'(1) 'This Act (except Part 7) binds the Crown.

(2) The amendments made by Part 7 apply to the Crown to the extent that the enactments amended so apply.'.—[Keith Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Crown application of planning Acts.

Government new clause 14—Crown application: transitional.

Government new clause 16—Subordinate legislation.

Government new clause 41—Crown application of Scottish planning Acts.

Government new clause 45—Subordinate legislation: Scotland.

Government new schedule 1—Crown application.

Government new schedule 2—Transitional provisions: Crown application.

Government new schedule 3—Crown application: Scotland.

Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55

Government amendments Nos. 330 to 332

Government amendment No. 334.

Government amendment No. 336.

We are about to embark on a series of debates on 21 new clauses, three new schedules and 10 other amendments, all of which deal with the Crown's immunity under the planning Acts. Before we do so, and with your permission, Mr. Hurst, it might be helpful if I again give some of the background to the proposals.

As members of the Committee will know, legislation does not bind the Crown unless there is express provision for it to do so. A series of court decisions have confirmed that the planning Acts do not bind the Crown. There is also a policy, which Administrations of all political persuasions follow, that Crown immunity should be removed where it is unnecessary. Hon. Members may recall, for example, that Crown immunity was removed from the national health service in 1991.

The fact that the planning Acts do not bind the Crown does not mean that development by the Crown is unregulated. Such proposed development follows the procedures in DOE circular 18/84, under which the Crown submits a notice of proposed development to the local planning authority instead of a planning application. That notice is treated in a similar way to a planning application in that it is advertised and entered on to the register. The Crown can go ahead with the proposed development if the local planning authority is content with it. If it is not, the dispute is referred to the First Secretary of State for his determination. In large cases, this is usually done

following a non-statutory public inquiry, which is governed by the spirit of the usual inquiry procedure rules and which results in an inspector's report and a decision by the Secretary of State similar to that following a recovered appeal.

I shall now return to the policy of ending Crown immunity. In 1992, the Government issued a consultation paper on the removal of Crown immunity from planning law. The outcome of the consultation on that paper was a ministerial announcement in 1994 that the Crown's immunity from planning control would be removed as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arose. That was endorsed by the present Government in 1998 in response to a parliamentary question.

New clause 5 heads a large group dealing with the mechanics of bringing the Crown inside the scope of planning legislation; it provides that the Bill will bind the Crown. New clause 6 provides that the existing planning Acts will henceforth bind the Crown. I shall talk briefly about new schedule 1, which is introduced by new clause 6 with Government amendments Nos. 53 to 55. It deals with the adjustments to the planning Acts that will be required to accommodate the Crown, and the necessary repeals.

The next topic will be the transitional provisions from the non-statutory to the statutory scheme, set out in new clause 14 and new schedule 2. I shall end with new clause 16, which provides the means for existing subordinate legislation to bind the Crown. That might be some way off, however, for I have much still to explain to the Committee.

The provisions in new clause 5 are pretty straightforward. In subsection (1), ''This Act'' means the Bill when it is enacted, if that is Parliament's will. The exclusion regarding part 7 and the proviso in subsection (2) are an aid to interpretation, in that we are removing Crown immunity from planning legislation, and part 7 deals with compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase by the Crown is similar to compulsory purchase by local authorities and others. However, we thought that such clarification would make it certain that applying the Act to the Crown did not cut across the application of any other legislation. The Crown has immunity from compulsory purchase orders under the planning Acts, and it is intended that it will retain it.

New clause 6 is at the heart of the Crown immunity amendments. The reason for legislating is that the planning Acts do not bind the Crown, and it provides that they will do so in future. As proposed new section 292A(1) says:

''This Act binds the Crown.''

Some might say that that is sufficient. If we could have stopped there, we would have done. Alas, life is rarely as simple as that, and we have had to go further. Although the Crown will have to obtain planning permission, listed building consent and hazardous substances consent in the normal way, it still requires special provision for enforcement, national security and urgent development. We shall deal with all three elements in detail later, but new clause 6 includes some elements of the enforcement regime. Because the

principal Act, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, is so large and complex—it has 337 clauses and 17 schedules—we decided to adopt a more general approach. That is why the statement in new section 292A(1) is qualified by subsection (2) in that it is subject to express provision made by part 13 of the principal Act.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, known as the listed buildings Act, and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, known as the hazardous substances Act, are both much shorter and are restricted in scope, so we can be more prescriptive about which provisions should not apply to the Crown. Those are listed in proposed new section 82A(2) of the listed buildings Act and proposed new section 30A(2) of the hazardous substances Act and deal mainly with offences, injunctions, rights of entry and warrants to enter land. There is more detail about rights of entry and enforcement in later amendments.

So far, it might be said, so good. However, for those Members who are already having trouble following the explanation, this is the moment to lie back and think of England. I fear that proposed new section 82A(3) in new clause 6(2) needs to be explained in a little more detail. I assure the Committee that this is an attempt to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater. New section 82A(2)(a) states that section 9 of the listed buildings Act 1990 will not bind the Crown. Section 9 sets out the offence of doing works to a listed building without the consent required by section 7 of that Act. Section 9(3) provides statutory defences for that offence. If a person carried out urgent works necessary for health and safety or for the preservation of the building, and it was not practicable to do works of repair or provide temporary support or shelter instead of doing those works, if the works done were the minimum measures immediately necessary, and if notice in writing justifying the works was given to the local planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable, that person would be safe from prosecution.

