'(1) Section 200 of the principal Act (orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)—

(a) after paragraph (a) leave out ''or'';

(b) after paragraph (b), there is inserted ''or

(c) it has been placed at their disposal.''.

(3) In subsection (3), leave out from ''in accordance with'' to the end and insert—

''(a) in accordance with a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Forestry Commissioners, and for the

time being in force, under a forestry dedication covenant or under the conditions of a grant or loan made under section 1 of the Forestry Act 1979;

(b) by the Forestry Commissioners on land placed at their disposal.''

(4) After subsection (4)(a)—

(a) leave out ''and'';

(b) insert the following paragraph—

''(ab) land placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commissioners is land placed at their disposal under the Forestry Act 1967;''.'.

—[Keith Hill.]

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 the following:

Government new clause 13—Trees in conservation areas: acts of Crown.

Government new clause 42—Tree preservation orders affecting land where Forestry Commissioners interested: Scotland.

Government new clause 43—Trees in conservation areas in Scotland: acts of Crown.

These new clauses are concerned with trees in two specialised sets of circumstances. New clause 12 deals with tree preservation orders affecting land where the Forestry Commission has an interest. New clause 13 deals with acts of the Crown in connection with trees in conservation areas.

Before speaking about the new clauses, it might help if I clear up a point that arose this morning on tree preservation orders—a passionate concern of the hon. Member for Cotswold. I would like to confirm that it will be possible for tree preservation orders to be made on Crown land, subject to the minor modifications that we are about to debate. The difficulty seems to have arisen from the repeal of section 300 of the principal Act, in paragraph 26 of new schedule 1. Section 300 deals with tree preservation orders in anticipation of disposal of Crown land.

That is currently required because the principal Act does not bind the Crown and sets out the special circumstances in which the local planning authority might make a tree preservation order. In brief, the circumstances are that if the land is to be sold by the Crown there ought to be a tree preservation order in place before that sale takes place to protect the woodland or other trees there. The Committee will understand that that provision is no longer necessary as local planning authorities will be able to make tree preservation orders on Crown land at any time.

Having offered what I hope is a helpful word of clarification, I shall now revert to new clause 12. The removal of Crown immunity will enable local planning authorities to make tree preservation orders on Crown land without the prior consent of the relevant Crown body. The Crown will therefore be subject to the usual requirements imposed by such orders, including the requirement to obtain the local planning authority's consent for felling or pruning works. Under the tree

preservation order legislation, the requirement to obtain a local authority's consent is disapplied in a number of circumstances—for example, where trees are dangerous or where felling has otherwise been approved by the Forestry Commission, either by felling licence or one of its woodland management schemes.

Accordingly, under section 200 of the principal Act, woodland management carried out by private individuals in accordance with the plan of operations approved by the Forestry Commission can proceed outside the controls of the tree preservation orders system. New clause 12 amends section 200 to ensure that forestry operations or woodland management carried out by the Forestry Commission is also not subject to those controls. That takes it into account that the commissioners make their felling and other management decisions in accordance with their duty under the Forestry Act 1967 to achieve a reasonable balance between forestry and conservation.

New clause 13 is a second new clause on trees and it adds four new subsections to the end of section 211 of the principal Act. It is another proposal that is difficult to follow because the beginning of the section to which it relates is not set out. I must therefore describe what existing subsections (1) and (3) of section 211 do, in the context of the enforcement provisions in new clause 11. Section 211 is concerned with trees in conservation areas that are not subject to tree preservation orders. Subsection (1) provides that it is an offence to do to such a tree anything that would be prohibited by a tree preservation order. However, subsection (3) provides a statutory defence. As we have seen in new clause 11, offences do not apply to the Crown, nor does any statutory defence. Accordingly, in place of both, new clause 13 prohibits the Crown from doing acts prohibited by subsection (1), unless the conditions in subsection (3) are met.

The result is that before an emanation of the Crown does anything to a tree in a conservation area that would be prohibited by a tree preservation order, it must first serve a notice on the local planning authority, setting out its proposals. In effect, the local planning authority has six weeks to respond. If it gives its consent within that period—consent has to be unconditional—all well and good. If the authority wishes to attach conditions to or prevent the work, it must make a tree preservation order. If the authority does not respond within a six-week period, the tree works may proceed. New clauses 42 and 43 make the same amendments to equivalent sections in the principal Scottish planning Act. The purpose and effect of the amendments in the Scottish context are as I described for England and Wales.

