HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1640-2
Mr. Stodart

I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 43, line 2, to leave out from "authority" to "shall" in line 3.

I was interested to hear the Minister of State just now describe the objections of the N.F.U. to the proposal that byelaws might be made to deal with hulls. He said that the N.F.U. was very keen that there should be no variable byelaws in different parts of the country.

The object of the Amendment is to try to ensure that byelaws which affect people in the countryside shall have a reasonable degree of consistency about them. I think that there could be very different interpretations of what under Clause 54(1) constitutes undue interference with the enjoyment of the countryside by "other people". Therefore, it seems sensible to us that the Commission should be able to give advice with a view to getting a consistent pattern of byelaws throughout the countryside. Under the Clause, they can do so, and will have to do so where Clause 9 special areas are involved. That is a thoroughly sound idea and the Amendment would extend this effort towards consistency to every local planning authority.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I regret that I have not had the opportunity to consult the local authority associations about the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has, however, missed Clause 3(e) where there is the duty of the Commission. to advise the Secretary of State or any other Minister or any public body on such matters relating to the functions of the Commission as he or they may refer to the Commission or as the Commission may think fit. In other words, there will be a channel of communication in the Statute whereby my right hon. Friend, who will have to approve every byelaw will be free to refer a byelaw to the Commission and to ask its advice. Thus, there already is a central authority in my right hon. Friend to deal with byelaws and he can have recourse to the Commission.

The Amendment would make it obligatory that, in all cases, byelaws would go to the Commission. I agree that we should have these circumstances in areas of special planning control. I will not quote Gilbert and Sullivan, but when everyone is somebody, then nobody is anybody. If we were to make general provisions of the kind we have for the special area controls, they would either tend to be taken sincerely, which would need an enormous burden of work on the Commission, or might not be regarded seriously, which would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman's intention.

It would be wrong to rule that, in all cases, byelaws must go to the Commission. It is right that my right hon. Friend should have power to refer them to the Commission if he thinks fit. He can also ask for a specific matter to go to the Commission—for example, byelaws concerning dogs. It might be desirable to have model byelaws about dogs. Indeed, we hope that the Commission will produce a set of model byelaws for the advice of local planning authorities. But, apart from very common circumstances like bulls, where we have been asked specifically to legislate, there are local circumstances and variations which make it desirable that local byelaws should be made.

The man in St. Andrew's House does not always know best. It would be wrong to inject this provision into the Bill, par- ticularly as we have in fact met the main point involved by Clause 3(e). I suggest we should leave it at that.

Mr. Stodart

I confess that I had overlooked Clause 3(e). Perhaps we have got so far from it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reminder and, in view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.