HC Deb 06 July 1966 vol 731 cc493-503

As soon as may be after the end of March 1968 and after the end of March in each subsequent year the Minister shall prepare a report on the performance of his functions under this Act, and shall lay the report before Parliament.—[Mr. Channon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

During the Committee stage of the previous Building Control Bill, and on the Second Reading of this Bill, I asked the Government whether they would be prepared to provide, for the convenience of this House, of industry and of many other people, an annual report on the workings of the Measure when it becomes an Act. The Parliamentary Secretary then declined to give any such assurance, though he did so most courteously. I hope that the Government, having now been able to consider the matter since Second Reading, and in Committee, may have found themselves able to reconsider that previous decision and to allow such an annual report to he made.

On this occasion, my hon. Friends and I have put forward a less complicated proposal than that which we put in Committee. It follows precisely the Section in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965. I must confess that the case I am advancing to the House this evening would have been strengthened if we could have had the annual report under that Act in front of the House before today. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Board of Trade that it is the desire of all hon. Members that we should have that report at least by the time of the Summer Recess.

I hope that the Minister of Public Building and Works, should he be good enough to afford us an opportunity of having an annual report, will be considerably less dilatory than the President of the Board of Trade has been in producing his report. The arguments for producing an annual report are directly relevant to the provision for an annual report under the other Act since that Act was designed to have some control over building. This Bill goes very much further. It takes powers over the whole field of building and is far wider than powers over office building. Under those circumstances, it is somewhat anomalous that at the moment it is not proposed that the Minister should make a report.

The Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act is to expire in 1972. Unless the Government—as I hope they will—see fit to accept this Clause, we shall be in the anomalous position that this Measure will be in force after 1972 when the other Act will have expired. Then we shall have the curious situation that for a period of seven years we shall have had an annual report by the Board of Trade on control of office building, but that provision which the Board will have exercised during that time will cease at the end of 1972 and control over office building will still exist because the Minister will have powers under this Measue to control it yet we shall have no annual report.

When the President of the Board of Trade told us that he would give an annual report he said—I hope the Minister will say the same—that the sort of things he would include would he the total number of office building permits approved, those rejected, and the square footage involved. I hope that if the Minister gives an annual report he will include the number of projects approved and the number rejected, and that he will divide this into areas as the President of the Board of Trade has promised to do with reference to office building. He promised to divide the information into that relating to the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan region and, I gather, we shall have a separate report on the Birmingham conurbation. I hope that the Minister, who has wider powers, will also divide his report into sections dealing with areas.

It would be of value to the House, to the building industry and to the public at large if some information could be given to us about the operation of the building licence scheme. I should like the Minister to go a great deal further than what the President of the Board of Trade is to give us in his report on the control of office development. It would be far better, if the Minister is to give a report, to give details of reasons why he has refused licences in cases where he has done so.

In Committee, we specifically put forward a proposal that in an annual report which we hoped the Minister would make there should be some provision for giving reasons for refusal of licences. We have not included that in this Clause because we did not want to tie the hands of the Minister and to make it more difficult for him to accept the Clause. I suggest that when he is considering the matter, however, he should consider it only fair to include in the report, if at all possible, reasons for his decision in cases where he has refused a building licence.

I do not think it a wholly unfair analogy to draw to his attention what was said in the Franks Committee Report on this matter. It is not unfair to draw to his attention what happens in the case of planning appeals where the Minister makes a final decision. He makes a final decision in such cases after a public inquiry. So the citizen is far better safeguarded than he will be in cases where the Minister makes a decision without a public inquiry.

The Franks Committee stated, in paragraph 351: There is a consensus of opinion that the final letter of decision from or on behalf of the Minister should contain full reasons for the decison. The practice of giving properly reasoned decisions has grown noticeably in recent years… It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the parties concerned in one of these procedures should know at the end of the day why the particular decision has been taken. Where no reasons are given the individual may be forgiven for concluding that he has been the victim of arbitrary decision. The principles advanced in the Franks Committee Report are equally applicable to the information about the building licences scheme. If no other method can be found of making known the full reasons, I hope that the Minister will consider including in the annual report which I hope he will agree to give us reasons why he has refused licences in certain cases.