The Crown may be safe from prosecution, but without the provision in proposed new section 82A(3) in new clause 6 it will have no power to undertake emergency works in those circumstances. That means that the Crown could not legally carry out emergency works in a situation where a private person could, which is clearly unsatisfactory. We therefore have a principle that where offences have been disapplied, we have to add back in any statutory defences as a positive right for the Crown so that the Crown has the same freedom of action as a private person. That is the effect of proposed new section 82A(3). It may sound complicated, but it does make sense. We will return to that theme when we debate new clause 13.

As well as proposed new section 30A of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990, which I have already mentioned, new clause 6(3) also contains proposed new section 30B, which contains transitional provisions. They are very similar to those given to

industry by the Act when it came into force. They allow Crown bodies to claim a deemed consent within six months of commencement of new clause 6(3) for hazardous substances present in the appropriate quantities during the 12 months prior to commencement. The requirements of the Act do not apply to military establishments. We do not believe that there are significant holdings of hazardous substances held by the Crown elsewhere.

Subsection (4) of new clause 6 introduces new schedule 1, entitled ''Crown application'', which amends the planning Acts in relation to their application to the Crown. New schedule 1 is a varied and complex set of provisions—the Acts need to be amended as a result of the Crown being bound by the Acts when it has not been so bound previously. The new schedule includes repeals of redundant provisions, some with savings, and provisions preserved from repealed sections. Some new provisions are required because the Crown is now bound by the Acts and there are adaptations of existing provisions for use by the Crown. Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 add the substantive repeals in new schedule 1 and new clause 11 to the list in schedule 6. I am sure that it will come as a relief to the Committee that I do not propose to describe each set of provisions in detail. I have no doubt that Members will raise any issues that concern them.

I turn to the arrangements that we need so that we can deal with the transition from a non-statutory to a statutory planning system. New clause 14 introduces schedule 2, which makes the necessary provisions. Members of the Committee will be aware that the Crown submits notices of proposed development following the guidance contained in Department of the Environment circular 18/84, instead of applying for planning permission or listed building consent. New schedule 2 is in two parts—the first for notices akin to planning applications and the second for notices akin to applications for listed building consent. They are substantively identical, so I shall address my remarks to the first part only.

After an introductory segment that deals with application definitions, there are three substantive segments. The first provides that notices that have been approved before commencement of new clause 6(1) are to be treated as if they were grants of planning permission. The second provides that where notices are in dispute and have been referred to the Secretary of State, who has not made a determination before commencement, such notices shall be treated as recovered appeals. The third provides that a notice that has been submitted to the local planning authority but is still being considering at commencement should be treated as an application for planning permission.

New clause 16 is the final provision in the group. As well as making the planning Acts binding on the Crown, we also need to make the existing subordinate legislation binding where necessary. Unfortunately, the existing subordinate legislation will not automatically become so because the enabling Acts did not allow that when it was made. To make the subordinate legislation bind the Crown, new clause 16 gives the Secretary of State a power to make an order

defining which existing planning subordinate legislation will bind the Crown, either as it stands or with modification.

I hope that my remarks have been helpful to the Committee. Admittedly, the issue is complex, but I have sought to offer a guiding thread of clarification through the maze of new clauses and amendments.

I welcome the Minister's explanation of a large group of amendments that contains the wholly new principle of binding the Crown. Incidentally, the Crown is already bound in a number of respects under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to which he referred, so the provisions merely extend that principle, which we welcome.

The Minister's explanation was a little torturous—he was jumping backwards and forwards from a new clause to a new schedule, and back to the new clause again. However, I shall deal with the new clauses in the order that they have been selected. The main question for him involves the cost of compliance. What is the cost of compliance to the local planning authorities of dealing with the additional number of planning applications? Incidentally, does he have an estimate of the number of planning applications that will now be introduced? What is the cost to Departments of having to prepare those planning applications, the possible appeals that may follow and the delay in carrying out normal developments? It would be extremely useful if he told us that.

In principle we welcome new clause 5, which merely binds the Crown to the provisions and all subsequent Acts. However, in giving that welcome we believe that the Crown should as far as possible be bound in all respects. I have a little problem with this huge group of amendments: the Minister says that the Crown is to be bound, yet at many points he is saying, ''Ah, yes, but the Crown isn't going to be bound in this respect.'' If one accepts the principle that the Crown is bound, all other consequences should as far as possible follow from that. If someone commits an offence, whether they work for the Crown, a private company or an individual, there is no reason why they should be bound by a different law. I therefore have a little problem in that respect.

The Minister started on that course by mentioning paragraphs (a) to (j) of proposed new section 82A(2) of the listed buildings Act, which new clause 6 introduces. He said that the Crown was not bound in those respects in order, in his words, to accommodate the Crown, but the Crown should be bound as far as possible. Of those paragraphs, (a) refers to offences to listed buildings, (b) and (c) to false statements, (d) to enforcement, (e) to penalties, (f) to retentions, (g) to urgent works, (h) to recovery of expenses, (i) to damage to listed buildings and (j) to rights of entry. With the possible exception of (g) and (j)—some of the property will be sensitive and we do not want to enable every Tom, Dick and Harry to go into every Crown property on a whim—there is no reason for the Crown to be exempt from those provisions. I would be grateful if the Minister explained the matter.

