'(1) Section 296 of the principal Act (exercise of powers in relation to Crown land) is omitted.

(2) After section 296 there are inserted the following sections—

''296A Enforcement in relation to the Crown

(1) No act or omission done or suffered by or on behalf of the Crown constitutes an offence under this Act.

(2) A local planning authority must not take any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crown land unless it has the consent of the appropriate authority.

(3) The appropriate authority may give consent under subsection (2) subject to such conditions as it thinks appropriate.

(4) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement is anything done in connection with the enforcement of anything required to be done or prohibited by or under this Act.

(5) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement includes—

(a) entering land;

(b) bringing proceedings;

(c) the making of an application.

(6) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement does not include—

(a) service of a notice;

(b) the making of an order (other than by a court).

296B References to an interest in land

(1) Subsection (2) applies to the extent that an interest in land is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest.

(2) Anything which requires or is permitted to be done by or in relation to the owner of the interest in land must be done by or in relation to the appropriate authority.

(3) An interest in land includes an interest only as occupier of the land.''

(3) After section 82C of the listed buildings Act (inserted by Schedule (Crown application)) there are inserted the following sections—

''82D Enforcement in relation to the Crown

(1) No act or omission done or suffered by or on behalf of the Crown constitutes an offence under this Act.

(2) A local planning authority must not take any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crown land unless it has the consent of the appropriate authority.

(3) The appropriate authority may give consent under subsection (2) subject to such conditions as it thinks appropriate.

(4) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement is anything done in connection with the enforcement of anything required to be done or prohibited by or under this Act.

(5) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement includes—

(a) entering land;

(b) bringing proceedings;

(c) the making of an application.

(6) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement does not include—

(a) service of a notice;

(b) the making of an order (other than by a court).

82E References to an interest in land

(1) Subsection (2) applies to the extent that an interest in land is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest.

(2) Anything which requires or is permitted to be done by or in relation to the owner of the interest in land must be done by or in relation to the appropriate authority.

(3) An interest in land includes an interest only as occupier of the land.''

(4) After section 30B of the hazardous substances Act (inserted by section (Crown application of planning Acts)(3)) there are inserted the following sections—

''30C Enforcement in relation to the Crown

(1) No act or omission done or suffered by or on behalf of the Crown constitutes an offence under this Act.

(2) A local planning authority must not take any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crown land unless it has the consent of the appropriate authority.

(3) The appropriate authority may give consent under subsection (2) subject to such conditions as it thinks appropriate.

(4) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement is anything done in connection with the enforcement of anything required to be done or prohibited by or under this Act.

(5) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement includes—

(a) entering land;

(b) bringing proceedings;

(c) the making of an application.

(6) A step taken for the purposes of enforcement does not include—

(a) service of a notice;

(b) the making of an order (other than by a court).

30D References to an interest in land

(1) Subsection (2) applies to the extent that an interest in land is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest.

(2) Anything which requires or is permitted to be done by or in relation to the owner of the interest in land must be done by or in relation to the appropriate authority.

(3) An interest in land includes an interest only as occupier of the land.''.'.—[Yvette Cooper.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 37—Enforcement in relation to Crown land: Scotland.

New clause 11 deals with enforcement in relation to Crown land, and new clause 37 makes the same provisions in Scottish planning legislation, but taking account of any differences in Scotland, such as the absence of Duchy land in relation to Crown immunity. The clauses are, at first sight, counter-intuitive. So far, we have set out the importance of removing Crown immunity in planning law so that, like everyone else, the Crown in its various guises must abide by the law—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

NIL Section

On resuming—

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Pike. It is good to see you here.

The overall intention of the Bill is to ensure that the Crown, in its various guises, is covered and abides by planning law. The new clause prevents local planning authorities from using the courts to force breaches of planning law by the Crown. It is important to set out the reasons for that.

