| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forthe Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate, and I want to deal as fully as I can with the issues that he
has raised. As he says, I am aware that the future management of waste in Essex is a hotly contested issue for residents. I understand why that is so. That is demonstrated by the fact that just under 10,000 forms were received by the planning authorities in response to the deposit draft, which amounted to more than 22,000 individual objections to specific policies in the plan. I understand the interest generated by the public inquiry into the objections, and the desire of many interested partners for an opportunity to examine the evidence that is being put before the inspector. As the hon. Gentleman said, the public inquiry opened on 26 October, and has sat for 12 days so far. It will adjourn in 11 days, until 5 January, when the final speeches will be made.
The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to intervene in the process at any time before the plan is adopted. Obviously, that means that I cannot say anything about the plan itself. The hon. Gentleman has not asked me to do so, but I wanted to put that on the record.
I want to take up the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the extent to which material submitted in evidence to the public inquiry is being made available. I have heard his points about the situation in Essex, and I have what I consider to be corrections to make. Let me begin, however, by disputing his initial claim that there is growing evidence of problems relating to openness and transparency in the conduct of planning inquiries, and that there is a general problem of access to information. I must tell him, in relation to both the general position and the evidence from the Essex inquiry, that he cannot substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, this is an important issue for Government, and one that we shall examine--but not because there is evidence of problems.
Apart from the objections to which I have already referred, more than 100 written representations have been submitted to the inspector from members of the public and other interested parties, all of which will be considered in evidence. In addition, the main parties--including the consortium of 10 district councils that are opposed to the plan, the Mid Essex Gravel Company and other large companies involved in the waste disposal industry--have submitted lengthy, fully bound proofs of evidence.
As the hon. Gentleman said, it was agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting held on 5 July that the lengthier proofs of evidence would not be read out at the inquiry itself. That means that everyone who attended the meeting was party to the agreement. Instead, it was agreed that summary proofs would be read out to facilitate the process of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is standard practice at major public inquiries.
The summary proofs, the proofs of the waste planning authorities, and the authorities' formal responses to the objections and representations of the main parties add up to a very large volume of paper. I am told that just one set of all that documentation fills three drawers of a filing cabinet. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked for complete sets of documents--the equivalent of three drawers of a filing cabinet--to be made available routinely to anyone on request. There are also various core documents, planning encyclopaedias and sundry other documentation.
Before I deal with the principle of the matter, let me ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. Quite simply, the photocopying and distribution of all that material to any
interested party and the press, as a matter of routine, would be logistically very difficult, and might not be easy to justify in terms of practicality and cost. It is, I think, for that reason that the libraries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are set up at major public inquiries, and are opened to the public some weeks in advance to enable people to gain access to material without necessarily imposing the burden of requiring such large volumes of material to be provided routinely at public expense.
Mr. Burns:
May I first acknowledge that the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) are present to listen to what is an important debate?
Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, does she not think that it would be sensible at least to advertise where the room is in the building's basement by having a sign? Apparently, at present, there is no sign and no member of the public knows, unless they have been told, that that room exists--they do not know until they ask someone.
Ms Hughes:
I agree in principle that information on both the fact of the library and its whereabouts should be readily available. If it is not, that may explain why the hon. Gentleman has not been to the library to check the facilities and how easy, or difficult it might be to access information there, but I will check on his statement.
In written questions, the hon. Gentleman requested that the inspector conducting the public inquiry be instructed to make the written submissions to the inquiry available to the press and to interested local parties. I should like to explain what has been done since at the inquiry to facilitate such action.
A library of inquiry documents was set up at the inquiry venue from 1 September to enable the public and other interested parties to study the proofs of evidence, objections, representations, core documents and so on. Before that, between 5 July and 31 August, the inquiry library was put together at the offices of the county council at county hall. During that period, initial objections and representations to the plan, and much of the supporting documentation, were available for public inspection and photocopying. I understand that little use was made of the photocopying facility during that time, but that the library at the inquiry venue was in considerable use, particularly in the run-up to the start of the inquiry.
Proofs of evidence were requested by the inspector in two batches. The first, covering the issues in the early days of the inquiry, was to be deposited by the middle of September; the second by 12 October. As I have said, some of the proofs were lengthy and bound, and it was not always possible to make copies at short notice for interested parties who were either unable or unwilling to visit the library. They could visit the library; there was no problem, as I understand it.
Not only were copies of all the material available for scrutiny at the library, but the county council's press officer contacted all the main newspapers and other media outlets in Essex. The press officer sent copies of the inquiry programme and invited requests for information from the press and media, so that additional copies of documents, or copies of relevant extracts that they requested, could be provided.
To date, as a result of that exercise, only one such request has been received--from BBC Radio Essex. However, the offer is still open. Furthermore, I understand that the inquiry programme officer has been able to obtain additional copies of proofs that are coming in from various originators and that those copies are being made available routinely each day to the press attending the inquiry, so the hon. Gentleman's claim that the documents are not being made available and that the inspector and programme officer are not going to considerable lengths to accommodate the requests are not true.
The hon. Gentleman claims that, because of the inadequacies of the photocopying facilities, the local press and interested parties are having difficulty in following the proceedings. I understand that there have been only four requests to the programme officer for bulk photocopying: two from commercial companies, one from Chelmsford borough council and one from the Essex Chronicle. Those requests have been met and no charge was levied for the copies that were produced for the press.
There have been many requests, mainly from the public, for smaller amounts of copying. Copies of 10 sheets of A4 or fewer are, and have been, provided free. There is a small charge for copies of more than 10 sheets. Since the inquiry, nearly 7,000 copies have been run off on the library machine, the vast majority free of charge.
As the hon. Gentleman said, criticism of the photocopying arrangements was expressed in an article in the Essex Chronicle. However, that criticism arose after the reporter turned up in the library and demanded instant copies of documents, and that volume of documents could not be provided instantly. Nevertheless, the newspaper went on to use the experience to make various unsubstantiated allegations about general provision by the library service.
Moreover, to date, there have been no direct complaints from members of the public, either to the programme officer or to the inspector, about the copying facilities or the lack of readily available copies of documents for perusal off the premises.
Mr. Burns:
I should like to remind the Minister that the Essex Chronicle reporter whom she mentioned is a highly respected and professional journalist who believes that it has been difficult not only for her but for some of those attending the inquiry to obtain some proofs of evidence and, therefore, to follow exactly what was going on.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |