The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:†
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk)
(Con) †
Brake,
Tom (Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD) †
Burrowes,
Mr. David (Enfield, Southgate)
(Con) †
Challen,
Colin (Morley and Rothwell)
(Lab) †
Fisher,
Mark (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
(Lab) †
Gerrard,
Mr. Neil (Walthamstow)
(Lab) †
Gove,
Michael (Surrey Heath)
(Con) †
Jenkins,
Mr. Brian (Tamworth)
(Lab) †
Keen,
Alan (Feltham and Heston)
(Lab/Co-op) Lancaster,
Mr. Mark (North-East Milton Keynes)
(Con) Main,
Anne (St. Albans)
(Con) †
Mole,
Chris (Ipswich)
(Lab) †
Simon,
Mr. Siôn (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab) Stunell,
Andrew (Hazel Grove)
(LD) †
Watts,
Mr. Dave (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)†
Woolas,
Mr. Phil (Minister for Local
Government)†
Wright,
David (Telford) (Lab) Glen
McKee, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Second
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationMonday 8
May
2006[Janet
Anderson in the
Chair]Draft Planning (Application to the Houses of Parliament) Order 20064.30
pm The
Minister for Local Government (Mr. Phil Woolas): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Planning (Application to the Houses
of Parliament) Order
2006. The order is,
like myself, I hope, small but essential. It is a small but essential
part of the package of subordinate legislation that is necessary to
bring part 7 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 into
force. It is a technical measure, and I hope that it is a
non-controversial one, but I thought that it would be right to bring it
before the House under the affirmative procedure, because although it
is consequential on the 2004 Act and on principles already determined
by the House, it affects parliamentary privilege, as I shall
explain. It may be
helpful to the Committee to remind hon. Members of the background to
the draft order. Part 7 of the 2004 Act is entitled “Crown
Application of Planning Acts”, and when brought into force it
will end Crown immunity from the planning system, by applying the
planning Acts to the Crown. There is a long-standing policy to end
Crown immunity in cases in which it is no longer necessary—the
national health service lost its Crown immunity in 1991, for example. A
further compelling reason for that measure is that infraction
proceedings were taken against the United Kingdom by the European
Commission, as a result of which the United Kingdom has now received an
adverse judgment from the European Court of Justice for failing
completely to transpose the environmental impact assessment directive.
The directive was transposed through planning regulations which did not
apply to the Crown because of Crown immunity, which meant that there
was no transposition for Crown land. Hence, the United Kingdom was in
breach of its obligations and has had to legislate to remedy the
situation. The main
package of subordinate legislation required to bring part 7 into force
will shortly be made and laid before Parliament. It comprises a
commencement order and three other statutory instruments subject to
negative resolution procedure, which measures will apply a modified
version of existing subordinate legislation concerning planning to the
Crown. They will amend the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and
provide rules covering the role of special advocates in planning cases
that have national security implications.
The draft order and
its companion Order in Council, which contains consequential
amendments,
are instruments that are needed to deal with the unique position of the
Palace of Westminster and the Palace’s precincts. As they do not
have general application, they could be considered as an epilogue to
the main subordinate legislation, but because the measure before us has
been made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, it has been
transformed into a prologue. I thought that the House would welcome
that, as it affects issues dear to the hearts of hon.
Members. In order for
the Crown to be properly integrated into the statutory planning system,
all categories of Crown land must be identified, and each category must
have an appropriate authority that can interact with the local planning
authority—typically the Government Department that owns or
manages the land. However, certain parts of the Houses of Parliament
are Crown land, including places as diverse as Her Majesty’s
Robing Room, the adjoining staircase and ante-room, and the Royal
Gallery—for which the Lord Great Chamberlain is the appropriate
authority. There are also Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary
Undercroft, for which the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Speakers of
both Houses acting jointly are the appropriate authority. Provision for
that has been made in new paragraphs (f) and (g) of section 293(2) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which I shall call the
principal Act, as inserted by paragraph 6(4) of schedule 3 of the 2004
Act. As members of the
Committee will recognise, paragraphs 7 and 8 of schedule 2 to the 2004
Act made similar additions to the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances
Act) 1990. To avoid over-complication I shall not mentions those Acts
again. References to “the principal Act” should be
takento refer also to the equivalent provisions of
thosetwo
Acts. The rest of the
Houses of Parliament—essentially the Lords and the
Commons—is not Crown land. Crucially, however, for the purposes
of planning legislation they are treated as if they were. That is set
out in the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies (Crown Immunities etc.) Order
1992, and brings us to the purpose of the order that is before us. To
avoid the Houses of Parliament being left in legislative limbo once
planning legislation is applied to the Crown, it is necessary to define
the areas in question as Crown interests. That is the purpose of
article 2. Once that definition has been made, an appropriate authority
must be designated; that is the purpose of article
3. It might help the
Committee if I clear up some potential technical queries. The
significance of23 March 1965, as mentioned in article 2, is
that it was the date of the statement on the management of the Houses
of Parliament by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Most members
of the Committee will know that the corporate officers referred to in
article 3 are the Clerk of the Parliaments for the House of Lords and
the Under-Clerk of Parliament for the House of Commons, as designated
in sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act
1992. Some members of
the Committee may wonder why all of this was not covered in the 2004
Act, in which we specified the true Crown land in the Houses of
Parliament. The principle that the 1990 Acts and the 2004 Act apply to
Parliament was confirmed in section
112 of the 2004 Act. The details, however, were left to secondary
legislation because of the undoubted complexity of the ownership and
management of Parliament. That is why we have provided in article 2 the
enabling powers of the definition of Crown interest in section 293(1)
of the principal Act and its
equivalents. I hope
that I have adequately explained why the order is needed, and the
context in which it is being made. It may also help if I reassure the
Committee that the order was prepared in consultation with the House
authorities, as one would
expect. 4.38
pm Michael
Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is apleasure to
serve under your chairmanship today,Mrs. Anderson. I shall
attempt to be relatively brief. There are many other pressures on the
time of the House and on that of members of the parliamentary Labour
party. I suspect that meetings along the Committee Corridor later this
evening will command their full attention. If only those of us on the
Opposition Benches could join them in those deliberations, I am sure
that our advice would help them in their
counsels. The Minister
described himself as “small but essential.” I obviously
do not wish to refer to his stature, but given the recent turbulence in
the PLP,the essential nature of his role has been
reconfirmed.Like the Minister for Housing and Planning,
thehon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford(Yvette
Cooper), he is a fixed point in the turbulence that was the Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister—my, how we grieve for him—and
is now in the Department for Communities and Local Government. I wish
him well in his continuing role, which I am sure he will discharge with
his customary authority and
efficiency. As the
Minister pointed out, the order is intended to correct anomalies. It
will give effect to views that the House has expressed, and in that
respect it should not be controversial. The Minister did not address
one matter, and I would be grateful if he did so. That is the date at
which the order will come into effect. As we know, and as he pointed
out, the way in which Crown lands will lose their immunity has been
widely discussed, but the date at which that will happen, which I think
was slated for next month, has been thrown into doubt by some of the
changes within the Department. We would be grateful for guidance and
specificity on the date on which the change in immunity will come
about. To my
colleagues on the Back Benches, the principle of removing Crown
immunity might at first sight seem disconcerting; given the
Government’s at times ambivalent attitude to the Crown, it may
give rise to certain worries. We have seen the Royal Ulster
Constabulary lose its royal designation. We have also seen attempts or
threats to remove the Crown from the Crown Prosecution Service.
However, far from threatening any of the Crown’s privileges, the
order regularises the Crown’s position and eases its ability and
that of its agencies to deal with planning laws. The Crown is once more
put on the same footing as other institutions and certain impediments
are removed.
Having said that, some Labour
Back Benchers may be worried at the designation of the House of Commons
as Crown land. Those of a roundhead or levelling temperament may well
remember why 400 years ago this House did so much to resist the
encroachment of the
Crown. Mark
Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): Hear,
hear. Michael
Gove: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
support on this point, but let me once again assure Labour Members that
the Minister is merely carrying out the wishes of the House and is not
acting as an agent for any royalist interest. Nevertheless, we have
specific questions that we hope the Minister can address in his summing
up. What effect, if
any, will the order have on the particular rights and traditions of
this House and its Members? There are particular traditions, including
freedom from arrest while on its premises, and particular freedoms
relating to everything from licensing to freedom of speech, which all
depend on the cherishable and distinct nature of the House. As we move
to regularise its position in planning law, are there any consequences
which lawyers are concerned about which would mean that the distinctive
status of the House in these other legal areas is threatened or
compromised? One other
area concerns us. As we are all aware, the House of Commons estate has
been responsible for a significant capital expenditure in the past on
the refurbishment, improvement and expansion of Members’
offices. One of our worries is whether there will be adequate planning
scrutiny and oversight in future. The costs consequent on the
development of Portcullis house, for example, were of deep concern to
my constituents and to many other taxpayers. We need to be reassured
that the future planning regime, which governs any renovation,
refurbishment or expansion of the House of Commons estate, is
sufficiently robust to safeguard taxpayer value.
In that respect we have one
other concern. This place is more than just a place of work. It is also
an historic listed building. What effect will the order have on the
relationship of the House and its authorities with statutory bodies
such as English Heritage? What role will it continue to enjoy in
advising us on how we can enhance the parliamentary estate? I look
forward to the Minister’s customary authoritative and brief
replies to my questions. I commend the order to the
House. 4.43
pm Tom
Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It gives me great
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Anderson. I should like
to start by commenting on the small, but essential nature of the
Minister before us. His mere presence here today confirms that he is a
small, but essential cog in a Government who are much given to grinding
their gears at present. I hope that in the next 24 or 48 hours he will
still be that small, but essential cog. He has done a good job of
explaining this technical matter to us. I was particularly interested
in his point about our concerns about the environmental impact
assessment. I
hope that he will perhaps consider a plain English assessment of his
opening speech, because his words were opaque to say the least.
Certainly, if any people outside the House choose to read the debate in
Hansard, they will find his introductory remarks somewhat
challenging
intellectually. I,
clearly, will listen with great interest to his replies on the question
of whether Members’ rights will be affected but, as Members are
well positioned to defend their rights, perhaps it is more important to
know whether there are any implications for staff who work in the
Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Minister is able to respond on
that point. I do not
have support from many Opposition Members today, but Members on these
Benches will facilitate the technical resolution. We would not like the
House to be left in legislative limbo. After all, the Government are
facing legislative gridlock elsewhere in the House. If we are able to
help in this one small respect by clearing up this piece of legislative
limbo, we would be happy to help
them. 4.46
pm Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): Of course, you serve on
the Administration Committee,Mrs. Anderson, and you know that
concerned Members of all parties on that Committee have examined some
of the works to this building, some of which have been extremely
expensive, and the mechanisms by which decisions are taken on such
work. There is a possibility that the order will havean
impact on some of those decisions in future.The Committee
itself cannot do this, but perhaps the Minister might consider drawing
the order to the attention of the relevant domestic Committees of the
House so that they can consider how planning decisions could and should
be taken in the future, where those decisions should be taken and who
should be involved in them, as the matter is of considerable interest
to Members who serve on the Administration Committee and similar bodies
such as the House of Commons Commission. It would be in
everyone’s interest if we were clear at an early stage how
changes to the planning regime will impact them and how decisions will
be made on planning applications and
permissions. 4.47
pm Mr.
Woolas: I shall attempt to answer directlythe
questions that have been put. The first one,which was from
the hon. Member for SurreyHeath (Michael Gove), was about the
date of commencement. Our intention is that it will be 7 June or, to be
very cautious, shortly thereafter. On the listed building status that
we enjoy, Parliament will continue to apply for listed building consent
on any changes that are made—that is right and
proper. My hon. Friend
the Member for Walthamstow(Mr. Gerrard) said that the order
should be brought to the attention of the House Committees. I said in
my opening remarks that we had been in consultation with
the House authorities. However, it is incumbent on me to bring the order
to the attention of the House Committees as
well. The
hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked me to speak
in plain English, and I welcome that request, but he will understand
that it is important to put the technical explanation on the record,
not because lawyers make money out of such things but because there is
always that potential. There are no changes in procedure, but, in
layperson’s terms, what we are doing in essence is saying that
at present the House can apply for planning consent on a voluntary
basis. The order puts that on a statutory footing, albeit within the
remit of Parliament to retain its sovereign rights. The plain English
version of events is that we are trying to regularise the House in line
with the rest of the country and Crown properties, but that does not
take away the important point about listed building status and the
other requirements on
us. The
hon. Member for Surrey Heath asked about the effect on the rights of
the House and freedom of speech. I think that he mentioned licensing,
freedom from arrest and so on. There are no criminal penalties in
respect of planning enforcement on the Crown and Parliament so those
rights are not affected, and whether or not one is a royalist that
remains the case. No implications are expected for the staff of the
House and enforcement procedures would be against the owner-occupier
who is defined as the corporate officers, so hon. Members may rest
assured about that, if they were not
already. The
sensible point about the order is that it is an affirmative order to
accept the principles that were passed by the House in the 2004 Act.
Other tidying-up amendments will be subject to the negative resolution
procedure, but I brought the order before the Committee because it
affects important matters. I am sure that the Committee will be asked
about it by other Members of Parliament as well as staff of the House,
which is why I wanted to bring it before the Committee. I am grateful
for the Committee’s support and I believe that I have answered
all the questions that have been
raised. Mr.
Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): On the point about
liability, the Minister referred to corporate officers of the House,
but surely they are employees of the House. Therefore, as tenants in
common, are we not the ultimate responsible persons in terms of legal
liability? Mr.
Woolas: As the sovereign Parliament of this country, we
are ultimately responsible for everything, so I suppose that the answer
is yes. My hon. Friend had better go to see his lawyer to check it out.
However, more seriously, the planning procedures designate appropriate
authorities and during my opening comments I gave the definition of
corporate officers. The hon. Gentleman’s local authority has
designated officers who are accountable and the same is the case under
the order, notwithstanding my caveat about how it seems nowadays that
Members of Parliament are held to blame for everything, including
the weather. The serious point is that the procedure is designated in
law and I commend the order to the
House. Question put
and agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Planning (Application to the
Houses of Parliament) Order
2006. Committee rose
at seven minutes to Five
o’clock.
|