The Minister, later in his explanation of new clause 6, skated over the contents of section 30B of the hazardous substances Act, saying that they were the same as those relating to commercial properties, but the Crown has some complex properties, some of which suffer complex pollution. Will a transitional period of six months and an establishment period of 12 months be long enough for the Crown and all Departments to get their heads round the problem?

I turn to new clause 16, which the Minister described as a tidying-up clause and under which the Government may produce subordinate legislation. He has helpfully given us a large tome of subordinate legislation for the Bill, but the explanatory memorandum does not mention any subordinate legislation relating to new clause 16. The Bill is so complex and so much paper is required that I ask him—this is not a criticism—whether we can have an indication of what might be put in the secondary legislation under new clause 16, even if we cannot see the text.

New clause 45 details the separate provisions that, of course, apply in Scotland. I understand that only too well, but I ask the Minister what discussions he has had with the Scottish Parliament on the matter. It would be anomalous if Crown immunity were to apply in England but not in Scotland. The same Ministry would have to deal with property differently in each country. As far as possible, the same treatment should apply. I also raise the problem of Scotland in relation to new schedule 1, which concerns purchase notices, having in mind the situation in Scotland with regard to land. Can the Minister clarify whether the Scottish Parliament or a delegated planning authority could refuse a planning permission and then issue a purchase notice? I hope that that is not the case.

Large portions of the new clauses and new sections bind not only the Crown but, as is made clear in new schedule 1, Her Majesty in right to her private estates. They bind

''land belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster; land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall;''

and

''land which forms part of the Crown Estate.''

That could have far-reaching consequences. What consultation took place with representatives of Her Majesty in relation to her private land, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall and with the Crown Estate Commissioners? Are any anomalies created by the new schedule? I think of the planning law that applies to Guernsey and Jersey, the Isles of Scilly and other territories such as the Isle of Man, where anomalous situations may arise that fall between every stool. I suspect that that will not be the case, but I would like an assurance from the Minister.

I now move on to paragraph 3 of the new schedule, which effectively precludes land from compulsory acquisition—again, using the dictum that the Crown should not be bound. I am not sure why the Crown should be excluded from compulsory acquisition. After all, if an urban development corporation had

to accumulate a large enough piece of land to carry out a development—for instance, the Thames gateway, which the Government have trumpeted so much—the compulsory acquisition of some Crown lands would be necessary. Crown lands are immune under the Act, but I expect that the Crown would agree to be part of such a development. I wonder how the mechanism will work. I also wonder why most Crown land should be exempt from compulsory acquisition.

Paragraph 10 of this long new schedule will introduce new section 298A, on applications for planning permission by the Crown. Subsection (1) states:

''This section applies to an application for planning permission or for a certificate under section 192 made by or on behalf of the Crown.''

Subsection (2) states:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations modify or exclude any statutory provision relating to the making and determination of such applications.''

If the Crown is to be bound, why should it not follow the normal route for planning applications? Why should the Secretary of State be given the power to vary that procedure?

Paragraph 10(2) states:

''Section 299 of the principal Act is omitted.''

Section 299 deals with deemed planning permission. Again, I wonder why it should be omitted.

Paragraph 17 of this vast new schedule introduces new section 330A, which gives the Secretary of State the power to require information. It clearly states:

''Section 330 does not apply to an interest to which this section applies''—

that is, to the Crown. I see no reason why the Crown should not be required by a local planning authority or an urban development corporation to give information—unless, for instance, it would be in the national interest that the information remain secret. In the normal run of things, I do not see why the Crown should be exempt from giving information.

New section 330A (4) states:

''The appropriate authority must comply with a request under subsection (3) except to the extent . . . (b) that to do so will disclose information as to any of the matters mentioned in section 321(4).

National security is covered by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which also covers security of premises—but it is a blanket provision, and I do not see why the Crown should be exempt from giving information. I would like to know why the Crown will not regularly use the defence of national security or the security of buildings to evade some of those provisions.

Paragraph 24(3) states:

''In subsection (3) after 'in which there is' there is inserted 'a Crown interest or'.''

I think that that is a drafting error, because it refers to section 297, which paragraph 23 deletes. Will the Minister look into that, and see whether I am right?

Paragraph 26 deals with section 300 of the principal Act and says that tree preservation orders will not apply to the Crown. Why? I see no reason why the tree preservation order legislation should not apply to the Crown. This is another instance of our binding the Crown, but not really.

Paragraph 3(2) of new schedule 2, on ''Acceptable development'', states:

''The notice must be treated as if it is planning permission granted under Part 3 of the principal Act.''

Again, I ask the Minister why. Why should not a normal planning application be made?

Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55 are consequential and we therefore welcome them. I think that amendment No. 332, which would insert the words ''or 84(2)'' at the end of clause 87(5)(a), contains a drafting error and should refer to ''81(2)'' instead. If that is so, what about a reference to section 81(3)? That should be covered too. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister could explain where the provision mentioned in the amendment is to be found. I could not find it.

In principle, we should have liked the Crown to be bound pretty well universally. I shall be particularly interested to hear from the Minister—on subsequent amendments as well as the present group—how we are to avoid allowing the Crown, if it does not want to do something, simply to use the defence of the national interest, secrecy, security of buildings, and so on. That defence should be used only when it is really necessary. I do not want to prejudge future discussions, but how do we know that that defence will not also be used for contentious planning applications?

