LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 20 July 1978)

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
My Lords, I wonder whether, in the terms of my Motion, I could deal with these Amendments in two parts because there are two issues here. The first of them is to ask noble Lords opposite—it may well be the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—whether, in view of the fact that the question of historic buildings was not discussed very fully in another place, 600 they have decided that they are adequate, that there will be no opportunity for the United Kingdom Secretary of State to intervene if there is the risk of the demolition or severe alteration of a building in Scotland which is a building belonging to the national heritage. This was a matter that was discussed at some length on the previous occasion. I will not go over the exercise again, but I do not think that this has been discussed on the reconsideration in another place, and I would simply put the matter to him for him to consider again and to tell this House whether the Government have had further views.
There is another point here. It relates to the third of the Amendments which I am proposing. Although it would be germane to the question of whether or not the Secretary of State would be able to intervene if the Government were to accept the listed buildings Amendments which I have tabled, it goes rather wider than that. The intention, as I understand it, is that where there are override powers, or intervention powers, as they are perhaps better called, under Schedule 14, in the terms of the planning legislation, whereby the United Kingdom Secretary of State can get into the act where something is going on which goes rather wider than the pure Scottish interest, he should have exactly the same powers to intervene and override as he would have in every other respect under those clauses numbered in the thirties where the Bill deals with reserved matters.
I notice that there is a distinction between what is said in Schedule 14 about the area of intervention and the definition of reserved matters under those clauses numbered in the thirties which relate to the ordinary powers of intervention. I tabled this Amendment because I believe that it is intended that there should be no distinction at all.
So there are two points to this matter. Will the noble Lord tell the House once more whether the Government have had second thoughts about listed buildings? But even if they have not had those second thoughts, would he be prepared to consider an Amendment to the area of Schedule 14 which deals with the definition of what is the equivalent of reserved matters, so as to ensure that it is on all fours with the powers in the rest of the 601 Bill? Accordingly, I beg to move the following first two Amendments in lieu which stand in my name: Page 76, line 43, at end insert—

("section 93 section 96")

Page 76, line 44, leave out ("and 87") and insert—

("87 and 92 Schedule 10 Schedule 17 ").

I have spoken to the third Amendment. It ought to refer to page 77, not page 76. At the moment I do not wish to move this Amendment because I should like to hear the noble Lord's reply to the first two Amendments and see whether, in the process of speaking to those, he would go a little wider on the third Amendment. Then we may be able to see whether there may be some agreement with us on that, even if there is not on the first two. I beg to move.

Lord KIRK HILL
My Lords, following the noble Viscount's structure plan, I should say to him that I have had second thoughts, and I have consulted further about what I have always considered to be a most complicated matter, although I know that the noble Viscount has seen the issue with a simple clarity which has quite defeated me. With regard to his first two propositions, the Government can see no way by which the Schedule can be adapted within its present structure to meet the purpose which the noble Viscount would see.
I now wish to go beyond that point and speak to his third Amendment (which he has not moved at this stage) in order to say to him that the Government would be pleased to accept that Amendment; indeed, they are grateful for his help on that point. However, there is one caveat: we should have to look again at the drafting of the Amendment. But it is only with that caveat; otherwise we accept the Amendment.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. 602 I hope that if a historic building in Scotland was threatened the United Kingdom would not stand idly by. If, for instance, the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Ministers had run out of money and an appeal could be made to the United Kingdom Parliament, I do not think that the United Kingdom Parliament would be deaf to it. If that kind of provision cannot be included in the Schedule it may have to be dealt with by administrative means, should the occasion ever arise. For the moment, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the first two of my Amendments in lieu.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS
My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, I beg to move the third Amendment; that is, Page 77, line 10, after ("Scotland") insert ("(whether or not it also concerns directly or indirectly any other part of the United Kingdom)") I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it would probably be better to put this in the Bill now. Of course, like all my drafting it is almost certainly wrong, but, at least, if we put it in there will be an opportunity for somebody further to consider it. I therefore beg to move.