Clause 33. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Allason
I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 26, line 45, at end insert— (2) If the owner or occupier of a listed building objects to that listing in the manner prescribed to the Minister, the Minister shall give such person an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for that purpose; and the decision of the Minister thereupon shall be deemed to be action on the part of the Minister under section 176(3) of the principal Act. Mr. Speaker, you will be glad to hear that we are now moving on to another part of the Bill which is of considerable interest to most hon. Members because it deals with historic buildings.
The Bill very greatly extends the effects of listing by the Minister. To some listing is a privilege, and to some listing is a nuisance, but I am sure we all agree it is desirable to preserve ancient and historic buildings, and the Bill takes considerable steps in this direction.
At the same time I think we would agree that it is the duty of the Bill to protect owners in borderline cases from the consequences, sometimes very harsh consequences, of listing.
In the Committee the Minister of State was discussing the possibility of giving an appeal against listing. We had originally suggested that there ought to be re-listing of every building in the country at present listed because the rules are being changed. The Minister of State said this would be a mammoth task, would unduly strain Government resources, and would be inappropriate.
So the alternative was the question of of a second appeal against listing, because there are rights of representation and possible appeal against initial listing. We suggested that this should therefore be available upon the Bill taking effect, and the Minister was resisting this. But then he did become convinced that there was a case where there was a wish to appeal at the point of sale. The hon. and learned Gentleman said: I should like to consider the suggestion that has just been made to see whether it is possible to devise a right of appeal at the point of sale. Like the hon. Member. I foresee difficulties of definition as to what is the 741 point at which the right of appeal would arise. I should like to think about the matter further." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 2nd April, 1968; c. 794.] I can sec that it is difficult to draft restrictions to confine the right of appeal to a bona fide point of sale because who can define a point of sale? It is possible to arrange a bogus offer in order to get an appeal against listing. In consequence, although the Minister promised to look at this again, there is no Government Amendment down to deal with the matter.
But there should be an appeal against listing. It should not be encouraged but it should be available, because we have admitted that there is a need for an appeal at point of sale, and if there is an admitted need it should be met even if the gates are open wider than the Minister would wish. Therefore, this Amendment provides in simple terms for a right of appeal by the owner or occupier of a listed building to the Minister against the listing. It could be hedged round with further restrictions—for example, that there should be only one right of appeal— but it is desirable that there should be a right of appeal. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows in his heart that this is so.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)
The Amendment seeks to protect the owner whose building perhaps only just got on the list and should not perhaps be on it. This difficulty has arisen because the list is very large. The aim of the Ministry is to list every building which could possibly be of historical and architectural importance. I wonder why the Minister rejected the idea of having a graded statutory list. When listing began, the buildings were placed on a provisional list in various grades. Grade I buildings were those of such national and historical interest that there could be no question of their being destroyed except in the gravest national crisis or for some other overwhelming reason, whereas those buildings further down the list were regarded as those which should be preserved if possible but which would have to be removed if development of one sort or another was pressing. If the Minister had adopted the idea of a graded statutory list, many of the difficulties likely to arise would not arise.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I do not see how the question of grading would help on this problem about the right of appeal. To answer the hon. Gentleman, I understand that there proved to be difficulties about the definition to write the grading into the Statute. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is grading in practice. There are grade one buildings, of the kind he mentioned, grade two starred, and un-starred and grade three, which are not on the statutory list at all. Administratively this seems to work.
The hon. Member for Hemel Hemp-stead (Mr. Allason) has relieved me of trying to explain to the House why we have found it impossible to define a category to meet the particular point we were dealing with in Committee. As I predicted, we did not find it possible, although we made great efforts to do so. It is impracticable. We come to the basic question: should there be a universal right of appeal against listing, or should the right of appeal be confined to the points at which the disadvantages, if there be any, of being listed are being felt to the detriment of the owner-occupier, as is the case with the Bill as drafted.
For example, if he wants to do some work to his building and is refused consent, he can then appeal against the listing. When an enforcement notice is served upon him, and he thinks that the building is wrongly listed, one of the grounds on which he can appeal against the notice is by saying that the building ought never to have been listed. The reason why we have confined it in this way is administrative. It is that there is a limited number of highly skilled staff doing this work. Everyone interested in the subject agrees that what is imperative is to finish the first listing, which is very nearly completed. There are about four districts left in the country.
Then we have to finish the revision, which has already been started in many areas, and which is likely to lead to a substantial increase in the number of listed buildings—perhaps as much as a 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. increase. That is a task which will take many years to achieve, even though we have authority to double the staff doing this work. Knowing the restriction on expansion of 743 civil servants, this is an earnest of the seriousness we attach to this work.
Even with a doubling of the staff, it will take many years to complete this work. If we had a universal system of appeals those staffs would be liable, at any moment to be called from their work in order to travel maybe across the country, to attend some inquiry to give evidence and defend their listing. We feel that this system would cause the administrative machinery to break down, and hold up the whole system. That is why we are confining the right to firm appeals, to the point where it hurts. There is an informal remedy, which has real value, and which is always available. It is that anyone whose building is listed, who wants to know the reasons for that listing, if he wishes to challenge it, has only to write to the Ministry and ask. He will be provided with a full written statement of the reason for the listing.
If then, objections in writing are made about those, they will be considered and the listing will be reconsidered in the light of those objections. This is an informal right of appeal, but it will not have the same time-consuming effect upon the skilled staff as would result if we were to give a universal right of appeal.

§ Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)
Is this informal type of appeal subject to the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner in the event of a complaint?

§ Mr. MacDermot
Yes. These are officials acting on behalf of our Department.

§ Mr. Allason
The Minister has admitted that there is a requirement for the appeal at point of sale that he wished to find, but could not.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. If hon. Members want me to go into this, I would say that, with my colleagues, I thought that, not only is it difficult of definition, but that it is very hard to find an identifiable case where any real hardship would be suffered by a person at the point of sale which he could not overcome by putting in planning application.

§ Mr. Allason
I am grateful to him. I was coming to that. The appeal is that the building should not have been listed in the first place and that it is not of sufficient merit to go into the new listing system which has a tough series of requirements, while it might have gone in under the old list. The Minister of State has said that other ways are open. He mentioned the informal approach to the Ministry which may help on some occasions and may indicate to an owner that the building has hidden merits which he did not recognise. This may put him off going to appeal. If he still wants to go to appeal, the Minister of State says that he should submit a bogus application for listed building consent when he wishes to sell the building.
The prospective purchaser might say that he is not taking on a commitment to purchase a listed building which could never be altered and has to stand for ever, and which would involve an expensive repair liability that he would not meet. The owner says: "Would it not be better to get it off the list. I do not see that it has any particular merit". He then submits an application to demolish something which it is not in the mind of the owner to do at all, but it is made in order to get a refusal from the local planning authority, and then to be able to appeal against the refusal. I call that a bogus application. The Minister may have more polite words, but we used "bogus" on Committee without giving offence to anybody. If we are to have this sort of appeal, it would be better to get it done in the way suggested, and above board.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 27, line 6, at end insert: (3) For the purposes of this part of this Act, any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall be treated as part of the building. This has already been discussed.

§ Mr. Robert Cooke
I want to ask a question—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
It has already been discussed.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I referred to it in the debate on Tuesday morning when it was discussed.

§ Mr. Cooke
Is there any objection if we ask for further elucidation?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand the Amendment was discussed with a previous Amendment.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 27, line 12, leave out 'section 33' and insert 'listed building'.
This is the first of a series of drafting Amendments. The others are: 74, 78, 79, 81 to 88, 90 to 92, 96–107, 109 to 111, 166, 168, 170–175, 177–182, 184, 185, 187 to 194, 196 to 204, 206, 208, 229 to 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 241, and 244 to 247.

§ Mr. MacDermot
I beg to move Amendment No. 73, in page 27, line 15, at end insert 'and'.
This is a drafting Amendment.

§ Mr. Allason
I do not agree that it is a drafting Amendment. This is of considerable importance. Under this an owner of a listed building has to go through two hoops, not one, in the event of wanting to demolish the building. In the past the owner of a listed building who wanted to demolish it had to notify the Royal Commission of his intention to demolish, and, I think, the local planning authority. He had to give two months' notice so that the possibility of a building preservation order being served could be considered. Under the 1967 Act this period was extended to six months. Now he not only has to give notice to the Royal Commission, but he also has to get listed building consent from the local planning authority. It was not clear from the drafting that (a) and (b) of Clause 33(3) were complementary. There was not an "or" or an "and" in between them. This puts in an "and" which makes it clear that they are complementary. We welcome that we should have it, but it was a matter which could have caused confusion in view of the previous state of the game before the Amendment was made.

§ Mr. MacDermot
The purpose of a drafting Amendment is to make clearer the drafting.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I hope that we shall not spend a lot of time on purely drafting Amendments.

§ Mr. Graham Page
On a point of order. I am not clear whether, by the Parliamentary Secretary reading out a whole list of Amendments, rather like a Bingo caller, we have passed all those Amendments before we have reached them. He read them out. I do not know whether he is saying that we were discussing them with each other or whether, when somebody said "Aye" after that, we passed Amendments to the end of the Bill before ever getting to them.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
They have all been discussed, so no further debate on them is possible.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 28, line 32, at end insert— (8) Before giving a direction under subsection (7) above in relation to a building, the Minister shall consult with the local planning authority and with the owner and the occupier of the building.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 76, in page 28, line 27, after 'direct', insert 'after consultation with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier'.

§ Mr. Skeffington
Clause 33(9) empowers the Minister to direct that a building formerly subject to a building preservation order and for that reason deemed to be a listed building shall no longer be deemed to be listed.
747 In Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment which would require the Minister, before making such a direction, to consult with the local planning authority, the owner and the occupier. I gave an undertaking that this should be considered. The Amendment fulfils that pledge.

§ Mr. Allason
There is little difference between this Amendment and our alternative. We would provide that the Minister may direct after consultation, while the Government have it that, before giving a direction, he shall consult. Our main objection is that the Government Amendment gives a second subsection (8), and also refers to a direction under subsection (7), when I think that subsection (9) is intended, since no direction is possible under (7). Amendment 77 is therefore defective, and Amendment 76 is to be preferred.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I should have said that the figures in the first line of the Government Amendment have been wrongly printed, and that (8) should be (10) and (7) should be (9). This has been mentioned, but I should like to put it formally on the record.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Amendment is proposed as on the Order Paper, with the exception that, in the first line "(8)" should read "(10)" and "(7)" should read "(9)".