Clause
174
Expressions
relating to the
Crown
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 577, in
clause 174, page 97, leave out lines 36 and
37.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 578, in
clause 174, page 98, line 11, leave
out paragraph (e).
No.
579, in
clause 174, page 98, line 33, leave
out paragraph
(b).
Dan
Rogerson:
I confess that I may be thinking more
parochially about this clause than others, as it defines how Crown land
is to be interpreted in the Bill. We have already discussed Crown land
exemptions and I accept that there are occasions when such land is
vital to the nation.
It is no reflection on the
present Duke of Cornwall, for whom I have the utmost regard, but the
history of the Duchy is that at times it seeks to define itself in
terms of its constitutional role. People may not be familiar with the
constitutional peculiarities of the Duchy of Cornwall. Various
provisions apply to the foreshore, mineral rights and so on, and if one
dies intestate in Cornwall the estate goes not to the Crown but to the
Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy has a constitutional significance that it
has defended through the
courts.
Mr.
Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): The estate goes
to the Duchy if a person without relatives dies
intestate.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that
piece of legal education as I am obviously sadly lacking in that
respect.
The Duchy
has a constitutional position that at times it seeks to emphasise and
at other times it seeks not to do so and defines itself as a private
estate. It cannot have it both ways. If it is a private estate, and I
would say that it is because it exists to supply an income for the heir
to the throne, why is it exempt from provisions to which other citizens
must have regard?
I
understand the argument for the Crown’s position in respect of
Government land used, for example, by the Ministry of Defence, but I
struggle to see why Duchy of Cornwall farms should be treated any
differently from other farms, such as county council-tenanted farms. I
hastily backtrack and say that the amendment implies no criticism of
the current incumbent; it seeks to discover how the Government view the
Duchy of Cornwall and why it is included with other Crown land, which
is more understandable in this context. What is the Government’s
opinion on the
matter?
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (Mr. Parmjit Dhanda):
It is nice to
be back and serving under your chairmanship, Mr. Illsley, as
we head towards the twilight phase of the Committee
sittings.
Mrs.
Lait:
We are not going that
way.
I will not accuse the hon.
Gentleman of tabling a republican amendment, but clause 173, which we
skipped over, applies the Bill specifically to the Crown, including the
Duchy. He raised concerns about the Duchy of Cornwall receiving special
treatment under the Bill, but the clause is consistent with the
commitment to remove Crown immunity on planning matters implemented by
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which amended section
293 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The definition of Crown
land, which included land belonging to the Duchy of Cornwall, was
unchanged. It is consistent with other legislation that applies to the
Crown, as all Crown interests are treated the same. It would be
improper to treat one interest—in this case, the Duchy
of Cornwall— differently from another, as he
suggested we do.
The drafting
reflects the special position of the sovereign and her heirs in our
constitution. That is the nub of it, which is where the hon.
Gentleman’s complications and difficulties arise. That special
place within our constitution is written into every measure, and it is
difficult to start unpicking it in any Bill, including this
one.
As I said, the
Bill applies to the Crown, but whereas in part 8 enforcement would
refer to an appellant, in this case it would refer to an individual who
is appointed by the heirs to the Crown. It is still relevant but at the
same time it has to be written in a way that observes our constitution.
The Crown, as Head of State, cannot enforce measures on the Crown,
which is why the provisions are so drafted. I hope that that helps the
hon. Gentleman and that he will withdraw the
amendment.
Dan
Rogerson:
I listened with interest to what the Minister
said. There is not much justification for the proposal, except that it
is what has always been done, but that is a debate for another time and
place so I will not detain the Committee. The answer to my question was
not forthcoming, but on the basis that I may wish to pursue the issue
elsewhere, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
174 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
175 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
176
Service
of notices:
general
Dan
Rogerson:
I beg to move amendment No. 580, in
clause 176, page 98, line 44, leave
out ‘may’ and insert
‘must’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 581, in
clause 176, page 98, line 44, leave
out
‘either’.
No.
582, in
clause 176, page 99, line 2, at
end insert ‘and’.
No. 583, in
clause 176, page 99, line 5, at
end insert
‘and’.
No.
584, in
clause 176, page 99, line 9, at
end insert—
‘(1A) A notice
or other document required or authorised to be served or given under
this Act may additionally be served by the following
methods—’.
Dan
Rogerson:
My concern is that the clause as drafted refers
to notice being given “either” and then lists a number of
ways in which that can be done. For example, it mentions
service using electronic communications. Notices might be issued solely
by that means, and therefore would not reach certain people, as we have
discussed. Also, people who have an interest in, or own, land but do
not reside there and do not visit it on a frequent basis may not see
notices posted there.
The amendment would encourage
the Government to ensure that all notices are
delivered by as many means as possible so that people have ample
opportunity to consider matters that may be relevant to them
and to their interests. I hope that they will accept the
amendment—I suspect that they will not—or reassure me on
the record that the spirit of the Bill is that every opportunity will
be taken to contact people to ensure that they have the relevant
information and can act accordingly, in full knowledge of what is being
proposed.
Mr.
Dhanda:
The hon. Gentleman wishes to amend the clause to
ensure that any person on whom a notice is served will receive it in at
least three different ways. That would be excessive and rather
inflexible, and we are trying to introduce a quicker and more flexible
system. However, I do not disagree that it is important that a notice
is received by the person on whom it is served and the clause has been
constructed to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility for the
person serving the notice to choose the best way of doing so. For
instance, a person may be domiciled abroad, but have an interest in a
particular parcel of land. That would make hand delivery difficult and
expensive. In such situations, it would not be inconceivable that a
person would prefer to receive information via e-mail, as he suggests.
