ADAPTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF ENACTMENTS, ETC. (Hansard, 11 June 1969)

§ Mr. Wylie
I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 117, line 42, at end insert: 34. In Part I of Schedule 1 (Voluntary combination of authorities) there shall be added the following paragraph:— '6. Where the Secretary of State has by order constituted a joint planning committee a body corporate under the provisions of this part of this Schedule he may by order provide that such joint planning committee shall exercise the powers conferred upon its constituent authorities by virtue of section 9 of this Act (Adoption and approval of local plans)'. 35. In Part II of Schedule 1 (Combination of authorities by order) there shall be added the following paragraph:— '4. Where the Secretary of State has by order constituted a joint planning committee a body corporate under the provisions of this part of this Schedule he may by order provide that such joint planning committee shall exercise the powers conferred upon its constituent authorities by virtue of section 9 of this Act (Adoption and approval of local plans)'. This Amendment seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to utilise the existing statutory provisions of the 1947 Act by extending them to enable joint planning committees to fulfil the functions delegated to planning authorities under Clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 9 puts local planning authorities in the position of deciding whether to accept recommendations or objections promoted at a public inquiry. It was a Clause to which we took strong exception earlier this evening.
Since the provision is in the Bill, this Amendment seeks to achieve in another 1624 way in certain circumstances a separation of responsibilities by giving to a joint planning committee, where such committee exists and where it has been constituted a body corporate by the provisions of the first Schedule to the 1947 Act, the power to exercise the approval provisions with regard to local plans. Instead of the local planning authority being the final arbiter in its own case where a joint planning committee exists and is a body corporate, the Secretary of State can by order provide that it will fulfil these provisions. It would avoid the invidious position of the local planning authority being a judge in its own case.
I do not imagine that the Minister will accept the Amendment, but it has behind it a good deal of logic. One of the basic weaknesses of the Bill is that there is not a separation of functions between local planning authorities and some other authority responsible for other planning functions. It is one of the problems in the Bill.
We have now an opportunity to give to joint planning committees powers appropriate to a top-tier authority such as may come out of the proposals of the Wheatley Commission in advance of a restructuring of local government. We now have the opportunity to build in an ad interim provision to create top-tier authorities.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I do not fault the Amendment on the ground that it is defective, in that it says … section 9 of this Act", instead of … section 9 of the Act of 1969", although that has to be borne in mind in considering whether to adopt it at this late stage. But it would be undesirable to spell out one power, because it would cast doubt upon others enshrined in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1947.
While I agree that it is the intention to encourage people to come into voluntary combinations, the Amendment is unnecessary because this is provided for in Schedule 1 of the 1947 Act.
It is unnecessary, since it would cast doubt upon other powers, and on the ground that it is defective, I could not advise the House to make the Amendment.

§ Mr. Wylie
I do not agree that it is unnecessary because it would be quite possible for local authorities to get together under Schedule 1 to the 1947 Act for certain purposes when they were not willing to do it for the purpose of exercising their individual powers under Section 9.
The Amendment was aimed at the situation where a joint planning committee exists, and the Secretary of State creates it a body corporate. In that situation he can impose those powers upon it. In that sense, one would achieve planning powers in something of the nature of a top-tier authority which was constituted for quite different purposes.
However, I have made the point, and it is clear that the Minister does not intend to accept it. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.