I can now say something that I did not often say when we met in January: the hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a great service. There is broad agreement in the Committee that the ending of aspects of Crown immunity is very welcome, and such agreement often means that hon. Members do not look too hard at the amendments. The hon. Member for Cotswold has done the Committee a service in delving into the detail to work out some of the possible consequences. I look forward to the Minister's explanations. We do not want the announcement of the ending of Crown immunity to be accompanied by the leaving of loopholes that could be exploited—not by the present Minister, but perhaps by others in the future.

I am particularly concerned about new clause 16, which would permit the Secretary of State to modify subordinate legislation dating from before the Bill. Clearly modification will be needed to some extent, but I am concerned about whether that will enable a Minister to bring forward statutory instruments with the opposite tendency later. The Minister may be moved to ensure that subordinate legislation is brought into line with what is intended under the Act, but perhaps new clause 16 would enable a future Minister, without further primary legislation, substantially to alter relevant provisions. If so, could a safeguard be included in the Bill?

I welcome this group of new clauses and amendments; they have been sought for some time,

and will end an anomaly that has served the state ill, because they give the appearance of an over-mighty state. Bringing the relevant matters back into line with more normal planning applications is something to be welcomed. However, I intend to listen to the detail of the Minister's explanations in response to the hon. Member for Cotswold, who has spotted some aspects that need attention.

I join the hon. Member for Ludlow in congratulating not only my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold on his reply to the Minister, but the Minister on his introduction of what is, by any definition, a very large series. I have made a note of what is involved: 24 new clauses, three new schedules and 29 amendments. This raft of amendments is immensely complex, and comprehensive. Therefore, I am grateful to the Minister and my hon. Friend for their comments. I now see the picture much more clearly.

I shall raise two points, the first of which is rather technical. I want to be helpful and constructive, and do not want to spring this on the Minister suddenly if and when we reach clause 89, but although he has spoken about various aspects of the new clauses referring to Scotland in relation to specific matters, clause 89 states:

''This Act''

—assuming that it will become an Act—

''extends to England and Wales only.''

The Minister may be able to explain that the clause is still correct as a result of the amendments, but I make the point now as an early warning that he may need to amend the clause further.

Secondly, not only this raft of new clauses but many other Government new clauses and amendments—let alone the Opposition's—will significantly change the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They will also change other legislation. I suggest to the Minister that if and when the Bill is enacted, the Government might find it appropriate, at a convenient time in the not too distant future, to introduce a consolidated town and country planning Bill. It would be helpful to those who practise or participate in that area, or who are governed by it, to have all new legislation on town and country planning in one Act—I was going to say ''one simple Act'', but it will not be a simple one.

I, too, welcome the general thrust of the amendments. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold for the detail in which he discussed new schedule 1.

I am sure that I am not alone in having a listed prison in my constituency, so I am interested to know why the Minister believes that it is necessary to exclude listed buildings from the application of the legislation. I understand why it is necessary to exclude buildings for security reasons, and avoid undue publicity about details of security arrangements, but why are listed buildings exempt as a class?

Will the Minister also clarify who the Crown is? At some points that is clear. In paragraph 6(4)(f) of schedule 1, it appears that the Crown

''in relation to Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft, means the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Speakers of the House of Lords and the House of Commons acting jointly''.

Who is the Crown in other circumstances? Is it the Secretary of State of the Department that holds the property involved, or is it the head of the executive agency of that Department: for example, the Prison Service? Clearly, in one or two cases it is Her Majesty.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. Everyone tends to think that the royal prerogative describes powers that Her Majesty the Queen has. She does have one or two powers, but many are exercised by Ministers.

I thank my hon. Friend. I ask the question because if ''the Crown'' can mean the Secretary of State, there will be circumstances—

I can probably answer my hon. Friend's question; I am desperately trying to find the answer in this group of amendments. It says that the appropriate authority would usually be the Secretary of State, except in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy of Lancaster and Her Majesty, where other provisions apply. In the case of a dispute, the provisions of the 1990 Act, whereby the Treasury arbitrates on the matter and has absolute authority in it, come into force.

Good. We are making progress, and I thank my hon. Friend for his assistance.

The point of the question, however, is what happens when the Secretary of State is the Deputy Prime Minister or his successor with responsibility for planning legislation. The Secretary of State appoints the inspectors and has certain powers to take decisions, so how can he be judge and jury in a case involving Crown land that he holds?

First, I join members of the Committee in congratulating the hon. Member for Cotswold. He obviously has a professional background in these matters. His contribution was nothing less than a tour de force, and I am sure that members of the Committee will want to congratulate him on it. I know from my own experience how difficult it often is as a member of the Opposition to develop an effective critique of proposed Government measures without the backing of the enormous resources of the Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take it in the appropriate spirit—I am not being patronising—when I say that I fully admire the questions that he asked.

I was also struck by the radical tone of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Here we have a Conservative Member protesting about continuing gaps in the bringing of the Crown and its various emanations under the aegis of the law. This obviously reflects a new development in the Conservative party, which we will want to follow very carefully.

Flattery achieves much, but I am not about to transfer myself to the Government Benches.

I may have been making the subtle suggestion that the hon. Gentleman might, in the

current circumstances, make a bid for the leadership of the Conservative party.