It may be that the Government are prepared to give us an annual report, but are not prepared to go so far as we should like. Let us hope that if that is the position as a minimum they will concede to us the more modest request to include the number of applications authorised, those refused and those for which no reply has been given at the date when the report comes out. This would be a powerful inducement for Ministers, at least once a year, to make sure that they have cleared their files very effectively.

I must tell the House that at this early stage of the working of the licence procedure, which, so far, has not the force of law, I do not think there is any evidence of delay by the Minister. I make no charge of delay by the Minister, but it would be helpful if, in an annual report of this kind, we could be told the average time taken before a decision is reached. This would help the House to keep a check on Ministers. I do not think that the present Minister will be dilatory in making decisions of this kind. I am sure that he knows full well how important it is to the parties to make decisions speedily, but it would be a check on him and his successors if they had to publish in a report the average time taken before a decision is reached.

It would be helpful, also, to the building industry and to the House to know the Minister's intentions. They could be explained in an annual report. Perhaps he is not prepared to authorise certain kinds of work to be done with certain kinds of material. If that sort of information were to be published by his Ministry and made plain in a report to the House, it would save a great deal of planning work. In a previous debate the Parliamentary Secretary told us that he wanted to improve statistical information in the industry and he thought that was in the interests of the industry and of the Government. I am sure that he was right. I think that it would be in the interests of the House as well.

I concede that it is quite possible that more up-to-date information could be obtained by hon. Members by Question and Answers and in Adjournment debates. The difficulty about that sort of proceeding is in being able to collate the information. Although it is possible for hon. Members to wade through a whole series of Questions and Answers and replies to debates and get relevant information, it is quite impossible to imagine members of the general public doing so and it would be unfair in the building industry. It would, therefore, be helpful to have an annual report which could collate the experience of the Minister and of his Department in the operation of the Act at least annually. I hope, therefore, at this late stage in the proceedings the Minister may be prepared to change his mind about having an annual report.

If the Minister is able to do so, I hope that he will tell us this afternoon what he will be prepared to put in the report. I am convinced that all those interested in building control would find such an annual report of value. It would be of value in the public interest. I claim that it would follow precedent which exists in a large number of Acts. I do not think it would necessarily prove burdensome to the Department. For all these reasons, and especially that of keeping the House fully informed at regular intervals about how the Act is working, I recommend to the House that we should ask the Government to produce an annual report on the way in which the Act is working.

Mr. William Roots (Kensington, South)

I strongly support the case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). The Bill will grant immense and autocratic powers extending over the whole country. These powers will apply to completely differing facts and considerations. Different considerations in terms of building control arise in various areas.

As it stands, one major disadvantage of the Bill is that, when enacted, the vast powers it will grant will be removed from any kind of review. No appeal procedure is provided for. There will be no control either by the House or by anyone else. No one has any rights. I strongly suspect that in many cases the Minister's successors, if not this Minister, will be equally in the dark.

The House is not only entitled but, indeed, should be obliged to know how these great but entirely restrictive powers are working. At the moment, the powers have not produced any increase in house building, which was one of the stated objects of this Measure. In fact, the rate of house building has decreased. I do not have to declare an interest, be cause I am not in the building industry. Meantime, the essential progress of development and modernisation of many kinds of building other than house building—office building is offices is an excellent example—has been gravely impeded and the country is suffering.

It is only fair to the Minister that I should give an example. Town centre development is an intensely complex matter which needs much planning and foresight. In many cases, to my own knowledge, worth-while, valuable, large scale, schemes have been halted because they happen to contain an office element and the developers cannot discover what policy is to be followed in future. As it stands, the Bill will allow developers to gain no inkling of what policy will be followed from year to year.

