HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1432-8

Lords Amendment No. 32: In page 18, line 39, at end insert: ( ) appeals under section (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (2) of this Act".

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

With this Amendment we can discuss Lords Amendment No. 35.

Mr. MacColl

These Amendments put appeals against refusals to grant established use certificates into the list of kinds of appeals which may be transferred to inspectors for decision by means of regulations under Clause 19. At the moment, there is no intention of transferring them. We want to see how this will work and how the new techniques of established use certificates will operate before we ask the inspectors to take on the rather onerous responsibility of interpreting them. While it is desirable to have these powers, we do not intend immediately to use them.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 34: In page 19, line 8, leave out "section" and insert "Part of this Act".

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I suggest that with this Amendment we take also Lords Amendments Nos. 37, 41, 42 and 43, with the Amendment thereto.

Mr. MacColl

These are substantially drafting Amendments. The revised form of wording more neatly covers both the Clauses which authorise the appointment of persons to determine appeals. It is no longer necessary to make a specific application of the provisions of subsections (5) to (8) of Clause 19. The other Amendments delete references.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 36: In page 19, leave out lines 22 to 25.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this Amendment I suggest we take Lords Amendments Nos. 38 and 118 and the Amendment to No. 38.

Mr. MacColl

The substantive Amendment is that to Clause 19, line 42. The others are paving, or consequential. The Amendment is partly concerned to achieve something similar to the present subsection (7), but paragraph (b) is new. The point is that if somebody wishes to challenge an inspector's jurisdiction by saying that the matter is not one with which he should have properly dealt, he must say so when the hearing is taking place. He should not have the opportunity of having his cake and eating it by chancing his luck to see what sort of decision he gets out of an inspector and then challenging him and saying it was a matter which should have gone to the Minister.

It is desirable that the inspector's jurisdiction should be taken as serious and important. If somebody submits to his jurisdiction, he should not have second thoughts about it. But if he has reason to challenge at the time, he should say so and he will not then be caught by this provision.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page

Paragraph (b) of Lords Amendment No. 38 precludes a person who has appealed to the Minister and whose appeal has been referred to a person appointed by the Minister, an inspector, as we call him, from taking action if he finds that the inspector did not have the necessary jurisdiction. He may have heard a type of appeal not included in that class of appeal which is to be delegated to a person so appointed. The whole basis of the appointment of an inspector to hear appeals in place of the Minister is the regulations in which will be set out what class of case the inspector is to hear. He is to hear only cases in those prescribed classes and if my Amendment were accepted and if he oversteps his jurisdiction, there would be a right to go to the High Court and challenge it.

It should be remembered that in many of these appeals the parties will not always be represented by a solicitor or counsel. Many are dealt with by letter and a visit to the site in a very informal way. The parties may seek not to go to the cost of instructing solicitors and briefing counsel and engaging those who are knowledgeable in these matters. A party may carry it through on his own and then discover later that it is a type of case which ought not to be heard by an inspector.

If the appeal is to the Minister, and the Minister hears it himself, his jurisdiction can be questioned at any time. Why should that not be so with an inspector? We seem to be depriving the so-called litigant of a right to challenge after a decision has been made by the inspector. It is not always possible to discover whether an inspector has the proper jurisdiction at the time he hears the appeal and it may be only later that facts come out to show that he did not have that jurisdiction. It is dangerous to deprive the appellant of his right to challenge later.

Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk)

I would not have intervened if I did not think that this was one of the matters which will affect many people in every constituency. What worries me about this problem is that as a result of this new procedure an enormous number of people may query the decisions of inspectors with their Members of Parliament. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that in this sort of appeal many people will not engage solicitors, or brief counsel, but will deal with the matter themselves and, to be blunt, get into a mess doing so. Having got into a mess, they will come to their Members of Parliament and ask them to get them out.

As I understand, the decisions made in the Bill will mean that the Member will not know how to set about that. This is not an unusual situation for Members of Parliament, but it is not one which we should encourage. The Clause, and the Bill as a whole, is not providing nearly sufficient safeguards, or appeals of last resort, without involving a great deal of expense, for the ordinary simple appeal, into which people enter, over very small building matters.

They are already confused, and as I understand the argument, they will be even more confused as a result of this legislation. Yet the whole purpose of it is to make it easier for the individual to get justice in appeals of this kind. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is an expert in this matter, has said, it is quite obvious that it will be even more difficult for the individual litigant, on appeal, without counsel or other legal advice, to get a just decision. What is even more important, it will be more difficult for them to feel that they have got a just decision.

Mr. McColl

With the leave of the House. I do not want to discuss the merit of this, because it would be out of order, but this does not take away any other right of access to the courts. If the inspector misbehaves, disregards the rules of natural justice, or in any other way exposes himself to an appeal to the High Court, that appeal will not be affected. A person will be in the same position then because the decision will be open to challenge.

The whole point is the narrower one of jurisdiction—that it is not right that, if the appeal has been heard, it should then be open to a person, without having challenged the jurisdiction, to reopen the matter by going to the courts.

Sir D. Glover

This is serious. How is a non-legal litigant to know that? If I have a solicitor I will know it, but if I deal with this on my own and find that it is too complicated, who will tell me that I have the right to which the Minister refers?

Mr. MacColl

That difficulty arises in any sphere. We all want to help, in every way we can, people who are unrepresented. No one wants planning legislation to be regarded as a pitched battle between legal representatives. Nothing can make planning law easy, but we have a booklet explaining the system, and the rights of the appellant.

One may have a case when the inspector will have been given power to deal with areas of land which are under two acres. It may happen that, after measuring an area of land, it is found to be slightly over that figure. It would be undesirable for the whole matter to be reopened later if no one takes any point about the marginal difference at the inquiry. I cannot advise the House that it would be wise—

Mr. Graham Page

Would the Minister apply his mind to this? The inspector will be given his jurisdiction by a series of statutory instruments. As he says, it may apply to two acres, or something of that sort. It is possible he may be dealing with something hidden away in those instruments, about which the ordinary appellant would not know, and would not find out until he took legal advice after the decision.

Mr. MacColl

I do not want to go into the merits now. It is very late in the day for that. One of the arguments in favour of this system is that one should have a form of summary jurisdiction where the inspector, who is the person available, who is there and sees it, comes to a decision, so that matters do not have to be referred or reconsidered. Therefore, it would not be a good thing to complicate his jurisdiction. If these points are taken and the inspector then decides to go on with the inquiry, that is a very different matter.

Sir D. Glover

This is extremely important. We are dealing with many people who take their own planning appeals to the inspector without legal advice. I have never found any inspector who went into a great deal of detail with the ordinary "Joe Soap", the person who appeals and who has no knowledge of the law, to explain his rights in the appeal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has mentioned six points. Can the Minister assure the House that when cases of this sort come before an inspector, he will enunciate those six points and tell the non-legal applicant what his rights are and what sort of thing he has to justify before the case proceeds? If the hon. Gentleman can assure the House of this, he will remove a great deal of our unease.

Mr. MacColl

As I have said, we certainly intend to explain in booklet form, which will be available for study, in as simple a way as we can, what the new procedure is. We will be having inspectors who are carefully chosen for this work and are given special instruction about it. I am certain that among the things that will be mentioned, they will have their attention drawn to the important question of their jurisdiction and to the importance of people understanding it.

In the nature of things, in the great number of these cases, the inspectors deal with them with great skill and competence. Few people are more acceptable for their fairness and competence. I am sure that they will want to make a great success of this work, bearing in mind these points, to which their attention will be drawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Forward to