It seems to me that new clause 12 is a tidying-up clause to allow the Forestry Commission to carry out its usual operations. I have never heard of a case in which it has been hindered by a tree preservation order, and I do not know whether the Minister knows of any such case. I suppose that the clause covers one of his ''what if?'' situations.

The Minister mentioned that under a tree preservation order, the owner of the tree may fell or prune it if it is has become dangerous or is subject to a woodland management scheme. I wonder whether in new clause 12, relating to section 211 of the principal Act, which is about trees in a conservation area, the two same provisions apply. I have never considered the matter before, but it is an interesting question. I suspect that they probably do, but the Act does not say so. I would be grateful for the Minister's clarification of that . If he needs a bit of inspiration, no doubt he will get it—and if he needs further inspiration, no doubt he will write to the Committee.

As I understand the position, all trees in a conservation area are subject to special arrangements. They do not necessarily have to be subject to tree preservation orders, although some do. If anyone wants to make material changes to a tree, such as chop it down, they must give the local planning authority six weeks' notice of their intention to do so. That was the period mentioned by the Minister. The local planning authority then has six weeks to decide whether to impose a tree preservation order—in other words, whether planning permission must be applied for. Of course, if it does not give an answer, the tree can be cut. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.

Yes. Section 211 (3)(b)(ii) says exactly that, so that is helpful. The Act does not make it clear whether the same provisions apply to tree preservation orders, which would mean that a tree owner may lop, top or even fell a tree that is diseased or dangerous in any way. It is unclear whether those defences apply with conservation orders.

It is worth asking the Minister where the word ''emanation'' of the Crown originated. I think that the word is right, but it is odd. What precedent is there for its use? I know that Government draftsmen are great advocates of using precedent, and I wonder if there is one in another Act. I looked up the word in the Oxford English Dictionary, which says that it means to issue from or originate from. I assume that it is the right word, but I would like some clarification from the Minister.

I shared the hon. Gentleman's bewilderment about that expression when I was reading through the Bill in preparation for the Committee. I asked officials and received the explanation that the emanation of the Crown is someone acting under the umbrella of the Crown, and covers all persons acting for or on behalf of the Crown. The note goes on to say that it is a feature of counsel's drafting style to use this formulation. I imagine that there is a precedent in other legislation—[Interruption.] Inspiration has arrived.

The debate has clearly distinguished the representative of the Cotswolds—and, for that matter, the representative of Chipping Barnet, which I know embraces the beautiful Hadley wood—from me as the representative for Streatham. I suspect that I operate in a somewhat more urban context than other members of the Committee.

I agree with the helpful intervention by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. Inspiration has winged its way to me, and it tells me that section 211 applies to tree preservation orders in conservation areas that are not subject to tree preservation orders. Normal tree preservation provisions apply to those trees that have them—[Interruption.]. The hon. Member for Cotswold was too kind, and I think that I will avail myself of his generous offer to write to the Committee.

It is a great pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr. Pike. I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification of new clause 13. I have a particular interest in tree preservation orders—not a financial interest, I hasten to add—as I was the instigator of national tree year back in 1973. This year is the 30th anniversary—and when I come to think about it, it is probably the only useful thing that I have ever done in my political life. That was succeeded by annual national tree weeks. I have taken a particular interest in trees, although I never qualified as an arboriculturist. However, I have been president of the Arboricultural Association—and I think it took me six weeks to find out how to spell the word.

I could have mentioned the next issue in debates on previous amendments, or on amendments yet to be discussed. It relates to Government new clauses 42 and 43, and concerns Scotland. I do not want a reply from the Minister now, but in due course I would like to receive a letter from him about this Parliament's powers over the Parliament in Scotland. The Government assure us with pride that, as part of the devolution plans fulfilled by the Scotland Act 1998 and the creation of a Scottish Parliament—and by the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the creation of the National Assembly for Wales—we are devolving powers to that country and to that Principality.

