§ Lord Melchettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the A.34 Whitway Diversion has been programmed to start construction in summer 1983 when it has a negative economic rate of return on COBA.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthAt only the very lowest end of the range of forecasts for economic and traffic growth would this scheme not provide net economic benefits. The range of returns forecast is from -£0.14 million to +£1.8 million. The scheme will also provide considerable environmental benefit to the community of Whitway.
§ Lord Melchettasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether tender documents have been prepared for the A.34 Whitway Diversion, and if so, when the instruction to prepare tender documents was given and why this was done before Ministers had considered the relative merits of alternative solutions and alignments and while the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation into maladministration connected with the scheme was under way;
Why the A.34 Whitway Diversion affecting Highclere Park has been programmed for a start of construction in the summer of 1983 when the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner into maladministration in the procedures for the scheme is still continuing;
Why they took a decision on the order for the A.34 Whitway Diversion through Highclere Park while the Parliamentary Commissioner is still 94WA investigating complaints of maladministration against the Department of Transport; whether they considered the prejudicial effect this decision will have on the investigation; and whether they will hold a public inquiry if the Parliamentary Commissioner takes the view that one should have been held.
§ Lord Lucas of ChilworthMy right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and the Environment dispensed with a public inquiry into the A.34 Whitway Diversion because none of the outstanding objections fell into the limited categories which make one mandatory. Moreover, they were satisfied, as required by the relevant statutory provisions, that in the circumstances of this particular case the holding of an inquiry was unnecessary. They gave objectors an opportunity to submit additional evidence. Their recent decision to make the orders for the diversion was made in the light of all the material submitted by objectors and of all other relevant factors, and in the knowledge that the reference to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was still outstanding. The commissioner's investigation is into procedural matters and not the substance of the orders themselves. The making of the orders does not prejudge the outcome. In the circumstances, Ministers concluded that relieving Whitway of through traffic on the heavily used route to Southampton from the Midlands and the North should no longer be delayed. There is no further scope for a public inquiry into these particular orders.
I can confirm that the department has, as is its normal practice, been preparing tender documents for the scheme on a contingency basis and that construction is programmed to start in the summer.