§ Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Health whether his decision, dated 7th July, 1927, that the Southport Corporation had acted reasonably in accepting a tender and specification for the making up of Salford Road, Ainsdale, Lancashire, was based upon the Report of Mr. Hooper, an inspector appointed by him; if so, has his attention been drawn to the fact that Mr. Hooper had stated at the Inquiry, held on 7th April, 1927, that the cost of making up Salford Road was excessive and the specifications unnecessarily costly; and if he will publish Mr. Hooper's Report?
§ Sir K. WOODThe answer to the first and second questions is in the affirmative. As regards the third question, it is not the practice to publish these Reports for reasons stated in a Departmental letter concerning this case of which I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend. He will realise that in these cases the responsibility of a decision rests with my right hon. Friend and not the inspector.
§ Sir W. SUGDENasked the Minister of Health whether he received a communication, dated 8th April, 1927, from the Town Clerk of Southport, bearing upon the matters which had been the subject of a public inquiry on the previous day; and whether this communication was received by him after the close of the inquiry but before his decision was announced?
§ Sir K. WOODSuch a communication was received. A copy of it was sent by the Town Clerk to the solicitors to the appellants, who sent my right hon. Friend a copy of their reply to the Town Clerk. Neither of the letters was taken into account in arriving at the decision. I may explain that it is my right hon. Friend's rule not to consider any communication received from any party after a public inquiry unless the other party has had full opportunity of commenting on it.