§ Lord Denningasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Answer of Baroness Blatch on 13th February (H.L. Deb., col.WA 35), whether the "interpretation" of the law by the courts is not a practical proposition owing to the ouster clause in paragraph 12, sub-paragraph (3) of Schedule 15 and the lack of means of the objectors; and whether the statute is not "silent" because the procedure is sufficiently covered by the requirements of the notice of appeal; and whether the "administrative practices" do not assist but rather obstruct the principles of "natural justice" in that they subject the objectors to long public inquiries at the expense of the state for the benefit of the applicant.
§ The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch)On an application under paragraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act, the High Court will consider, inter alia, whether an order is within the powers of Section 53 or 54 and this will necessarily involve an interpretation of those sections. The public interest would seem to demand that the validity of orders under these sections should at some stage become unchallengeable and hence the need for paragraph 12(3). (There are similar provisions in other legislation, such as that relating to planning and compulsory purchase). The question of lack of means of objectors is not one on which the Secretary of State can comment, it being a matter of conjecture in any individual case. It is not agreed that the statute is "silent" because the procedure is sufficiently covered by the requirements of the notice of appeal, but it is considered that the administrative practices put into effect will often obviate the need for (1) further subsequent proceedings in relation to an application under Schedule 14; and (2), in the case of orders under Schedule 15, for a public inquiry, thus saving in both cases unnecessary expense to the parties.