Let me make a general observation about Crown exemption and the Crown's response to the planning and compulsory purchase process. There is an opaqueness to various aspects of the Bill, which I believe will remain a moot point throughout our consideration of it, about the way in which Crown institutions respond to aspects of planning law. The point is that the Crown may not be compelled to comply, but it is, above all, the custodian of the law, and we expect it to pursue the requirements of the law as extensively and in as many circumstances as possible. There is no body higher than the Crown upon which it is more incumbent to pursue the law.

Other hon. Gentlemen have asked many questions, all of which I shall attempt to answer. My approach may be a little ragged, but I am sure that the Committee will understand. I shall deal first with the easiest question, in which the hon. Member for Cotswold identified drafting errors, as did the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. A drafting error may be a printing error. We had a lot of trouble getting the material down on paper at the time, and we are still trying catch up with making the corrections. I assure the Committee that I shall not react to any corrections that need to be made to drafting errors with the level of resistance that was displayed by the Government on earlier occasions.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about the cost of planning applications. I am delighted to say that even before inspiration winged its way to me I had the answer to that question. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no new costs to the Government. Planning applications replace notices of proposed development. The only extra cost to the Crown will be in relation to planning fees; beyond that there will be no extra costs. To remind the Committee, the current procedure is that the Crown puts in a notice of proposed development under DOE circular 18/84. It is then treated as a planning application, so there will be no additional costs in practice. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that my comments about his flattery did not appear churlish—I thought after I sat down that they might have done—because I accept his comments in the spirit in which he meant them.

I beg to disagree with the Minister's idea that there will be no costs for the Government. The Crown is now being bound and there will be a planning application, which means that in some instances there will be appeals. Those appeals are likely to be complex, because the applications are likely to be large. That will presumably cost money and will take longer than under the circular 18/84 procedure, because there is a planning application. Under the old procedure the Crown just notified the local planning authority and then got on with things. Under the new procedure there will be a gambit of applying for planning permission and probably going to all the committees, which takes time, and some

planning authorities will not meet the eight-week deadline. There must therefore be some cost in the process and if the Minister does not have the figures, as he may well not, I would be grateful if he would write to the Committee, perhaps with a revised estimate of the costs, and put a note in the Library.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If we find that extra costs will be entailed in the process, I shall drop a note to the Committee as he suggests.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned rights of entry. Inspiration is winging its way to me now, which I dare say will be dealt with in due course. I shall say something about rights of entry if I can find the section in my brief headed ''If pressed''. As I have been pressed, I intend to say a word about rights of entry—but I am not sure that I can find the section on rights of entry.

May I suggest to the Minister that rights of entry might also be the subject of the note that is coming from his officials?

That is too kind, but I shall attempt to deal with the point if I hit upon the relevant section in the notes that have reached me already.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about compulsory acquisition—[Interruption.] Ah! Rights of entry have finally arrived, and I shall deal with them.

The hon. Gentleman asked about compulsory acquisition, which relates to the law on purchase notices, which I gather resides in a rather dusty corner of the principal Act, so I congratulate him again on having dug it up. For hon. Members who are interested, I can explain that the relevant provisions are in chapter I of part VI of the 1990 Act. Purchase notices are widely used because the conditions for obtaining them are tightly drawn, as the hon. Gentleman evidently knows. They are a form of reverse compulsory purchase, whereby the owner of the land can under certain conditions require the local planning authority to buy it from them if a planning decision has resulted in the land being incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state. There is more to the issue than that, but I hope that that brief explanation will be sufficient to enable the Committee to understand the amendments.

Proposed new section 137A, which paragraph 1 inserts into the principal Act, does two other things. First, subsections (2) and (4) preserve the effect of section 296(3) and (4) of the principal Act. That allows the owner of a private interest in Crown land to serve a purchase notice only if he has offered his interest to the appropriate authority for that type of Crown land on equivalent terms, and that offer has been refused. Equivalent terms are those that would be repayable were it acquired in pursuance of a purchase notice. That procedure gives the Crown first refusal on an unwanted interest in the land, rather than its being passed to the local authority.

The second element is in subsection (3) of proposed new section 137A, which arises from the fact that the Crown will have to apply for planning permission, and that it could be adversely affected by a refusal of permission. Purchase notices exist to protect the

private and commercial interests of landowners. The Crown, in general, does not have such interests. As the Crown maintains immunity from compulsory purchase under the planning Acts, it is not generally appropriate for it to be able to enforce a quasi-compulsory purchase on a local planning authority. The types of land set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of proposed new section 137A(3) are different in that Her Majesty's private estates are just that—private. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall and the Crown Estates operate in the private sector similarly to other landed estates, and have commercial interests that could be adversely affected by refusal of planning permission. It is therefore appropriate that they should have the ability to serve purchase notices as private interests do.

Paragraph 2 inserts new section 32A into the listed buildings Act, which colleagues have mentioned. This is a similar provision for listed building purchase notices. The eagle-eyed hon. Member for Cotswold may have noticed that proposed new section 137A(5) on interpretation has no equivalent in proposed new section 32A. That is because the Crown definitions in the principal Act apply only to part 13, whereas those in the listed buildings Act apply to the whole Act. A subsection on interpretation is therefore not necessary for the listed buildings Act. I hope that that goes some way to satisfying the hon. Gentleman.

