§ Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will confirm that the resumed public inquiry into the proposed Airedale Trunk Road will be held in the former Council Chamber at Shipley Town Hall and that closed circuit television coverage will be provided in Shipley Church School;
(2) if he is satisfied that the resumed public inquiry into the proposed Airedale 386W Trunk Road will satisfy the criteria applying to a public inquiry; and if he is satisfied that all objectors will have an opportunity to state their case.
§ Mr. John SilkinI have been consulted by the inspector at this inquiry. I am advised that, as was explained by counsel at the inquiry, the various legal requirements have been complied with and this is a valid inquiry. If, however, those who take a contrary view wish to have the matter decided by the courts there is a procedure which they can follow under the Highways Act 1959 for questioning in the High Court the order, if and when made, on the grounds that the requirements of the law have not been complied with and that they have, in consequence, been substantially prejudiced.
I hope, therefore, that we shall not see disruptive tactics when the inquiry into the Airedale proposals is reopened by the inspector in Shipley Church School on 3rd February. I am satisfied that all the statutory requirements in connection with this inquiry have been met and I am determined that it should now be allowed to serve its proper purpose of enabling interested people to put their views on record before a decision is made.
I shall be advising the inspector that, in the event of disruption so as to prevent the proper conduct of the inquiry, he should transfer the main inquiry to a separate room, with the representatives of the Department and interested public authorities and, at the discretion of the inspector, other representative bodies in attendance, along with the Press. Facilities would be provided for other objectors and the general public in another room to which the transferred inquiry proceedings would be relayed for aural reception but they would be allowed to appear before the inspector and state their case only at a time appointed by him. Every objector would be given an opportunity to present his case at the appropriate time.
I am advised that such a procedure would be lawful. I greatly regret having to contemplate restricting the right of entry to local inquiries to which members of the public have become accustomed. But this arrangement would operate only if, and for as long as, the inspector considered it the only reasonable way in which he could hear and record the 387W representations made to him. I feel sure that this will be generally recognised and understood as a necessary measure for the protection of the public at large against the action of vociferous minorities who, on the pretence of arguing the interest of the citizen, prevent others from having their views heard.
A great deal of the criticism put to me of the arrangements for inquiry into trunk road proposals is stated on the basis that the Department is unwilling to explain in detail, and in an intelligible form, the relationship between the particular road scheme and the Government's national transport policy. Any member of the public who states an interest is supplied with a great deal of information on these matters. It is current practice that, before a trunk road inquiry opens, all objectors are provided with a statement explaining the general background of national transport policy and the case for the trunk road network; and a further statement explains the purpose which the new road is intended to serve within the framework of the national road system, the proposed route and its effect on the environment.
What critics appear to be suggesting is that the Secretary of State's witnesses should be required to justify successively at each local inquiry his view on such broad national questions as the relative priority given to roads, rail and inland waterways; the assumptions made by the Government about the future availability and price of fuel; and the growth of car ownership. A local inquiry is not the proper forum for debating national issues of this sort. If such issues are raised there, the Department's witnesses are prepared to explain the background of national policy, and to discuss its application to the particular scheme, but not to enter into debate about the national policy itself. The specific proposals subject to inquiry are fully explained and, within the constraints of national policy, the objectors are given every opportunity to question the need for the road.
In the light of the difficulties which have arisen and the criticisms which have been made I have been keeping the procedures and arrangements for these inquiries under review to see what can be done to improve the presentation and intelligibility of the information which is provided to objectors and to make the 388W arrangements generally more acceptable to all concerned. In particular, I am considering whether it would be helpful to have formal rules of procedure for highways inquiries, although the principles underlying the formal rules which have been made for other inquiries are observed at all highways inquiries. I am pleased to say that the Council on Tribunals has assured me of its willingness to join with us in re-examining the adequacy of our procedures.
§ Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will request the inspector into the resumed public inquiry into the proposed Airedale Trunk Road to hold evening sessions, so that objectors who are in full-time employment will have access to the inquiry without loss of earnings.
§ Mr. John SilkinI am sure that the inspector will do his best to arrange a programme which is convenient to everybody concerned.