§ 2.37 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what principles are followed in the interpretation of Section 56(9) of the Transport Act 1962 when a railway passes through the area of more than one transport users' consultative committee; whether they will give general advice to the committees that, when a main line express rail service is involved, there should be a single inquiry; and whether they are aware of the consternation caused on both sides of the Pennines at the decision to hold separate inquiries at each end into the proposed closure of the main electrified railway from Manchester to Sheffield.]
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the committees concerned decide how they will consider a proposal to close passenger service where the railway line passes through more than one T.U.C.C. area. Their only object is to serve the best interests of all rail users affected, and the Government do not consider the general advice suggested is necessary, or, indeed, that it would further this object. We are aware that representations have been made about the arrangements for hearing objections by some of the interested parties to the Manchester—Sheffield line proposals.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that where a major electrified line such as the Manchester—Sheffield line is concerned, one T.U.C.C. hearing is far better than two T.U.C.C. hearings?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, this is a matter which was carefully considered when the 1962 Act passed through Parliament. One inquiry will not necessarily meet the interests of all the users of a fairly long length of railway line. In some cases purely local interests may be affected, and if there were only one inquiry these might not emerge. The noble Earl will recognise that in this particular case one part of the line is in Yorkshire and the other part is in Lancashire, and if there were to be one inquiry I think there would be great difficulty in deciding where it should be located.
§ THE EARL OF KINNOULLMy Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the Minister will be put in a difficult position if the two hearings arrive at two different results?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, on this matter the Minister is always in a difficult position. But, as the noble Lord is aware, the committees can submit a joint report or, if there is a difference of view, they can report separately. Certainly, as the noble Earl will also know, if local authorities are not satisfied with the report, they themselves can make their own representations direct to the Minister.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, does not the noble Lord appreciate that in many cases objectors will have to duplicate their objections and spend double the length of time, first, at one inquiry and then at another; that in all these cases time is extremely valuable for the responsible people who will be then appearing, quite apart from the fact that the eminent lawyers whom they ask to help them on these occasions charge big fees, largely on a time basis?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord obviously has some experience in this matter. So far as I am aware, there is no reason at all why an interested party should have to go to both inquiries. Some authorities may wish to do so, but there is no reason why they should.