Other hon. Members have raised the matter of compulsory purchase. Paragraphs 3 and 4 aim to preserve the effect of section 296(2)(b) of the principal Act. That says that Crown land cannot be acquired compulsorily under part 9 of the principal Act, dealing with acquisition and appropriation of land, unless the appropriate authority consents. There are two acquisition powers in part 9: section 226, which enables local planning authorities to acquire land—mainly for development, redevelopment and improvement—and section 228, which enables the First Secretary of State to acquire land for the public service. Paragraph 3 amends section 226 and paragraph 4 amends section 228 accordingly. Paragraph 5 is a similar provision for the listed buildings Act thats preserves the effect of section 83(2)(b) of that Act by amending section 47.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having allowed me to clarify those matters for the record.

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I shall skate quickly over his words in relation to compulsory purchase of Crown land unless the acquiring authority gives permission, but we all know that many city centres contain large blocks of Crown land that are not being properly utilised. If the local planning authority wished to acquire such land compulsorily, but was blocked by, say, the Secretary of State for Health, who was sitting on a vital piece of land that was needed for affordable housing, it is possible that the Act could seek to remedy the situation. I am not sure that we are doing the right thing by allowing blanket Crown exemption from compulsory acquisition, and I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. As a housing Minister, I am discovering that he

is right about the cost of under-using Government land, and that of agencies associated with Government, in key areas, many of which, as the hon. Gentleman says, are in inner cities. We are certainly not moving towards the power of compulsory purchase at this stage.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that we have recently reinforced again, through guidance, the requirement for such bodies to notify the local planning authority as a first recourse when land becomes available for disposal and is utilised.

In broader terms, my Department is doing its level best as a matter of policy to ensure that other Departments are aware of the possible value for housing and development purposes of the land on which they are sitting. In some cases, we are beginning to see a positive result.

Matthew Green rose—

I apologise to the hon. Member for Ludlow for jumping in ahead of him, but I want to pursue my point.

We need a more proactive system. The Government are imposing all sorts of duties and obligations on local authorities to produce a housing plan, among other things. We now have a regional aspect to planning. Local authorities should be encouraged to be more proactive to encourage Departments to give up bits of land in our inner cities that they are not utilising properly. We are missing an opportunity here.

I sympathise deeply with the hon. Gentleman's observation.

May I add to the general tone? I can foresee situations in which small parts of Crown land might block access to the redevelopment of a town or city centre. In effect, therefore, the Crown would have a veto power over a planning application. Even if the local authority were to grant permission for a redevelopment, the fact that the land could not be accessed would block the redevelopment if compulsory purchase were not available.

I am not suggesting that the Government would seek to do that out of spite, but powers of compulsory purchase act as a forceful reminder that a Department might want to get on with making a certain piece of land available. If a local authority does not have that power, I can foresee the equivalent of a ransom strip, as I believe they are sometimes called in planning, with the Crown holding out and through sheer bureaucracy taking for ever to come up with a sale that is necessary for a much needed development to go ahead.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Government's broad response would be to expect the Crown to be responsive to such a need. In many cases, this is a matter of public policy. We would certainly expect co-operation and sensitivity to local planning requirements, which, as he knows, will shortly require statutory status at regional level. We therefore expect the Crown to be sympathetic and helpful in such circumstances.

I do not want to particularise too much, but the Minister's express desire that the Crown should be helpful is not borne out by experience. It is certainly not borne out in my constituency or, I am sure, in other Members' constituencies. The Home Office holds large areas of land in my constituency, which are called prison estates. Three prisons are built on them, and they are very large areas of undeveloped land. For many years, my predecessor, my predecessor's predecessor and I have tried to persuade Governments of both major parties to allow that land to be properly developed. Neither my predecessors nor I had sufficient leverage to persuade the Government to get on with it. The result is that acres of land suitable for housing development are not being developed.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. His is a crowded island, although it is not far away, and there is considerable demand for new housing. However, although I have registered my understanding, it would be wrong of me to trespass on decisions that may or may not have been taken for various reasons by the Home Office in relation to the prisons estate. As a Minister, one rapidly learns how dangerous it can be to invade the territory of another Department. I have no intention of doing so now, but I undertake to consider the matter if the hon. Gentleman writes to me in my housing capacity.

I shall now deal with other points involving rights of entry raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. Under the planning Acts, local planning authorities have several reasons to enter property. Enforcement is one. That is dealt with in new clause 11, which we shall debate in due course. Others include the need to survey the land in connection with the development planning process. Those reasons are governed by section 324 of the principal Act, with supplementary provisions being made in section 325.

Our policy is that entry to Crown land should be with permission only, so new section 325A, which is introduced by paragraph 13 of new schedule 1, applies section 324 with the necessary modifications. New section 325A states:

''A person must not enter Crown land unless he has the relevant permission.''

That expression is defined in subsection (3). The matter is germane to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, because we want the local planning authority to able to arrange entry to sites locally—generally by approaching the person in charge of the site.

If entry is refused, the local planning authority can ask permission of the appropriate authority, such as a Department's headquarters. That accounts for the formulation of proposed new section 325A(3)(a), which says that

''a person appearing to the person seeking entry to the land to be entitled to give''

permission would be the site manager or his deputy, or the head of accommodation services. The local planning authority has to be reasonably diligent about who it asks. For example, it would not have relevant permission if it had asked the cleaner

sweeping the front doorstep whether it was okay to come in and the cleaner had said that he was ''relaxed'' about it. In practice, entry to Crown land is rarely unrestricted, save in respect of certain types of land such as the law courts, and anyone seeking entry without an appointment is likely to be barred.

