Clause 30.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO REVIEW OF PLANNING DECISIONS). (Hansard, 19 October 1954)

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 33, line 18, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 26, and to insert: if so required by the local planning authority to whose decision the direction relates or by 1146 any person who made, and has not since withdrawn, a claim in respect of that decision, afford an opportunity for that authority or person to appear before, and be heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose. This Amendment has been put down in view of the undertaking I gave in Committee that the Government would consider whether Clause 30 could be so amended as to allow owners to be heard. I have considered the matter and I am glad to say that we can make provision for this. This Amendment is designed to achieve that object.

§ Mr. Ross
I think this is not quite exactly as the Lord Advocate says. Clause 30 provided that in his directions the Secretary of State was to make modifications, but the point is whether the Secretary of State in his directions is merely going to over-ride altogether the decision of the local planning authority. This Amendment makes it possible for the Secretary of State for Scotland, before he actually makes his direction to call in the planning authority and allow it to be heard by some person whom he shall appoint.
Instead of that, if he decides that he is going to over-rule the decision of the local authority, he is also going to invite the person in whose favour he has decided. I am not sure that that is right. I think he is loading the dice against the local authority. One should bear in mind that the Secretary of State would not be appointing this person to hear the case if he had not already made up his mind to turn down the local authority's case. Therefore, in effect he is himself the advocate for the applicant.
I appreciate that if there were suggested a modification of the applicant's plan, then certainly the applicant should be there, because, as has already been said, it may be that the modification suggested does not fit in at all with the ideas of the applicant. But I am not at all satisfied that it is an improvement or is just to the local authorities that when the Secretary of State reconsiders the plan he should be faced not only with the local authority but also with the applicant. I should like to hear reasons why this change should be made. It is not enough to say that that is what the Amendment does. Why make such a change?

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Since it was in response to a request that I made in Committee, I should like to say that I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for introducing this Amendment. The reason I asked for it and the reason I support it now is this. If the Secretary of State called into consultation only one party to the transaction—in this case it would be the local authority—it would give the impression outside that the matter was being decided in the absence of one of the interested parties, whether he is the owner of the land or the applicant for planning permission. I think we ought to make it quite clear that justice is not being dispensed behind closed doors. I felt that if the local authority was to be called into consultation, then the other party, the owner of the land or the applicant for planning permission, should have a right to be heard. I urged that point in Committee; it has been granted now, and I am grateful on that account.

§ Mr. Hoy
But does this Amendment not go much further? Does it not now exclude the applicant altogether?

§ Mr. Hoy
Apparently what I say has the agreement of the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) and the disagreement of the Lord Advocate.

§ The Lord Advocate
I am perfectly clear that if the applicant has an interest in the land he will be a claimant and will have a right as such to be heard. The purpose of this Amendment is to give people who might be financially affected by a change in the compensation situation a right to be heard. It seems only proper that if people's rights to the fund are going to be affected, they should have an opportunity to be heard. It was to secure that situation that this Amendment was put down.

§ Mr. Hoy
May I ask the Lord Advocate to look at this matter again? I have considered it very carefully, and my opinion is that it reverses the Clause as it originally appeared. In fact, it leaves the applicant, if he is not also the owner, altogether outwith the case. Only the owner now has the full right in the initial 1148 stages. If that is the correct interpretation, I suggest that when considering Amendments to be introduced in another place, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might look at this question and consider whether what I have said is not correct.

§ The Lord Advocate
I shall certainly have another look at it, and if it deprives people of an existing right, under the Bill, to make representations or to be heard, we shall certainly have to make some change.

§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley
Would not I be right in saying that applicants' rights are fully reserved and can be exercised when there is a question of appeal, but that under the Amendment the applicant has no right to be heard although the owner of the land is given that right?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Member must not make a second speech.

Commander Galbraith
I beg to move, in page 33, line 30, to leave out "to the applicant."
The present position is that where the Secretary of State gives a direction either substituting a more favourable planning decision for that of the local planning authority or grants permission for some other development, he is required to give notice of the direction to the applicant for the original planning permission as well as to the local planning authority and to the claimants for compensation. The Amendment simply removes the requirement to notify the applicant.
The purpose of the notice is to enable claimants to consider—in the light of the new compensation situation created by the Minister's direction—whether to maintain, withdraw or modify their claims. It is not intended for the applicant; it is intended only for the claimants, so that they may have an opportunity to maintain, modify or withdraw their claims. The applicant has no interest in the question, unless he also has an interest in the land, when he will presumably have claimed compensation and will, therefore, receive a notice of the direction in his status as claimant. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to speed up the procedure as much as we can. I do not think it is necessary that an applicant should he informed.

§ Mr. D. Johnston
I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this question again, in view of what the Lord Advocate said during the discussion on the previous Amendment. As I understood the Lord Advocate, it was his intention to look at the Amendment we have made to Clause 30 (1) to see whether it included the applicant. If we now make this deletion from subsection (2) it will mean that it will be quite useless to have another look at subsection (1). Clause 30 (2) must follow on Clause 30 (1).
9.15 p.m.
It is clear that when the Government originally drafted this Clause they intended that the applicant should be a party to the claim. Is there any reason why the applicant should not be a party now? I can well understand the owner of the claim being a party. Is there any reason why the applicant should not be a party to the proceedings as well, and should not have the notice of the application and of the decision of the Secretary of State? I do ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to look at this again. If he does not, I am sure he will not give effect to what I understood was the intention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) when he moved an Amendment which was accepted in spirit by the Government.

Commander Galbraith
With permission to speak again, I would thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has said. I have taken consideration of what my right hon. and learned Friend said in relation to the last Amendment, and I will have a look at this again.