HC Deb 19 October 1954 vol 531 cc1137-45
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I beg to move, in page 33, line 16, at the end, to insert: (5) In giving any directions under this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard—

  1. (a) to the provisions of the development plan for the area in which the land in question is situate so far as those provisions are material to the development of the land;
  2. (b) to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development, including the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous land; and
  3. (c) to any other material considerations
This Clause is, as it were, the sequel to Clauses 23 and 24, which we have just discussed exhaustively. The picture is that the applicant for planning permission, having been refused it by the local authority, claims compensation, and his claim goes to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State then reviews the whole case and it is competent for him then to set aside the decision of the planning authority and to grant permission for some other kind of development which need not be in accordance with the development plan, which may not be liked by the planning authority, and which certainly may not be asked for by the applicant.

My right hon. and gallant Friend said just now that the Secretary of State could suggest an alternative to fit in with the plan. As I understand Clause 29, there is nothing to say that the alternative suggestion made by the Secretary of State—made by him the subject of a direction—has to accord with the proposals of the development plan. Nor is it provided that it should accord with the character of the development of the district and with the general proposals of the development plan that we move the Amendment.

The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked that examples should be given when these cases were being canvassed. I tried hastily to think of an example. It may not be a good one, but I give it for what it is worth. Suppose I, as, it may be, an industrialist owning land in a Scottish burgh in which there is a plentiful water supply running along the edge of the town, desire to establish a paper mill in a position where use could be made of the plentiful water supply. The Secretary of State, from the papers sent to him, could say, "No, you cannot establish a paper mill there but you may establish a swimming bath instead." I do not want to establish a swimming bath. I am not interested in building a swimming bath. What I wanted to do was to use my own land for the purpose of my own business and to build a paper mill. The Secretary of State says, "No, you can develop the land by building a swimming pool on this clear water, and by doing that you are debarred from compensation."

Perhaps that is rather fanciful, but there are other examples. Suppose that I wanted to build a block of offices in the same burgh and was prevented from doing that and the Secretary of State said, "No, you must not do that but you can build a block of flats instead." It might well be that the planning authority abhored flats and would not have them in its burgh at any price; it might want houses, but not flats. I want to ensure that the alternative direction given by the Secretary of State shall be such as to accord with the wishes of the planning authority and the general proposals of the development plan.

If every case could be examined personally by the Secretary of State, particularly by the present Secretary of State, I should not have the slightest fear that matters would not be dealt with in a reasonable way, but everyone knows that these matters are decided not by the Secretary of State but by some official at St. Andrew's House. I have a great regard for civil servants, but I cannot believe that they are always right. I have never believed that the "gentleman in Whitehall" knows best, and I do not believe that the gentleman in St. Andrew's House knows best. I prefer the judgment of the local authorities.

At the moment all my local authorities and all my butchers want slaughterhouses in two burghs; but the gentlemen in St. Andrew's House say, "No, there are plenty of slaughterhouse facilities 18 miles away," thinking that they know better than the local authorities, but I am certain that they do not. That is the sort of thing I do not want. I want the local planning authorities to make the plans and determine what is to be in them. I move the Amendment with some sincerity of feeling.

Major W. J. Anstruther-Gray (Berwick and East Lothian)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Ross

When the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) spoke earlier he talked about a "refreshing speech" which had come from the Opposition benches. He has been the only speaker from the Government back benches in spite of the interest shown by himself and others upstairs. However. I congratulate him upon the fact that when he did make his speech he made a good one. It was refreshing to hear him voice such sentiments.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I have just made my third speech today. I had hoped to make others, but my Amendments were ruled out of order.

Mr. Ross

That is a pity because the hon. Gentleman went to the aid of his right hon. and gallant Friend.