Subsections (4) and (5) disapply section 325, which contains offences that do not apply to the Crown. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of new schedule 1 insert the equivalent provisions—new sections 88C and 36C—in the listed buildings Act and the hazardous substances Act respectively.

I want to put this point on the record. I entirely accept the Minister's explanation about entry to Crown land, but I made the same point to my local planning authority when I first became a Member of Parliament in connection with a celebrated constituency case. As a matter of course, I believe that the planning authority should not go on to private land without making a proper appointment, unless it is suspected that something is going on that should not be going on. I hope that the Minister agrees. Certain provisions allow local authorities to go on to land, but I believe that to be wrong. Having made that point to my local planning authority, I am glad to say that it has not happened again.

Again, I would be venturing into rather dangerous terrain if I were to offer a 100 per cent. blanket endorsement of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It seems to me that, as a general proposition, an element of courtesy and respect towards property should be displayed as extensively as possible. I am broadly sympathetic to his point.

The hon. Gentleman asked about discussions with the Scottish Parliament and Her Majesty on the proposals for Crown and Duchy properties. Consultations, including with the appropriate Scottish authorities, have taken place. Our measures and policy intentions are the same as those of the Scottish Parliament. We are absolutely in line, and all appropriate consultations have occurred.

To clarify, the measure is worded in such a way that it suggests that the Scottish Parliament may enact the provisions. Is the Minister confident, following those discussions, that it will enact them so that we have continuity for binding the Crown?

The short answer is yes. I am confident that the Scottish Parliament will want to enact the same provisions. The hon. Gentleman was so fecund in his observations about subordinate legislation—no, it was the hon. Member for Ludlow who asked about subordinate legislation. He wanted to know whether it would be possible for Ministers to move later proposals to amend the subordinate legislation in an opposite direction to that originally intended, without primary legislation. All subordinate legislation made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will have to be made to apply to the Crown. New clause 16 is intended to facilitate that. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, that could not be done.

The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about the issue of purchase notices in Scotland. Scottish

Ministers have to deal with dual responsibilities, as do Ministers in England. They may have to represent interests for Her Majesty's private estates. Planning decisions are subject to appeal. Scottish Ministers are the responsible authority, so their activities must be lawful and reasonable and they could be subject to judicial review. I hope that that goes some way towards assisting the hon. Gentleman.

I believe that I have dealt with the issue of rights of entry. The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of a drafting error in amendment No. 332. If I answer the point now, it will save any general correspondence with the Committee. Amendment No. 332 relates to amendment No. 331, which inserts subsection (2) in clause 84. I can tell the from the hon. Gentleman's body language that he might want to come back on that one, but obviously we shall be willing to respond appropriately.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet also asked about Scotland and clause 89. Amendment No. 333 would amend clause 89 on the extent to which the Bill would apply to Scotland. The matter was initially about a possible drafting error.

I apologise to the Minister because I did not see amendments Nos. 56 and 333, which are on page 752 of the amendment paper. He has anticipated me, and I am grateful to him. My only point is that it would have been easier to include them in the group that we are now discussing, although that is not intended to be a carping criticism.

I sympathise with that point.

Order. Debates between Members about where things should be listed in the schedule are not appropriate. The Minister should carry on in his normal way.

Thank you, Mr. Hurst. I am happy to obey your directions.

The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet made a further point in which he referred to the dramatic change made in the 1990 Act by the relevant measures and other provisions that have been laid on the statute book since 1990. He suggested that the Government consider bringing forward a consolidated town and country planning Act. Again, I am sympathetic to that proposal, but I just hope that I am not the Minister who has to do it.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what or who the Crown is. That is a rather interesting question, which I have asked myself. Paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 1 will amend the definitions in section 293 of the principal Act. I accept that it is not easy to make sense of a jigsaw when one can see only half the pieces. However, after that amendment, section 293 will look something like new section 82C of the listed buildings Act, as set out in paragraph 7 of new schedule 1. The only substantive difference is that section 293 begins, ''In this Part''—that is, part XIII of the principal Act—whereas new section 82C begins, ''In this Act''.

As for the substantive changes made in the schedule, once the Crown is bound by the planning

Acts it becomes essential to identify all types of Crown interest. The first amendment is in paragraph 6(2)(a) of new schedule 1, which includes

''an interest belonging to Her Majesty . . . in right of Her private estates''.

That means that if Her Majesty wants to do some development at Sandringham, for example, she will have to obtain planning permission. We hope that we have identified the various types of Crown interest, but in case we have missed one, or some new type is created, paragraph 6(2)(c) allows the Secretary of State to make a specification by order. If I may jump forward to paragraph 6(7) of the schedule, hon. Members will be reassured that any such order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will have full consideration if that situation arises.

All types of Crown interest must have a designated appropriate authority that can give any consents necessary and on which notices and other documents must be served. That covers precisely the hon. Gentleman's question about who the Crown is and who its representative is. Paragraph 6(3) of new schedule 1 therefore describes the appropriate authority for Her Majesty's private estates. That will be a person appointed under the royal sign manual or, in default, the Secretary of State. As a former Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household, I am of course wholly familiar with the concept of the royal sign manual. It goes without saying that—

Mr. Turner rose—

It appears that the hon. Gentleman has a question about that point. No, he does not; thank heavens for that.

