MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1967 (Hansard, 20 March 1967)

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Material Development (Scotland) Regulations 1967 be approved. I had intended to be exceedingly brief. The note I was given said that the Scottish Regulations are a straightforward adaptation of the English regulations, but in view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I will change the wording of my statement and say this. So far as the English Regulations, which have just been approved, are concerned, they are a straightforward adaptation of the Scottish Regulations, the adaptation being effected by the substitution of appropriate references to English statutory provisions and the replacement of Scottish legal terms by corresponding English ones, and so forth.
The noble Lord opposite introduced a certain note of entertainment into what he said about the previous Regulations, and he got a certain value out of this by comparing the Scottish and the English Regulations. For instance, he seemed to fear that we were getting worried about the Scottish Nationalist problem in Scotland by apparently denying the rights to Scotland which have been conferred on England. The fact is quite the reverse. The reason for the difference between the regulations is that in the control of advertisement regulations in Scotland we have never made it a matter of material development to do this sort of thing, so 538 we do not now need to make it an exception.
On the subject of the difference in wording to which the noble Lord referred, this arises from the difference in wording which has existed through from 1950, with English consolidation in 1963, and therefore if it is a fault it is a fault to which both Parties are contributories. It exists in the wording in the English and Scottish Development Orders, and in these Regulations we must accept the wording in these Orders as they stand. We therefore must continue in the Regulations to perpetuate the differences which have existed throughout the years. Equally, the difference is only a difference of phraseology, and is not a difference of purpose. It will cause no difficulty either to English or Scottish lawyers, and in this particular Bill I should think that that is at least an advantage. I beg to move.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, there is one point I should like to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, apart from the explanation that he was good enough to give us. I am bound to say that in these days it is a little difficult to see how a stable or loose box can in any way he incidental to the enjoyment of a building. However, if the noble Lord assures us that there is no difference in purpose between the Scottish and English Regulations in this case, and that the Scottish ones are as liberal as the English ones, then I am satisfied.
The other point is that in paragraph 17 of the Order, under the definition of "original" there seems to be an unfortunate stutter. It reads: 'Original' means, in relation to a building existing on the first appointed day, the building as existing on that day, and in, in relation to a building which is completed after the first appointed day, the building as so completed … I take it that that is a misprint. But I am bound to observe that Parliament has always taken the most stringent view of regulations of this character, for the good reason that they cannot be amended.
I have a vivid recollection of the objections that were taken to quite minor misprints in regulations in the past. I 539 feel that this ought to be put right. I take it that there would be no objection whatsoever to the Order being withdrawn and being relaid to-morrow, because it could still come into operation in time, on April 6. If that is so, I feel certain that the noble Lord would wish it to be put right.

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, I am looking at the part of paragraph 17 to which the noble Lord referred, and I am not yet quite clear to what he was referring, unless it is the repetition of the word "in" with the comma between.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, that is it.

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, I do not see anything wrong with it otherwise. Looking at it now, it seems to me to be the sort of thing which makes no sense if one looks at it purely from a layman's point of view, although there might perfectly well be a legitimate legal reason. I do not know. I would rather incline to the view of the noble Lord that this is a misprint; but, quite frankly, I do not know. If the noble Lord would remind me of the other point which he raised, the answer might emerge in the meantime.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I was merely drawing the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that the word "in" appears only once in the English Regulations. I doubt whether that is a difference between English and Scottish law.

§ LORD HUGHES
My Lords, while we are finding out what the position is, I will turn to the other point of the noble Lord, which I have now remembered; namely, whether in these days the erection of a loose box or coach house could possibly be regarded as part of the enjoyment of a dwelling-house. I should think that the reason for the inclusion of all these words is because they are in the original General Development Order and, while it is conceivable that a garage could be erected within the grounds of a house which had no relationship to the enjoyment of the house—I mean, someone with two acres of spare ground might contemplate the 540 erection of a commercial garage—I would agree with him that the likelihood of anybody wishing to have a commercial development of a coach house or a loose box is in these days extremely remote. In going through these Regulations the noble Lord, with his usual ability, has in fact discovered what is a misprint and, quite frankly, I do not know whether it is necessary to withdraw the Regulations, or whether it would in any way interfere with them.
I have just been given what I believe to be a very sensible answer which I have no hesitation in reading aloud: "'In, in' is a misprint. There is no question of withdrawing the Regulations. If it is possible to omit within the rules this will be done, but if it is not possible we will have to live with it."

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, is there any reason why we need to "live with it". I do not want to press it; it is an extremely minor matter.

§ LORD HUGHES
Finicky.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
The noble Lord says "finicky", but Parliament attaches importance to getting these matters right, for the very good reason that they cannot be amended by Parliament. Is there any objection to its being altered and relaid? Sooner or later the noble Lord will have to reprint it. So long as the Regulations can come into operation on April 6, I should have thought that that was the right course.

§ LORD HUGHES
That is the point, my Lords. It may not be possible to bring them into operation if we withdraw them at the present time. I understand that possibly it would have to go back to the Special Orders Committee. After all, we do not have very many days now before April 6, and the noble Lord will accept that, while it is unfortunate there is this misprint, it will not have any effect on the operation of the Order. The answer which I have been given, and which I have passed on to your Lordships, does not rule out the possibility that within the rules it may be possible to take out the superfluous "in".