HL Deb 23 October 1995 vol 566 cc887-8

2.44 p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:

Why they have rejected the report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration upholding the finding of maladministration by the commissioner against the Department of Transport concerning a number of claims for blight caused by the Channel Tunnel rail link, and whether they will review this decision.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)

My Lords, the Government have not yet responded to the Select Committee's report, but we aim to do so shortly.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be wholly unprecedented for a government to ignore both the ombudsman's recommendations and those of the Select Committee? Does he further agree that the Select Committee has made its position absolutely plain on this: that there is a finding of maladministration to be supported and that the Government should act by granting compensation (in a very limited way) to those who have suffered the wrong? Does he also agree that Mr. Francis Maude, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave evidence in December 1991, saying: I am not aware of any circumstances in which [the Parliamentary Ombudsman's] recommendations have been ignored. This is the basis on which the Government has tended to work—and has, as far as I am aware, always worked—in that we do accept and implement the recommendations that are made"? Does the Minister now agree that those people who have suffered from blight in this way are entitled to compensation?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, we responded fully to the Parliamentary Commissioner's initial investigation and when giving evidence to the Select Committee on this subject. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Transport and, indeed, the Permanent Secretary gave full evidence to the Committee as to why they thought that the charges of maladministration should be rejected. Beyond that, we are due to make a full and formal response to the Select Committee's report and I would not want to pre-empt that response.

Baroness Serota

My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the unique decision not to accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's report is quite astonishing? Does he also agree that it is urgent that the Government reconsider their findings on the matter so that those individuals who have suffered an injustice, according to the independent inquiry, should receive some form of compensation?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I have said that the Government gave full and specific reasons as to why they rejected the charges of maladministration concerning the issue of generalised blight. Beyond that, the question of a further response should be left to our full and formal response to the Select Committee which we hope to give shortly.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the past no government who have been criticised by the Parliamentary Commissioner have ignored the Select Committee's upholding of the commissioner's recommendations? Does he accept that? Does he accept that any departure from that would be utterly wrong?

Viscount Goschen

My Lords, I agree that we are in an unusual situation, but the noble Lord invites me to pre-empt our response to the Select Committee and I fear that I cannot do so.