The Minister has probably used the royal sign manual to sign away many millions, if not billions, of pounds of our money. Be that as it may, is he satisfied that he knows whether any areas such as Jersey, Guernsey the Isle of Man or the Isles of Scilly might fall between all the stools in the definition?

I remember the hon. Gentleman's question on that subject, and hope to deal with it when I conclude my remarks, but I now want to revert to the question of the appropriate authority for Her Majesty's private estates.

We expect the person appointed to be an official of the royal household and we aim to include the information in guidance on the new provisions for local planning authorities. I am sure that that will be extremely helpful. Members of the Committee may like to know that there is a precedent for a person to be appointed under the royal sign manual in section 83(2)(b) of the Land Registration Act 2002, which deals with the definition of an appropriate authority.

Certain portions of the Palace of Westminster are owned by Her Majesty. The appropriate authorities for those portions are set out in paragraph 6(4) of new schedule 1, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight alluded in his intervention.

Paragraph 6(5) of the new schedule contains a slight variation on the definition of an appropriate authority. Members of the Committee will be aware that a person can apply for planning permission on land that he does

not own. If one is negotiating to buy land for development, it is prudent to obtain planning permission, if that has not already been granted, before completing the acquisition. The new subsection (2A) that paragraph 6(5) would insert into section 293 of the principal Act states that in such a situation the appropriate authority should be construed as the person making the application. In practice that means that any notices or correspondence will be for the planning consultant making the application, rather than, for example, the Department that has employed them.

To continue with the definition of the Crown, paragraph 6(6) of the schedule contains aids to interpretation. New subsection (3A) explains how to construe references to Her Majesty's private estates.

It is at present, of course, legal for anyone to apply for planning permission in respect of any piece of land, whether they own it or not, except presumably Crown land, where planning permission is not required. Would new subsection (2A) permit a third party to apply for planning permission in respect of Crown land?

While we ponder the question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would spell out what he has in mind when he refers to a third party. In what circumstances might what he has described occur?

The matter came to mind because of the Minister's introduction to the sub-paragraph. He referred to a potential purchaser seeking planning permission for a piece of land before purchase. The vendor of land might seek planning permission, to enhance its value, but might not want to go down that road. Is it possible for a potential purchaser of Crown land, for example, to seek planning permission for it? It appears from the Minister's remarks that the only person who would be permitted to do so would be the Crown or an agent of the Crown.

I am often struck by the fact that in Committee much of our discourse is posited on the principle of ''what if?'' Indeed, much legislation is drafted on that principle. I do not for a moment allege that the present question is a case of ''whatifery'', but I imagine that if the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman were to arise, the matter would be dealt in respect of Crown lands very much as it would be in other circumstances. However, I dare say that I shall have confirmation of that before I sit down—as members of the Committee are no doubt anxious that I should do.

I may be intervening at an illogical point in the Minister's discourse, but when he said that when Departments make planning applications they will use agents or consultants, he skated over a point. I believe that that is what he said. Is that what he envisages? If so, there will be large numbers of consultants setting up as planning agents for Departments, which is bound to increase costs. Is that what he has in mind?

From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney)

has suggested that that might be exactly the right niche for the hon. Member for Cotswold.

The Government have no difficulties with the development of the service economy, although, naturally, we hope to see efficiency exercised on all occasions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the event of any Department employing consultants, a beady eye would be cast on the cost. That would have to be done in any circumstances.

I return to the subject of third parties. Before I complete my definitions—I am intent on sitting down—I will deal, as far as I may, with the question of third party applications for planning permission on Crown land. It would be possible in principle for a third party to apply for planning permission on Crown land, but I believe that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about proposed new subsection (2A) is that it is for the Crown to agree, and say, ''Yes, it's for a third party to apply.''

We are still discussing the definition of what and who ''the Crown'' is. Proposed new subsection (3B) of section 293 of the principal Act states that for the purposes of subsection (2A), the Crown includes the Duchies and the appropriate authorities for the portions of the Palace of Westminster owned by the Crown. I may have mentioned that before. It is for the avoidance of doubt. As subsection (2A) refers to the Crown, it might be thought that that includes owners of Crown interests only, but Duchy interests are not Crown interests. We want it to mean ''owners of Crown land,'' which does include Duchy interests. As the relevant portion of section 293 is not reproduced in paragraph 6, members of the Committee might like to refer to proposed new section 82C in paragraph 7, where equivalent provisions are set out in full.

Paragraph 8 proposes to amend section 31 of the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 along similar lines. It excludes the provision on interpretation of application on land not owned by the Crown, as it is unnecessary.

Finally, I revert to the question—posed twice, I believe, by the hon. Member for Cotswold—about the application of the proposed legislation to Jersey, Guernsey and similar islands. The answer is that the legislation would have the same scope as the 1990 Acts. That is to say that it does not apply to the Channel Islands or similar islands.

Before the Minister concludes, will he respond to my question about the possible conflict of interest where the Deputy Prime Minister, or his successor, is both guardian of the planning Acts and a holder of Crown land?

That is a good question. Unfortunately, I do not have a good answer. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman on that issue, or will attempt to clear it up early in future Committee proceedings.

I am sorry to prolong the proceedings, but just before the Minister concludes, will he say a word about why the Crown is being excluded from tree preservation order regulations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we will have an opportunity to debate that under a later new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.