The Bill does not grant the developer any right to an impartial hearing. I am not seeking to impute any wrongful motives either to this or any other Minister, but this is the fact. The developer has no right to ensure that he has been fairly treated. He has no right of redress if he has been unfairly treated. My hon. Friend adduced overwhelming arguments in support of our contention that reasons should be made known. The blame in this respect cannot be laid either on the Minister or on the Bill. The hiatus arises because, unlike many other countries, this country has no kind of administrative law making it obligatory for this to be done. My hon. Friend referred to the Report of the Franks Committee. We need to go the next step beyond Franks. Franks could not deal with the part of the subject which arises on this Bill. Although it would be extremely important and valuable for the Minister to give reasons for his various policy decisions, we need more than that.

6.45 p.m.

The Clause at least has the merit that it would take the matter a stage further. It would ensure a measure of fair treatment of the developer. It would also enable the House, first and foremost, and—equally important—the developer, to see what course was being followed. If the Bill were to become law as it stands, justice would be as long as the bureaucratic foot, to adapt a well known legal saying. I assume that bureaucracy likes to be human. To err is human.

Therefore, bureaucracy is left with the choice between being inhuman and claiming not to err or admitting itself to be human and equally admitting that it may occasionally err.

I do not want to utter any alarmist note, but some hon. Members will remember all too well the working of the old regulations and that trial which led through luncheons in expensive grill rooms to the Old Bailey. I have no doubt that it will lead there again. It is extremely unfair to put officialdom in that position. As the Bill stands, a developer can do nothing to find out what the policy is other than try to get the appropriate official by the ear and take him out to lunch. In my experience, this is a very bad practice. I hope that the Minister will recognise this and introduce or accept a suitable Amendment, because it is not fair on officials.

I recognise that the Clause is not the real solution, but it would at least enable the course of major decisions to be seen and known. This is not a sphere where secrecy is either necessary or desirable. We do not want or need a cover-up procedure. The very opposite is needed if the best results are to be obtained, both from the administrative point of view and from the point of view of the industry, upon which this country must depend for the development of houses, offices, industry and everything else. The Clause should be accepted, because it would meet a vital need, in the absence of any system of administrative law.

I can only repeat that there is no evidence that the Minister or his Department needs or should have or is known to have sought any cloak of secrecy. Far from it. An annual report would enable discussions to take place and would also provide some knowledge of past policy and, one would hope, of projected policy for the year following that to which the report applied. I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause and, in doing so, recognise that he would be giving himself and his successors a very valuable asset and not something which would be in any sense an impediment to his work.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice)

It may be convenient to the House if I state right away that I accept the Clause and recommend the House to add it to the Bill. I should explain that in Committee my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I both spoke against the concept of an annual report because at that time we thought that, on balance, the argument was slightly against it. Indeed, I think we have now taken the other view because the Opposition are obviously keen on it, because, as they know, sweet reason always runs through our thinking in these matters, and we are, therefore, anxious that they should not only have all the information they want but they should feel satisfied that they are getting it in the form in which they want it.

I am not making any sort of constitutional precedent here, but this is the sort of Clause which, if the Opposition want it badly enough, the Government feel they ought to consider accepting. The only reason that we felt in Committee that the balance of argument was the other way was nothing like the sinister reason put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). It was that we felt that the amount of information which would be in the annual report would already be available in other ways to hon. Members. In other words, the annual report might be superfluous.

However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) that, nevertheless, in an annual report the information would be in a more convenient form and would avoid the necessity of people having to look back at previous debates and that kind of thing. Certainly, it has always been the Government's view that we are answerable to the House, and, of course, we want to give information to the House. Naturally, if we were to make major policy decisions affecting the type or volume of control that we were exercising, we would want to volunteer statements to the House on such matters. Of course, hon. Members can question us on the way we are operating the controls, and indeed this has already been taking place. A number of Questions have been answered on this point.

These are the reasons why we felt, on balance, that an annual report would be superfluous. But if it is to be of any help, we are happy to concede the point. As has already been pointed out, in the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act there is provision for an annual report. I am advised that there is also provision of a similar nature in the Local Employment Act, 1960, which controls the issue of I.D.C.s. These are both processes which are similar to the one in this Bill and, therefore, the parallel is one which we might reasonably follow.

