Clause 53. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Murton
I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 44, line 11, after ' authority ', insert: '(who is to their satisfaction competent to undertake the responsibility of examining, investigating and making decisions upon applications for planning permissions and related applications)'. As the Bill is drafted, a local planning authority may delegate any of its officers, with or without restrictions or conditions. We consider that the words "any officer" are too wide in scope. A situation might arise when a chief planning officer in an overburdened office might delegate functions to a junior in times of crisis. Generally speaking, the matters dealt with in Clause 53 would be fairly minor. Subsection (f) however deals with: an application for consent under section 33 of this Act for the execution of works for the demolition of a listed building or for its alteration or extension. Such work requires skill and expertise, and for that reason we suggest that the Amendment is accepted, so that a local authority must be satisfied beyond per-adventure of the competence and qualifications of the officer it is choosing to carry out any function.

§ Mr. MacDermot
This Amendment is unnecessary. The hon. Member suggested that there was a danger of a chief planning officer, to whom powers of delegation had been given, deciding to delegate to a junior officer. He would have no power to do so. It is only the authority which can exercise the powers of delegation. In the phrase known to lawyers: Delegatus non potest delegare. The officer would have no power to re-delegate to someone else.

§ Mr. Murton
Can we dispose of that and say that the authority did the delegating? How are we placed then?

§ Mr. MacDermot
Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he thinks that a local planning authority, given power under this Bill to delegate, and having to decide to whom it will delegate, will not consider the kind of matters in his Amendment? I would have thought it was almost an insult to the authority to suggest that they did not realise that of course they must delegate to someone competent to undertake the powers of delegation. But perhaps I can indicate that when we come to Amendment 120, which was on a point we were asked in Committee to consider, that delegation should be to officers by name, I shall be disposed to recommend the House to accept it.
If this is done and local authorities have therefore to decide by name on the particular people to whom they are going to delegate, they will exercise that power responsibly and it is not necessary to write this into the Bill. If we wanted to do this, the drafting would not be very suitable.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The point about this Amendment, which I think the Minister of State has missed, is that it concerns the capability of the officer appointed to undertake the responsibility of making decisions of this type. He will have, to some extent, to carry out an investigation of plans and reach a decision. There may be fully qualified planning officers, architects or surveyors in a department who are not the right people to carry out this sort of investigation of a plan, perhaps beyond the submission of an application, and to be satisfied that the application is right for the district.
768 The Amendment is intended to stress that and not just professional qualifications. It may be that the Minister has it in mind to advise local authorities on these lines, perhaps by the well-worn method of a circular. If he intends to give guidance of this kind, I hope he will bear this sort of consideration in mind.

§ Mr. MacDermot
We will bear that in mind and consider it carefully. I took the sense of the Amendment although I think it is not a matter we think should be written into the Bill.

§ Mr. Murton
I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 44, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert: (3) The delegation of the function aforesaid to an officer shall be made to him by name. with which it would be convenient to take Amendment 120, in page 44, line 38, leave out from ' section' to end of line 40 and insert: ' shall be made to him by name'.

§ Mr. MacDermot
There seem to be two Amendments dealing with the matter. It appears to us that the wording of the second is rather to be preferred.

§ Mr. Murton
If I could just speak to Amendment 120, the Minister of State said on the previous Amendment that he would be disposed to accept this. We had considerable discussion in Committee and we are anxious that anybody appointed should be named rather than being described by function. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.