DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Hansard, 11 June 1969)

§ Mr. Wylie
I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 25, line 10, at end insert: (2) In the exercise of his powers under the preceding subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the applicant or appellant. Clause 22 involves a reserve power of the Secretary of State to decide appeals which, under Clause 21, would otherwise go to a person to whom those powers had been delegated. The Amendment would give the appellant, under Clause 14, or the applicant, under other provisions, the right to tell the Secretary of State that he wanted the decision taken by the Secretary of State and not by a person to whom those powers had been delegated.
The Minister of State rightly said in Committee that there was nothing to prevent an applicant or an appellant telling the Secretary of State that he wanted him to exercise his powers under Clause 22. But, when a radical change of this kind is being made, it could do no harm to write in clear information that the right exists, and that, when these representations are made, the Secretary of State shall have regard to them. This is not technically or legally necessary, but it seems to us to be desirable.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I am obliged for the hon. and learned Gentleman's concluding words, because if he will study subsection (2) he will see that the Secretary of State is required to give his reasons for calling in a decision to the reporter, if one has been appointed, to the appellant, to the authority and to any person, other than the applicant, who has made representations. This means that if the reasons must be given to these four sets of people, regard will be paid to the views of them all.
The Amendment is undesirable because it would disproportionately single 1604 out one of the four as being particularly deserving of the Secretary of State's ear. I am not lacking in sympathy for the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be wrong to over-emphasise the position of one of the four classes of party, as it were.

§ Mr. James Davidson
I need not add to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie). I support the Amendment. I cannot understand why special attention should not be paid to all four classes of party to which the Minister of State referred.

§ Dr. Mabon
All four are placed on exactly the same basis. If we accepted the Amendment it would seem that we were singling out the appellant as though he were especially deserving of the Secretary of State's ear, and that would be wrong.

§ Mr. Davidson
Why?

§ Dr. Mabon
Because the others have their points of view and they might be as concerned as the appellant. We must remember the authority and the reporter. I am not unsympathetic to the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be wrong to single out one party in the way they suggest.

§ Mr. Wylie
Is not the Minister aware that the applicant or appellant is the one person with a personal interest in the matter? He has appealed or applied and is most closely interested to know how that appeal or application will be considered. Clause 21 says, in effect, that in the ordinary case it will be considered by somebody to whom power has been delegated. Clause 22 says, meanwhile, that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State will decide the matter himself. The Amendment would make it clear to the person who is appealing or applying for a decision that it will be decided by the Secretary of State and not by somebody to whom power has been delegated.
1605 I urge the Minister to accept that subsection (2) deals with a different point. I accept that in saying that A direction under this section shall state the reasons … there is no problem, but I am concerned to enable the individual to write to the Secretary of State—as he legally may; he may not know that and the Amendment would make the position clear—saying, "I want you to decide this under Clause 22. I do not want you to delegate this decision to somebody else under Clause 21."
That is the point the Minister seems to have overlooked.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I thought the Minister was going to answer that point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)
I must remind the hon. Member that we are on Report and not in Committee.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I very much hope that the Minister will seek the leave of the House to speak again. I said in debate on a previous Amendment that I was not a Member of the Committee on the Bill, but I am surprised to hear what the Minister has just said, because it seemed to me that he was answering an argument which was not advanced by my hon. and learned Friend, but an argument on a different subsection.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
I was not.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Surely he was. This Amendment relates to Clause 22(1) and not Clause 22(2). Surely it is right that the applicant or the appellant should be permitted to make representations to the Secretary of State and have the right to have them listened to by the Secretary of State when the Secretary of State is determining what action to take under subsection (1). It is right, surely, when the Secretary of State is determining whether or not the appeal should be heard by himself or by a body outside, to whom he can delegate the appeal procedure under Clause 21, that the applicant or the appellant should be able to make representations to the Secretary of State, and have the statutory protection of having attention paid by the Secretary of State to those representations.
1606 The Minister seemed to me to assume that this Amendment related to Clause 22(2), but, of course, it does no such thing. It is far more important that the representations made by the applicant or the appellant should be taken note of by the Secretary of State when he is in the process of considering whether the appeal should be delegated or not, than later—a stage which is not reached till the Secretary of State has made up his mind that, "I am going to hear this appeal myself." Surely it is earlier in the process of consideration by the Secretary of State that the applicant or the appellant should have this right.
It is for that reason that it seems to me that—wrongly—the Minister was answering the argument in relation to another subsection. I hope he will seek the leave of the House to explain his position further.

§ Dr. Dickson Mabon
By leave of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman, by his Amendment, wants specifically to say that the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made by the applicant or the appellant. I was merely pointing out that under subsection (2) the Secretary of State, when he decides on a direction, must explain his reasons to the reporter, if one is appointed, and to the other three categories of persons or bodies. The Secretary of State could hardly make a decision without explaining it to the different parties and without listening to the different parties.
Hon. Members are making heavy weather of this. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that this is a small point. Of course, in deciding, the Secretary of State will listen to the representations of the different parties. The Secretary of State does read his letters. I assure the House of that. It would be wrong to say in the subsection that he shall listen to one particular party; the implication of that would be that he would not listen to the others. That would be quite wrong.

§ Mr. Wylie
The Minister will appreciate that he was talking of calling in a direction. What the Amendment deals with is a different situation—when the Secretary of State is deciding whether or not to make a direction.

§ Dr. Mabon
The Amendment does absolutely nothing to alter that situation. 1607 By neglecting to mention the other parties its implication is that the other parties are not interested. It does not follow that they will not be. There are numerous cases in planning appeals, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, where so-called third parties or fourth parties have often a greater direct interest—or, anyway, a greater interest in the long run—in the matter which is being determined than the applicant or appellant. This is really a very small point, and I am surprised that we should fall out about it at this stage. I put it to the House that it is not worth adding these words. The Amendment would discriminate unfairly, and it would not do any good.

§ Mr. James Davidson
The Minister of State says that the Amendment would not do anything, but in my view what it would do would be this. The appellant or applicant may take legal advice as he can do if he is dissatisfied. Many country lawyers find it very difficult to keep abreast of the mass of legislation that is passed. Unless such a man sees some paragraph or indication that the Measure gives a right of appeal and that it is within his client's rights to make an application to the Secretary of State, he will advise his client that it cannot be done, that the matter is closed, and that there is nothing more he can do. That is the purpose of the Amendment.