As to the contents of the annual re-fort, I will consider carefully all the suggestions that have been made. I can say straight away that it would include the number of applications that have been made, the numbers that have been accepted and refused. It might also be useful to have the numbers outstanding at a particular date. I would say that those should be subdivided into regions—this is one of the suggestions that have been made today—and I would further add that they should probably be subdivided into types of application, so that the types of buildings could he separated out, and—I would have thought—the value of applications under each heading, including the value of those accepted and rejected. All this would be information which could properly be provided in a report of this kind.

On one point I do not see that I or my successors would be able to provide the information asked for, and that relates to the giving of reasons. It depends on what is meant by reasons. Clearly, the House would be entitled to know from time to time, either through the annual report or through some other medium, what were the considerations involved. It was suggested that we might be making decisions against a certain type of development because of the scarcity of a certain type of raw material. I would not want to be drawn into giving reasons for refusing individual applications. Here there is a very important distinction to be drawn between the job that we shall be doing under the Bill and the kind of decision to which the Franks Report refer red.

This brings me on to the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South. We have to draw a distinction here between decisions such as planning decisions, where the Minister concerned is acting in a judicial or quasi- judicial capacity, where people therefore obviously have a right to know the reasons for a particular decision in some detail, and the kind of administrative controls that are contained in a Bill of this kind. Broadly speaking, the reason why some applications would be refused, or why conditions would be attached, or why a developer would be told that he would have to wait some months, would arise basically from the fact that the Government were attaching a higher priority to other kinds of development than the proposed development.

Of course, my officials are prepared to discuss matters—indeed, they are already doing so in connection with the authorisations that we are operating—in some detail with people making a proposal, to give them an indication of where they stand in regard to an authorisation, and, if conditions are attached to it, the reasons for doing so. If we had to print every decision in detail, another difficulty would arise, namely that we might be giving away information which had been given to us in confidence. This is a very important point.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

As a developer has to get outline planning consent before he applies for a licence, would the Minister consider giving enough information to stop abortive work on outline planning consent if it is his policy not to allow certain types of building in certain areas?

Mr. Prentice

As the hon. Gentleman says, outline planning consent would have to be obtained. The hon. Member suggests that before going through the process of asking for it, some information should be given. Of course, we would be prepared to give any information which might be helpful in that case. What has to be recognised is that there is a proper sequence of decisions. We should not give a binding decision before the planning decision had been cleared, but, certainly, preliminary advice would be given.

The hon. Member will recall that we gave undertakings that we would be prepared to give advice for some years ahead—perhaps two or three years ahead—as to the likely attitude that we would adopt towards particular applications. This is a matter on which the hon. Gentleman was particularly keen and we gave that undertaking.

I hope that I have explained why there is a distinction between this kind of decision and quasi-judicial decisions, and the reason why we could not in an annual report or in any other published document give detailed reasons in print available for the public to read about individual applications. I hope I have covered most of the points that were put to me in relation to the report. I will study the record, and if there are others outstanding I will see what we can do to answer them.

In that spirit, I hope that the House will accept the proposed Clause.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark (Londonderry)

Now that sweet reason, as the Minister has said, has at last entered the field, it would be churlish of me to do anything except thank the Government and to say one more word. We are pleased that this Clause, which was moved on behalf of the Opposition in Committee earlier, has been accepted. I am glad that the Minister is talking in terms of regional subdivision, because that will obviously be valuable.

I should like the Minister to think a little more about some of the other matters which ought to be in the report. For example, the question of materials has been raised. It has been suggested that if there were a shortage of certain materials the Minister might wish to indicate, perhaps in the report or perhaps in private correspondence between the applicant and the Ministry, that the use of another material might in future result in the granting of a licence.

Then there is the question whether at some particular moment the Minister would feel that he wished to encourage system building, or a particular system of building, in a certain area. He will no doubt want to consider whether this should be in the report, or whether it should be a subject of correspondence between himself and the applicants. We welcome this concession, and are grateful to the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.