That is all well and good, although some powers have not been devolved, such as defence and foreign affairs and so on—I need not go through an exhaustive list. However, it is with pride that the Government talk about education, health, housing and, as I understand it, town and country planning. If town and country planning and powers in other Acts affected by the Bill such as the listed buildings Act have been devolved, what right do the Government have to introduce new clauses 42 and 43? I presume that they have the right—they will have been advised by their legal experts—but it is wrong for them to say that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly now have control over their town and country planning Acts and regulations. This is a genuine request on my part; I do not know the answer. It would be not only in my interest but in the interest of all Members—of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—for us to be told the answer.

Have we the authority to put those clauses in the Bill? If we have, will the Government please admit that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly do not have control over town and country planning matters?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman tempts the Committee into areas where it

is dangerous to tread. I am aware of the delicacy of the relationship between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. Some matters are reserved to the UK Parliament. The hon. Gentleman asks what right we have to amend legislation that relates to Scotland. The Scottish Parliament inherited from the UK Parliament a huge body of legislation that is still in force and which, therefore, remains the property of this Parliament. It is appropriate that this Parliament should amend such legislation where necessary, although I reiterate the assurance that I offered earlier: all the changes are made after consultation with the Scottish Parliament and with its agreement. The amendments will be the subject of a motion in the Scottish Parliament to allow the legislation to take effect in Scotland. Wales, which is represented on this Committee, is covered by the Bill because planning legislation for Wales is made in Westminster.

Before the Minister finishes speaking, may I ask another question? Although this is enabling legislation to allow the Scottish Parliament to bring the provisions into force, it could be that, having debated the matter and voted on it, it refused to bring it into Scottish law. May I have absolute clarification of that matter?

I am sure that I can offer the hon. Gentleman that clarification—but I think that if I did, other colleagues might be tempted to seek further clarification. I shall be only too delighted to offer that clarification—in the fulness of time.

It would certainly help if the Minister got all his clarifications in at the end.

You are too kind.

I wonder why, in response to my hon. Friend, the Minister did not say that a particular section of the Scotland Act provides that certain matters are the province of the Scottish Parliament, and that because it does not provide that tree preservation orders are a matter for the Scottish Parliament, they remain a matter for Westminster? Given that he did not say that, I assume either that he does not know the relevant section—I confess that I do not know it either—or that a subject as minute as tree preservation orders is not exempt from the Scotland Act. Introducing a curious system of dual responsibility whereby we legislate and the Scottish Parliament votes on whether to accept our legislation, he is promoting an entirely novel interpretation of the devolution settlement. Could he give us his basis for that assertion?

I qualified my response to the debate by saying that I was aware that I was moving into tricky waters, and the way in which the debate has developed has borne that out. I regret that I have no intention—hon. Members will understand why—of opining here and now upon the force and content of the Scotland Act. To be precise in response to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, I have no idea whether tree preservation orders form part of the Scotland Act; I strongly suspect not. However, the answer to the question

asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold about whether the Scottish Parliament could refuse to ratify the proposals is: technically, yes it could.

I am most grateful. I was not necessarily inviting the Minister to deal with the problem immediately, so I am all the more impressed with him for having endeavoured to do so. Whatever my views are on devolution and certain aspects of town and country planning laws and regulations—and I accept that the people of Scotland want their planning legislation to be more or less in line with that of England and Wales—surely it would be in the interests of good public relations between our Parliament and the Scottish Parliament if we did not try to change their law here and now, but they proposed amending laws as a result of whatever laws we passed here, if they believed that it was logical for them to do so.

I am genuinely trying to help the Government by pointing out to them that they seem to be going about things in the wrong way. Scottish people are very sensitive—although I accept that there are very sensitive people in all corners of our kingdom; indeed, no one could be more sensitive than me. If they have responsibility for town and country planning, we should not dictate to them what they should do but should leave it to their good sense to realise the value of copying our legislation when we seek to amend it.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I assure him that we do not dictate to the Scottish Parliament. As I said, technically it is absolutely open to the Scottish Parliament to reject the amendments that we have made to this Bill in this Parliament. On the whole, it seems to me that the procedure that the hon. Gentleman describes is what is actually implemented—[Interruption.] My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), has wisely advised me to stop digging, and that is what I intend to do.

Question put and agreed to.

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