.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's point, but surely it would be better that that should be considered when we have had the whole story. It would be wrong for me to attempt to judge the rightness or wrongness of the various detailed points which the noble Lord has raised. I should like to be able to consider them, as I promise him I will consider them, in the light of their effect on the inquiry; and one of the most material matters in that regard is the report and the effect that that will have. I think that it would be premature for me to do it to-day.

I should like to tell the noble Lord of certain matters which I hope will reassure him. The Government are in entire agreement with the Franks Committee, in the principle quoted by the noble Lord: that all inquiries of this kind should be marked by openness, fairness and impartiality. I am not making a point in order to get some small political change for the Government, but from the interest the noble Lord took he will remember that within two months we accepted practically all the recommendations of the Franks Committee and introduced legislation within one of the shortest times after a Report on record in our history. The noble Lord has heard every speech I have made on the subject and knows the interest I take in it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount would agree with me that one of the recommendations of the Franks Committee that the Government could not see their way to accept is just the one that I have laboured so much—that is, that the inspectors should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and should be independent of the Government Department.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I was just coming to that point. The noble Lord can take any view he likes, but I would not for a moment have even thought that I could avoid this point. I should like him to have this fact in mind—I am stating the matter broadly and I hope that he will not quarrel if there are any minor deviations. I should like the noble Lord to know that we have a machinery in which I do take part, and the effect is that both in the appointment and in the removal of inspectors I have to take the responsibility of one to whom the matter has been referred. Some time I will describe what happens, but I should like the noble Lord to take it that this is not a matter of just "rubber stamping" a departmental suggestion.

The noble Lord referred to Circular No. 9/58 which was issued by the Minister of Housing; and Local Government to all local authorities in England and Wales. He will note (I think this was the passage he actually quoted) that the circular emphasized the need for local authorities proposing to acquire land compulsorily to make available a statement in writing setting out the reasons for the proposals.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It is paragraph 4.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I was actually quoting from paragraph 5.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The planning authority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Paragraph 4 says: The Committee recommended that acquiring and planning authorities should be required to make available, in good time before the inquiry, a statement in writing giving full particulars of their cast. … Then paragraph 7 says: In planning cases Article 5 (9) (a) of the General Development Order, 1950, already requires the planning authority to state its reasons in writing when it decides to refuse an application or to grant permission subject to conditions. … The noble Lord will appreciate that in this case one is dealing with the applicant for planning permission and not with the planning authority, and the circular does not apply to that. On that point, again, I am most anxious not to discuss the merits of the position even to this extent. I am informed that Richard Thomas and Baldwins and the Steel Board did, in fact, supply some information. The noble Lord has said to-day that, in his view and on his information, it was not sufficient.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The word I used was "vital". I admit that they gave some information of a minor character, but every piece of vital information was withheld.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As I think the noble Lord will agree is not unreasonable, I should like to look into that point. I have been told that they supplied a good deal of information, but I am not going to take up a position until I have had a chance of looking into it and have examined what the noble Lord has said.

But I want to point this fact out to the noble Lord: that the circular also mentioned that if new evidence were brought to the Minister's notice after an inquiry had concluded, and in his view it might be a material factor in the decision, he would give the authorities an opportunity of commenting on it and, if necessary, would reopen the inquiry. I emphasise this point because I should like it to be clearly understood that my right honourable friend's mind would never be influenced by evidence that had not been made available to the other side—that would be clearly contrary to natural justice—and I should never be a party to a proceeding of that kind. I cannot accept everything that the noble Lord has said to-day, and he would not expect me to do so. I can only say that it will be considered.

There is another point which I feel is especially in my province. I fully appreciate the need for having a code of procedural rules for statutory inquiries, and in 1959 your Lordships gave me power to make rules of this kind after consulting the Council on Tribunals. I admit that it has taken some time to prepare these rules because of the number of interests involved. Rules are no good unless they cover as many as one can foresee of the points that are likely to be made. But I can say this. Rules dealing with inquiries relating to compulsory acquisition of land and to appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act are now in an advanced state of preparation, and I hope to be able to submit them to the Council on Tribunals for their comments very shortly. I think the noble Lord will appreciate, from his interest in the matter, that this is an important step. It has involved a considerable amount of work and consulting of many interests. I hope that I have convinced the noble Lord that I am most, anxious that the procedure should be right.

I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Salter, in what I understood him to say on this part of the case: that in the modern State getting the right balance between the needs of the State and those of the individual is a great problem, and one of the interesting developments of modern politics is that it has been much more universally appreciated as a problem as the last years have passed into history. We all know that the modern State must, if it is to function at all, infringe private rights. It is impossible to create schools, universities, houses, factories or nuclear power stations without some infringement of private rights.

What I think we are all agreed now is essential is that the person whose rights may be infringed should have the opportunity of stating his objection to it and, if the decision goes against him, of being properly compensated. But it is important that the opportunity for presenting the case should be one that is entirely free from pressure of any kind. It is our aim and object to see that that procedure is the best and fairest possible. I can only assure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that, while I cannot accept what he says to-day on factual matters, I accept his thesis on that matter, which he and I will agree is one of the most important in modern political life, and as long as I hold the office I occupy, I shall do my best to see that is brought about.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, before my noble and learned friend concludes, I should like to raise one point, because this matter goes beyond the county of Oxfordshire. I think I understood him to say that he would look into the question of the procedure of these inquiries and would decide, after reading the inspector's report, what course of action he will take. Am I to understand that a decision will be made on the merits of this case?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, as at present advised I do not think the matter is really on the same plane. My right honourable friend has to decide the merits. Of course, he also has to decide whether he is in a proper position to decide the merits because of the nature of the inquiry. He will consider these points, but I will consider whether the criticisms that have been made as to the method of conducting the inquiry are such as to require consideration by the Council on Tribunals. Of course, I shall consult my colleagues on that matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, is my co-trustee, so to speak, in this case, and other colleagues are involved. I would remind the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, that if he is at all doubtful he is in the happy position of knowing that if, for some reason, I were to refuse to do it, the Council on Tribunals can still consider the matter. So there is no question of its being suppressed.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount mind my asking one question following upon what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said? If the noble and learned Viscount is of the opinion that myprima faciecase has been made, when he has had the opportunity of studying the facts will be then refer this matter of procedure—only of procedure—to the Council on Tribunals?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not press me on a hypothetical question. As I said to my noble friend Lord Gage, it does not matter whether I do it or not—the matter can be raised. But I do not like committing myself conditionally, because things are apt to shade off. The noble Lord and I have never misunderstood one another in nearly seven years and I should not like to begin now. So perhaps the noble Lord will not press me on that point.