HL Deb 01 May 1974 vol 351 cc106-8

2.41 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My 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 why they have declined to make any payment out of public funds towards the costs of the objectors to the proposals for a new and longer runway at Edinburgh Airport.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES)

My Lords, there were not considered to be sufficient grounds to justify departing from the long-established policy of successive Governments in relation to the expenses of third parties who appear at public inquiries of this kind. My right honourable friend's decision in effect confirmed the decision on this matter by the previous Administration, of which the noble Lord was a distinguished member, in January, 1973.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him, first, whether it is true that at the inquiry the Reporter recommended against giving planning permission for the proposed runway, because it was being opposed by the objectors? Secondly, is it not also true that the Ombudsman, to whom the case was referred, recommended that in the circumstances there should be a partial reimbursement of expenses? Would it not be equitable for the Government to take into account the Ombudsman's recommendation and make some payments in this case?

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of putting the Record right about this matter. It is true that the Reporter did not recommend approval of the runway, and that has been interpreted in many circles in Scotland, and perhaps in your Lordships' House also, as a backing of what the objectors did. In fact, he rejected their alternative runway proposal and put forward the suggestion, which has been turned down more than once in the past, that we might have one central airport for Scotland. Incidentally, if we had had that during the last period of intensive fog which started on the East Coast, we should not have been able to get into an airport in Scotland other than at Prestwick.

I would also point out that the Ombudsman did not find any maladministration by my Department. On the contrary, he said that the planning decision was taken after full and careful study and after taking into account the relative considerations, including all those listed in the complaints, to him. Finally, he did not make a recommendation that a partial payment should be made, but he suggested that this might be a matter for the Secretary of State to consider. He recommended neither that it be done nor that it be not done, but merely directed the attention of the Secretary of State to the matter for him to consider. My right honourable friend considered the matter, but came to the conclusion that the long-established practice was one that must be adhered to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, while entirely accepting what he said, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is reasonable that the long-established practice should itself be reviewed? It does not seem to make much sense to give the Government the discretion to make these payments if they are never made.

LORD HUGHES

My Lords, at the present time the Secretary of State is conducting a review of the methods by which these inquiries can be held. What we are endeavouring to do, without prejudice to the conflicting interests which usually arise in these planning inquiries, is to find a method by which they can be carried out in a simpler fashion and in a way which is likely to involve those concerned in much less expense than at present. That is the way in which we can be most helpful in the future.