| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Public Inquiries
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.42 pm
Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford): The purpose of this debate tonight is to highlight a growing problem with regard to the openness, transparency and public accountability of public inquiries, and to seek help and action from Ministers to improve the situation. Given the importance of public inquiries to the people of the Essex, I am particularly pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in their places tonight.
To understand the problem that is developing at public inquiries, which deal with more and more complex issues, it is necessary to ask what is their exact purpose. Probably the best raison d'etre that I have seen in recent times appeared in the comment section of the Essex Chronicle about three weeks ago. It said:
To illustrate the problem of access to information presented to public inquiries, I want to use the example of the current public inquiry on the Essex and Southend waste management plan being held in Christ Church, Chelmsford, although I emphasise that that example isnot unique, but graphically illustrates the problems developing at controversial and complex public inquiries.
I understand that decisions were taken at the pre-inquiry meeting about the day-to-day running of the inquiry.
Unfortunately, few people knew that the meeting was taking place. Given the massive public interest that the inquiry would generate in Essex because of the controversial nature of its content, I am surprised that the local media were not sent a press release about that meeting. It was advertised by public notices, which in many cases are at best a fairly poor way of drawing attention to issues. I am sure that the Minister, as a member of a Government who rely on spin and news management, will appreciate that it would have been far more satisfactory to have notified people through press releases to the local media.
I understand that it was agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting that four sets of proofs of evidence would be produced. Three would go to the main interested parties and one would be kept on site in a basement office for
the press and other interested parties to inspect. A photocopier was also made available for copies to made by anyone who wished to have them. Personally, I believe that these arrangements are totally inadequate. One has to remember that the inquiry is highly controversial and complex. The proofs of evidence run to thousands of pages and, under the existing arrangements, it is not realistic to expect the local media and interested parties to have proper access to the documentation or to be able to photocopy it satisfactorily so that they can follow the proceedings properly.
Despite requests from Stuart Rawlins, editor of the Essex Chronicle, Kathleen Corby, its chief political and local government reporter, and others for greater and easier access to that information, the arrangements have not been changed to make the proofs of evidence more easily and more readily available. That is grossly unfair and a distortion of the process because it inhibits proper monitoring of the proceedings. As the Essex Chronicle rightly points out:
Surely in this day and age, with modern technology and the knowledge that the date of the inquiry was set far in advance, the proofs of evidence could have been photocopied, scanned or posted on the internet so that interested parties and the local press could have studied the evidence--both in advance and during the inquiry--to keep on top of what went on each day and follow precisely the evidence being dealt with and discussed on any day on which the inquiry sat. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
Rather interestingly, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has produced a booklet entitled, "Development Plans--What You Need to Know". It is meant to be, and indeed is, a helpful guide for members of the public, local media and interested parties to how a public inquiry should be carried out, what should be expected of the inspector and access to information for members of the public. Paragraph 44, which deals with the role of the inspector, states that he must decide how to conduct the proceedings to ensure that
If hon. Members, Ministers or local councillors were deprived of relevant information so that they could not carry out their duties of implementing or monitoring the implementation of legislation, or if they sought to deprive outside interested parties of access to information on our deliberations and those of local councillors and on draft legislation on regulations, there would be considerable anger. We would rightly find that totally unacceptable. We are not deprived of that information, and neither are members of the public who wish to monitor, comment on or acquaint themselves with our proceedings.
Similarly, under the procedures in the House, many submissions can be made on significant and controversial private Bills. There is a plethora of information, and copies of submissions are made available in advance and during the hearings that are held in this place, so that objectors and others can fully understand, monitor and follow the proceedings on the legislation. That information is provided and is put in the public domain. I believe that the same should and must apply at public inquiries, especially at highly contentious and controversial inquiries.
Despite the Minister's written answers to me on this matter on 4 November, I urge her to think again about the immediate issue of the current inquiry in Chelmsford, and ensure that all proofs of evidence are properly produced for interested parties for the remainder of the inquiry. For the future, I urge her to review the procedures and the way in which inspectors determine how they will run inquiries in this area, so that we can prevent the problems that many people experience, including the local media and interested parties who object to the waste management plan. They find it difficult to follow and monitor those proceedings because of the problem of access due to there being only one set of proofs of evidence.
"Public inquiries should be just that--hearings at which individuals, pressure groups, local authorities and any other interested parties can make their views known on whatever is the subject under review, and understand those of others."
It went on to say:
"Central to this democratic right is the ability to have easy access to all evidence being considered--a right which the media, charged with the responsibility of informing a wider public, necessarily shares."
I hope that the Minister wholeheartedly shares those sentiments, particularly as the Queen's Speech, on which we have just voted, states:
"My Government will introduce a Bill on Freedom of Information. It will give everyone the right of access to information held across the public sector for the first time."
I assume that the public sector includes public inquiries, and perhaps the Minister will clarify that when she replies.
"Members of the public, exercising a legitimate right to attend the inquiry, can find themselves listening to witnesses being questioned on evidence which is not readily available."
That makes a mockery of the process.
"the inquiry is conducted in accordance with well-established principles of impartiality, openness and fairness."
Paragraph 48 states:
"Objectors and other interested parties may obtain copies of any such written material which could be relevant to their case from the Programme Officer."
Technically, because of the way in which the arrangements have been made, objectors to the local waste plan can see the written material--a set of proofs of evidence is kept in a room in the basement of the building in the New London road--but in reality, because of the unsatisfactory process, they are being denied proper and full access to that information. It is not realistic or right for so many objectors and interested parties to have to go to a small room in a basement to look at, or photocopy, such a massive amount of paperwork or to have to try to obtain it from the witnesses themselves. To comply with paragraph 48 of the guidance booklet, complete sets of documents should have been made available to interested parties in advance, given that the date of the inquiry was set reasonably far in advance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |