HL Deb 01 February 1982 vol 426 cc1121-3

2.54 p.m.

Lord Melchett

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 in the case of the Whitway diversion they have ignored their own legal advice to the effect that when there are unwithdrawn objections to a trunk road diversion "normally an inquiry should be held" unless, along with other matters, only a few objections have been received.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord is quoting from a guidance manual for officials. This does not remove the duty on Ministers and officials to consider each case on its merits. In the case of the A.34 Whitway diversion, my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment were satisfied that an inquiry was not necessary to enable them to have sufficient information on which to reach a decision.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, while I concede that Government Ministers may be happy to ignore the legal advice they have been given when it suits their case to avoid a public inquiry, are they not bound by the same laws as everyone else? Can the noble Earl confirm that the legal advice that the Department of Transport has been given makes it clear that a public inquiry into a proposal of this sort cannot be dispensed with when, among other matters, a matter of public importance is involved? Would he confirm that a letter from that department has confirmed that in this case a matter of public importance is involved?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I cannot tell him what the advice is from officials to the Minister; it is confidential. The Ministers were satisfied in the light of all relevant information that a public inquiry would serve no useful purpose. There were no statutory objections in this particular case, and although it may be normal it is not necessary to hold an inquiry.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, with respect, the noble Earl did not answer my supplementary question. I was not asking him to tell the House what advice was given. May I ask whether he will confirm that the legal advice that the department received, and which is published for all to see in the Highways Manual, states that normally an inquiry should be held and that it may only be dispensed with not on the grounds that the noble Earl has said this one was dispensed with by the Secretary of State but on other grounds; and that there had to be a series of things that were not complied with, one of which was that the proposal does not raise issues of substance or matters of general public importance and, secondly, that there are no outstanding objections—not from statutory objectors, but any objections—which would not be usefully aired at a public inquiry? Will the noble Earl confirm that that is the legal advice that the Secretary of State received?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord continues to mix up legal advice with the Highways Manual, which is an internal procedure manual about policies and guidance. As I said in my earlier reply, the advice from officials, which includes lawyers, is of course, confidential. Again, as I said in an earlier reply, it is usual but not invariable to hold inquiries. In this case Ministers were satisfied that, despite the objections, the point at issue is straightforward.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

; My Lords, in the face of the number of objections, why was not the ordinary procedure of an inquiry followed? This is apparently a very important diversion affecting a lot of people interested in the immediate area.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be aware that there were 60 letters of objection and petitions objecting to the scheme containing 165 signatures. There have been received 26 letters and a petition with 404 signatures in support of the scheme. None of the landowners affected has objected and the local support far outweighs the local objections. It is a decision made by my right honourable friends and I cannot pre-empt any decision on the order that they may reach following their consideration of the objections and representations.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are glad to see that Ministers in this position are not always taking the easy course of passing responsibilities over to a public inquiry but, rather than face the delay and expense which the public inquiries involve, arc taking decisions for which they take responsibility? Is this not a very good thing?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, of course I accept my noble friend's remarks.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, would not the Minister confirm that in addition to the legal manual to which my noble friend referred—or the legal advice—

Several Noble Lords: No! Not legal.

Lord Melchett

Yes, legal.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, will not the Minister agree that, in addition to the comments made by my noble friend, the appropriate schedule to the Highways Act provides that the Minister may dispense with an inquiry if he is satisfied that the circumstances are such that it is unnecessary? Would the Minister therefore not agree that the impression he has given is that the Minister has made up his mind in this case and has done nothing to allay public concern? Surely, that is a consideration—not merely that the Minister is satisfied himself but that he must satisfy the public that the thing is correct?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I believe that when the Ministers make their orders they will satisfy the public. The statutory order under the Highways Act which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, quoted is right. He is right to say that when they consider that holding an inquiry is unnecessary they may dispense with such an inquiry; and that is what they have done.

Lord Melchett

My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that the paragraph I was quoting from the Highways Manual, which he continues to discount, starts by saying: The effect of legal advice is that"? In other words, can he confirm that the legal advice which the department has received is as I have quoted it? Secondly, can he confirm that the petition with around 400 signatures in support of this scheme states that those people signing it have considered alternative routes? Since the time when it was signed, the department involved have confirmed that no alternative routes have been discussed with the public, put on show or mentioned to any members of the public. Would he agree that that somewhat reduces the value of that particular petition?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I think the easiest answer is to say, No, my Lords. If I may come back to the original one, I must go back to saying that advice from officials, which includes lawyers, is confidential. This is a ministerial decision which the Ministers are making. I should like to make one more point which I do not think has come out. These outstanding objections, although they are numerically large, really relate essentially to one point. It is this final one which has led my right honourable friends to think that no inquiry is necessary.