His right hon. and gallant Friend said, in dealing with another matter, that all that happens when a claim is made is that the Secretary of State makes an alternative suggestion. Clause 29 is much more pernicious. Under this Clause plan- ning permission may be refused for some project, such as a cinema, industrial development or a block of flats, the local authority turning it down for good and sufficient reasons. The person seeking permission may then make a claim for compensation to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State can make up his mind before consulting anyone. He can revoke the decision of the local planning authority and substitute a proposal of his own. It is not merely a question of a suitable alternative suggestion being made by the Secretary of State; he can alter the work of all the planning authorities in Scotland. The Clause contains nothing to limit him; it does not lay down any considerations for him when he makes up his mind about plans. I cannot improve upon the words in the hon. Member's Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Surely it is not right that the Secretary of State for Scotland should allow financial considerations to override planning considerations. It is all very well to talk about planning considerations, perhaps in an area which the local authority is anxious to keep clear of industrial development, when someone wants to build a chemical factory right in the heart of a residential area, as he may well do, but, unless we have some such safeguard as that the Secretary of State before making any such decision, will have regard to the provisions of the development plan for the area or to the local circumstances affecting the proposed development area and any such material considerations, the situation will not be satisfactory to us.

We have heard so often from Ministers and from back benchers on the other side of the House that the man in Whitehall does not know best. I have heard even the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment making impassioned addresses telling us to trust the local authorities. Well, why not trust the local authorities here? Ayr Town Council decided that there should not be an open air "cheap jack" market just over the wall from the kirk, but the Secretary of State for Scotland decided otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman should know exactly what are the feelings of Ayr Town Council in this matter.

What I am afraid of is that the kind of consideration which will move the Secretary of State to action in approving the original proposal will not be any consideration of planning. of the fitness of the proposed development for the area in which it is to take place, but purely and simply consideration of the amount of compensation to which he will leave himself open.

Decisions like this are decisions against the people, against the life of the people and against the way in which they live, and I am not at all satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to this aspect of the matter. We shall return to this question in another Amendment. Both parties in this House, after the war, were very much concerned about what had happened before in regard to the haphazard growth of our towns and cities, and planning then came into its proper place. I am not in favour of putting planning on a pedestal, but I am very much against the smashing of all ideas of planning which might well come from the decision of the Secretary of State, and nothing that I have heard in the conduct of the debates on this Bill has satisfied me that hon. Gentlemen on the back benches opposite properly understand the considerations which are at stake here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw his Amendment, but will take it to a Division.

Mr. Manuel

I hope that this matter will be looked at most carefully by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Most of us who have played a part in helping to arrive at the decisions of local authorities know of the painstaking care with which these authorities, and especially planning authorities, have got down to their job throughout all the local authority areas in Scotland. We should also remember that the Secretary of State has already endorsed the overall plan for the area.

I think that some form of protection is necessary. While the words of the Amendment may not be the best obtainable, at any rate they are a step in the right direction. The local authorities, who, after all, have had their overall plans endorsed by the Secretary of State, and who realise that these plans lay down broadly what can be accomplished by way of the location of industry—where shops can be built and where obnoxious trades must not be carried on—regard these overall plans as a sufficient guide to the local authority.

When the initial plan is put up to the Secretary of State he has the right to change the overall picture according to advice from his planning officers at St. Andrew's House, but the local authority may go on the assumption that the plan has been adopted because it is the overall plan. In their wisdom, they know that grudges and wrongs which may be committed may be put right at the next election. Apart from that election point, Parliament ought not to give a second opportunity to the Secretary of State, because a person may have influence of some kind to get his case looked at again. An appeal is all very well, but an appeal of this kind, after the initial plan has been endorsed, is not good.

We are continually hearing from the Government side, just as when we were the Government we were continually hearing it, that local authorities in Scotland ought to be given more power. I am all for giving local authorities more power, but when we are talking of local authorities in this connection we are referring not to the small authorities but to large areas in which county councils assume planning powers for the whole of their county areas. That is not a small thing. It is just too bad, after all we have heard in the past, especially from Ministers, about the need to preserve local authority powers, that we should be discussing this proposal.

One of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State blazed a trail up and down the county of Fife preaching that gospel, in which I ardently believe. It seems terrible that once an hon. Member assumes office he should leave his conscience behind. [Interruption.] I am reminded that the hon. Gentleman is in charge of fishing, but I do not think we ought to bring that point in.

