HC Deb 19 October 1943 vol 392 cc1317-9
Major Lloyd

I beg to move, in page 15, line 15, to leave out "sheriff," and to insert "Secretary of State."

At first sight it might appear that the arguments which I tried to use on Clause 2 are identical with those I might use in connection with this and other Amendments on the same lines to the Schedule. This situation, however, is a little different from that in Clause 2, and my hon. Friends and I realise that my right hen. Friend might well be in a greater difficulty in accepting the Amendments to the Schedule than he was on Clause 2.

Clause 2 referred only to an interim development proposal which had not been implemented. The Schedule refers to an appeal to the sheriff against a decision of the local authority telling the aggrieved party to remove a house or something which was standing in the way of the local authority's plan. That of course is a bigger thing and hits a party harder than merely being held up by an interim development decision. At the same time the arguments that were used by me on Clause 2 really apply to this case, because I still contend that the Secretary of State is the better arbitrator on this issue. The sheriff is bound to give his ruling to some extent in accordance with the merits of the policy of the plan or the wisdom or otherwise of the local authority's ideas. What has the sheriff got to do with them? If it were purely a matter of fact, let the sheriff make the decision, but it cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, be a matter of fact or of law or of interpretation of law. It must in almost every instance be a matter closely associated with the merits or the wisdom of the policy of the planning authority. For that reason, if for no other, I suggest that the Secretary of State is the best arbitrator because the whole question of the merit of the planning scheme are inevitably involved in the decision.

The Lord Advocate

There is some misapprehension in the minds of my hon. Friend and those who support the Amendment because the scope of the appeal to the sheriff is not nearly so extensive as his remarks appear to indicate. May I say a word about a preliminary difficulty in the way of accepting the Amendment? Under the existing code a very similar question—it may be precisely the same question—can be a question of appeal once the scheme has become operative and then it goes to the sheriff. It would be odd to have an appeal to the Secretary of State the day before a scheme became operative but an appeal to the sheriff on practically the same question the day after. Unless there are strong reasons for the contray the appeals should go 'to the same tribunal. The misapprehension arises from not looking sufficiently narrowly at the words in the first two lines of paragraph 3 of the Schedule. What the sheriff is entitled to do is to satisfy himself that the authorities are entitled to take the proposed action, that is, to remove the offending building. He has emphatically not got to satisfy himself or inquire into whether the local authorities were well advised in taking the action. In every case you have two stages: First, you must be sure that all the conditions are satisfied which entitle a body to take action. Having reached that stage, it then becomes a question of the merits—we are entitled to do it, but shall we do it? It is the first stage and not the second stage which goes to the sheriff. I hope that will make it clear that the sheriff is not in the least entitled to embark upon the merits of the proposal. What he is bound to do is to make sure that there are plans in contemplation which would warrant an Order being made and that the building which is alleged to offend does in fact offend against the proposed plan. These are proper questions of interpretation which ought to go to the sheriff. I quite agree that if there were any question of the merits, that would be wrong, but in fact they do not go there.

Major Lloyd

I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the reply, but as it is only an interim reply on an interim Bill, I should certainly not be prepared to press my Amendment, but I feel convinced that when the Town and Country Planning Bill for Scotland comes to be framed my point will have to be considered and met. We could not have such a proposal in a permanent Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.