HL Deb 20 October 2004 vol 665 cc856-9

8.6 p.m.

Baroness Amos rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 September be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to streamline the statutory procedures relating to the development of major road schemes in Northern Ireland. The order contains only three articles. Its intention is to streamline the statutory procedures relating to the development of major road schemes in Northern Ireland.

Under current Northern Ireland legislation the Department for Regional Development may be required to hold up to three separate public inquiries into different aspects of any major roads proposal. These would cover environmental impact, direction or designation orders relating to the line or type of road proposed, and vesting orders which relate to the compulsory acquisition of land.

The provision contained in the order would allow the department, where practicable, to take all three strands of the statutory procedures concurrently as part of a single inquiry process. At the same time, the rights of the public to object to a proposed road scheme would not be diminished. Indeed, the new procedures present a more user-friendly system as objectors will be able to present a single case incorporating all of their objections to the inspector on one occasion.

This provision, if enacted, would significantly streamline the statutory procedures in Northern Ireland, thereby allowing the Roads Service to commence construction of major road improvement schemes more quickly, subject to the availability of the necessary funding.

In developing this proposal the department has consulted extensively with MLAs, district councils, other government departments, various other bodies and members of the public. The views expressed have been considered and, where appropriate, taken on board. The proposal enjoys widespread support in Northern Ireland. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 September be approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the order before the House tonight. It certainly would appear to me to be a practical and helpful order. I only hope that perhaps something as simple and straightforward as this could happen to the Planning Service in Northern Ireland, which would make all our lives considerably easier and save a huge amount of money, and perhaps even a lot of lost jobs.

I also note in the notes to the order that 180 individual groups were circulated and that there were only 19 responses. The noble Baroness will remember that not long ago I wrote to her asking about the amount of money that was spent by consultants in the name of government consultation. I wonder how many more of those consultations have responses similar to this. I give notice that this is a line that, until we get devolved government again, I shall want to hound the Government on a little bit, to improve the way that this process is carried out.

Having said that, I believe that this is a step in the right direction. I ask the noble Baroness to reassure me that adequate appeal processes will still be available to those who appear to be wronged. I see the noble Baroness looking towards the Box. I actually asked them this morning whether that was going to happen and was reassured, but I should be grateful if that response came from the Dispatch Box. Other than that, I support the amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council for introducing the order. It is to be hoped that it will reduce bureaucracy and time delays but without reducing opportunities for objections from the public. Like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I ask the Minister for that reassurance. We trust that this will be the happy result.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, this is a short order and does not require a lengthy response. Most of the concerns my colleagues and I had regarding the order were raised in the other place by my colleague the honourable Member for South Antrim with the roads Minister John Spellar. As my colleague said on that occasion, far be if from us to reject or criticise anything that seeks to streamline the Roads Service inquiry process, enhance its efficiency, and bring it into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr Spellar did not however answer one question with regard to the costs involved. Is the noble Baroness in a better position to give us an estimation of how much it will cost to bring about the changes and how much will be saved by the introduction of the changes?

In response to questions regarding the M2 motorway, Mr Spellar said that the Government were working with the developers with regard to future road improvements. It would be most helpful if the Government could spell out what they intend to do to avoid past mistakes and to ensure that motorway work does not cause the severe congestion it has in the past.

I shall end with the same note of caution as my colleagues in another place did. Improving efficiency and eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy can only be measured in practice, and the Government can rest assured that the Ulster Unionist Party will keep a close eye on how this regulation works in reality.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken and for the support for the order. I note the concerns which have been expressed in relation to consultation processes and costs of consultation by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I look forward to the noble Lord raising that issue probably on every occasion on which we discuss Northern Ireland.

I say seriously to the noble Lord that obviously in the current situation where we do not have devolved government, it is important that we are seen to consult. I take the point the noble Lord makes about the volume of paper, and perhaps we need to look at different ways in which we can consult and use different mechanisms to do so, because there is no point consulting if we do not get a response to that process. We do not want to consult just for the sake of it, so I take the point.

Of course there will be appeal processes. I repeat to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, what I said in opening this short debate: the rights of the public to object to a proposed road scheme will not in any way be diminished by this bringing together of processes.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked me specific questions about cost. I cannot give actual figures, but I can say to the noble Lord that we anticipate that there will be financial savings for both the department and objectors in terms of economies of scale.

The department expects to benefit from lower advertising, accommodation and administrative costs, and the need for fewer briefings or consultations with professional advisers. It is expected that objectors will benefit from having to prepare only one set of objections and attend one inquiry hearing, as well as having a need for fewer consultations with professional advisers.

In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about the motorway, the Roads Service is committed to best practice both in procurement and contract management. As part of that, the Roads Service engages in early discussions with successful contractors to minimise delays and disruptions on schemes. I know how irritating it can be when that happens. The proposed changes to the statutory procedures will have no impact on the works themselves. I hope that that addresses the questions raised by noble Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.