I hope that the mover of the Amendment will stick to his guns. I may be even more in favour of his Amendment than he is, and I believe we must do something about it. I hope that he and the few of his hon. Friends who are in the Chamber will swell the vote on this occasion in favour of helping local authorities in Scotland.

Commander Galbraith

I am impressed by the respect which is being shown for local authorities. It is most refreshing and I hope that we shall hear more of it. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a little to anxious about what would happen. I think he knows perfectly well that no Secretary of State would use lightly his powers under Clause 29, and that before using them he would consult the local planning authority, which has a statutory right, under Clause 31, to be heard. My right hon. Friend does not differ from the local authorities except for good and convincing reasons. Of course, if there was such a thing as an unreasonable local authority, it might run my right hon. Friend into a good deal of money for compensation, and it is only right that he, if such a local authority behaved in that way, should be able to do something about it.

I would remind the House that during the Second Reading I informed hon. Members that my right hon. Friend had no intention of using his review powers for the purpose of scrutinising closely from the financial point of view decisions of planning authorities which gave rise to claims. I said that then, and that is the position which my right hon. Friend takes up now. On the other hand, he must, of course, have some powers.

Let us, first of all, get down to what is the present position. The Clause gives powers to the Secretary of State to review planning decisions which have given rise to claims for compensation, and to give directions substituting a more favourable decision than that given by the local authority in cases where my right hon. Friend would have made such a decision if the case had been referred to him in the first place—that is under Section 13 of the 1947 Act—and also the granting of planning permission for some purpose other than the development of the land in question.

The purpose of the Amendment is abundantly clear. It has been spoken of by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members opposite. Let me say straight away, that, in my view, the Amendment is quite unnecessary. It does no more than express what my right hon. Friend does already as a matter of course when applications are referred to him under Section 13 of the 1947 Act.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

Does that mean that my right hon. and gallant Friend will accept my Amendment?

Commander Galbraith

I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to continue a little further before coming to that conclusion.

If these provisions were not necessary under the 1947 Act, then there is very little need for them now. The Amendment would suggest that the Secretary of State was to be more restricted in his consideration of review cases than he is at present in dealing with land under the 1947 Act. Having said that and having made it abundantly clear that, in my opinion, this Amendment is quite unnecessary, I would add that in view of the great unanimity of feeling that has been evidenced on both sides of the House in this debate, which is something so refreshing, I really cannot do other than accept the Amendment in principle. The wording may need revising, but I accept it in principle.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

On the understanding that it is accepted in principle by Her Majesty's Government and that they will, on another occasion, put down an Amendment which will carry into effect this same principle and the same intention of my Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser

I think that we should all like to be sure that the intention of this Amendment will be incorporated in words to be inserted in the Bill in another place. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sought to show that the words were unnecessary. He said that if such a provision was unnecessary in the 1947 Act, it should not be necessary today. He caused us to wonder why, if the 1947 Act was such a perfect piece of legislation, we were having this Bill at all at this time.

However, we have the Bill before us, and we are discussing an Amendment which seeks to ensure that, in issuing a direction, the Secretary of State will take into account certain considerations. The Joint Under-Secretary said that the Secretary of State would, in any case, take those considerations into account. I do not want to cause a disturbance at this time, but I doubt very much whether that is so.

In any case, we all think that the Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is a worth-while Amendment. It affords protection to local authorities. It is something to which all of us could point at any time when the Secretary of State gave a direction—or at the present time gives a decision, as he frequently does—against the wishes of the local authority. We should like to have this kind of protection. We appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's wording may not be acceptable to the Government and to the Parliamentary draftsmen, but before the House leaves this I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to make clear that it is the intention of the Government to find alternative words to implement the principle of the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith

That is exactly what I meant when I said that I accept the principle. That means that an Amendment, in suitable words, will be put down in another place.

Mr. T. Fraser

rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Question is—

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

On a point of order. Leave was given to withdraw the Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) rose to speak, so the Question must be put. I cannot allow it to be withdrawn now.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley

I understood that it was agreed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It was not agreed—an hon. Member rose to speak.

Mr. Fraser

I do not object to the withdrawal of the Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree.

Amendment negatived.