Members will be aware that the legal position of the Crown has been distinctive for many centuries. The general rule in common law was that no civil or criminal proceedings could be brought against the monarch because the courts are the Queen's own and have no jurisdiction over her. On the civil side, much has changed. Following the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and the Government's administrative law on judicial review, a wide range of Crown activities are subject to scrutiny by the courts. The general immunity from criminal prosecution remains. The Bill is about planning. It is not our intention to overturn our legal and constitutional tradition. Therefore, the Bill continues the tradition that no criminal proceedings can be brought against the Crown, or at least not without the Crown's permission. That is the purpose of proposed new section 296A, subsections (1) to (5).

However, given that the purpose of the provisions is to bring the Crown within planning law and how important it is that the Crown should be held to account for breaches of planning law—that is, illegal activity—subsection (6) plays an important role. It

makes it clear that local planning authorities can serve enforcement notices on the Crown, which has several consequences.

We can expect the Crown to comply with enforcement notices, be it a Department or Government agency or other agent of the Crown. Should such bodies fail to comply, they would be acting illegally and could be challenged by judicial review or brought before the ombudsman. Ministers would be held to account to Parliament and, of course, the media and public opinion would ensure accountability as well. In practice those are powerful motivators. Whether cases proceed through judicial review or the European Court of Human Rights, the Government and the agencies of the Crown have always tended to be swift to comply when found to be acting illegally in any way.

Finally, the interpretation of proposed new section 296B provides that enforcement notices should be served on the appropriate authority rather than the owner where there is Crown or Duchy interest. That is to prevent Her Majesty the Queen from being personally served with a series of notices that should be served, for example, on the Crown Estates Commissioners or another appropriate authority.

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to the Committee's proceedings.

New clause 11 is another example of the Crown being treated differently. I understand that it is difficult to start serving criminal proceedings on the Secretary of State. One could imagine all sorts of possibilities, but as for notices, which I accept can be served under subsection (6), I think that on the whole the Crown ought to be subject to most provisions of the planning Acts and that there is not enough of a stick in relation to the Crown.

The Crown should never need to face the possibility of a local planning authority serving enforcement notices or taking steps for criminal proceedings. If the Minister for Housing and Planning is right that one could expect Departments to uphold the law to the highest possible extent, one would expect the relevant provision never to be used. If it is used, something must have gone pretty badly wrong, and if things have gone that badly wrong the Department ought to be subject to the full rigour of the law. I therefore have some difficulty with the new clause.

I would like clarification on new section 296B(1), which refers to

''the extent that an interest in land is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest.''

I assume that ''Crown interest'' includes Her Majesty's private estates, but the Bill does not explicitly say that and I wonder whether it should be put right. Other than those few comments, I am happy to let the new clause go through.

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. I also welcome the Under-Secretary.

I entirely see the point of the two new clauses. The protections are clearly consequential to ending Crown immunity. However, as I said in earlier debates, I can foresee a situation that might not be covered. We were discussing buildings that people did not know existed and planning applications made under new clause 7 where disclosure of information was restricted. If such a building or structure was constructed without planning permission, the local authority could slap on a notice of enforcement under new clause 11. That would be a public notice of enforcement. If the Ministry of Defence or the security services had failed to follow the provisions of new clause 7, they would be subject to the provisions of new clause 11. That might not be in the interests of national security. I wonder whether something has been left out of the proposal.

The question is, why should the Crown be treated differently? I have already spoken about the constitutional, legal and historical tradition of the Crown being treated differently in the courts with regard to criminal proceedings and it is not the purpose of a planning Bill, which is about planning law, to overturn that tradition. We can certainly debate our constitutional tradition and the nature of the relationship between the Crown and the courts, but this is not the place to do so.

I agree that the Crown should comply with the law, but that is what the Crown does and has done in all sorts of areas where it has been decided that the Crown has acted illegally. It is possible for enforcement notices to be served—perhaps for technical breaches of conditions or decisions taken by Government agencies about the land—and it is right that we should have the procedures in place to allow that. I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Member for Cotswold was arguing that we do not need such a provision because matters should never get that far or that we need considerably stronger provision. However, enforcement notices provide a clear and public statement, and that could apply in relation to the other proposals.

On the question whether the Crown interest applies to Her Majesty's private interests, I am advised that it does. That is set out in new schedule 1, which was discussed this morning. I am not aware of any gaps in the provisions of new clauses 11 and 37.

Question put and agreed to.

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