Requiring a person to serve a notice multiple times would, therefore,
make it extremely difficult for such people to comply with the
legislative requirement, if, for example, it was difficult to deliver
it by hand. That is not to mention the excessive related
costs.
11
am
Taking that on
board and the fact that, if a person has registered an interest in an
application, they would provide an address to which they would
wish correspondence to be sent, which could be an electronic or a
postal address, whether domestic or abroad, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will consider withdrawing the
amendment.
Dan
Rogerson:
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I
am slightly suspicious of the words “speed” and
flexibility”. It is fairly subjective to talk of something being
quick and flexible, and it might be from the point of view of someone
who wants an application to go forward.
Mr.
Dhanda:
I hope that it will reassure the hon.
Gentleman when I tell him that, if a person is
deliberately excluded, which is probably his underlying concern, they
would also be able to challenge the IPC’s decisions under the
Bill.
Dan
Rogerson:
That is a key point, which I am grateful to the
Minister for making. As long as regard will be given to some form of
proof that every opportunity has been taken to notify an interested
person of a relevant application, and that they have the opportunity to
participate in that application’s progress at every stage, I am
reassured. However, I want to put it on the record once again that if
someone is not present in the area, they may not see local advertising
or even be aware that something is taking place. It is key that every
method is pursued to ensure that everyone with an interest in that
application has the opportunity to be
consulted.
I will not
seek to press the amendment to a vote. But it is an important point, as
we are looking to changes in the planning system, that any
consultation or interaction with the various interested parties must be
opened and done in as thorough a way as possible. I am grateful to the
Minister for putting that on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
176
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 177 to 181
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
182
Interpretation
Amendments
made: No. 153, in clause 182, page 101, line 20, at end
insert—
‘“alteration”,
in relation to an airport, must be read in accordance with section
19(5);’.
No.
154, in clause 182, page 101, leave out
lines 43 and 44.
No.
155, in
clause 182, page 102, line 1, at
end insert—
‘“gas
reception facility” must be read in accordance with section [gas
reception facilities]
(2);’.
No.
156, in
clause 182, page 102, line 19, at
end insert—
‘“LNG
facility” must be read in accordance with section [LNG
facilities]
(3);’.
No.
157, in
clause 182, page 102, line 50, at
end
insert—
‘“standard”,
in relation to a volume of gas, means the volume of gas at a pressure
of 101.325 kiloPascals and a temperature of 273
Kelvin;’.
No.
158, in
clause 182, page 103, line 6, at
end
insert—
‘“underground
gas storage facilities” must be read in accordance with section
16(5);’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Clause
182, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
183
Application
of Act to Scotland:
modifications
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mrs.
Lait:
As one of only two Scottish voices on the Committee,
I would like to discuss clause 183 and, with your permission,
Mr. Illsley, clause 187. If I read the Bill correctly, both
clauses refer to powers being handed to Scotland. If we discuss both
clauses now, we will not have to reiterate the arguments when we get to
clause 187. The clause is entitled “Application of Act to
Scotland”. Clause 187 is entitled “Extent”, and
lists those provisions that apply to England and Wales and those that
apply to Scotland, in a number of areas.
Scotland has
devolved power over planning issues, but the UK retains its power over
issues such as energy policy. The clause refers to various parts of the
Bill under which there are modifications for Scotland. It omits
provisions relating to various development consent orders, in
particular paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 105(4), which relate to
electricity generation. The question is whether that affects merely the
planning implications of the development consent orders or whether it
will allow the Scottish Parliament to take authority over the provision
and, hence, the policy. By allowing the clauses to pass, will we allow
the Scottish Parliament to take power over the policy for the provision
of energy, as opposed to the
planning?
The
Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the previous coalition
that ran the Scottish Parliament have all set their faces against
rebuilding nuclear power stations on the sites in Scotland where there
is already planning consent. Scotland has historically been a net
exporter of power to England. If those three nuclear power stations are
not rebuilt, England and Wales will start being a net exporter of power
to Scotland. That would be a shift in policy. Has this UK Parliament
agreed that there should be such a shift or are we, under the Bill,
allowing that shift in energy policy to be
made?
If my reading of
clause 187 is correct—as I have always said, I am no
lawyer—it leaves only pipelines as an issue that is across
Scottish and English borders. We understand the need for that
provision, but in essence, are we not potentially handing control over
pipelines for gas, electricity and water to Scotland? Are we
inadvertently doing that by agreeing to these clauses? If the Minister
can reassure me that we are not and that we do not have any
constitutional arguments over this matter, I will be quite happy not to
press my concerns further. If I am left with any concern about the
quiet handing over to Scotland of control of UK policy, I will
certainly return to the issue on another
occasion.
Mr.
Dhanda:
Clause 183 requires that when considering the
Bill’s extent to Scotland, which is only in relation to
cross-border oil and gas country pipelines, certain modifications must
be made to particular provisions to ensure that they give the proper
effect with regard to Scottish legislation. This is a basic clause to
reflect the fact that Scotland is a separate jurisdiction from England
and Wales. Clause 187 defines how the Bill extends to England, Scotland
and Wales.
Mrs.
Lait:
Yes, Scotland is a separate jurisdiction for
planning. It is not a separate jurisdiction for energy policy. I should
have thought that pipelines were part of energy
policy.
Mr.
Dhanda:
Neither clause 183 nor clause 187 refer to powers
in Scotland. They are specifically related to planning issues. I hope
that that helps to clarify the issue for the hon. Lady. I could not
make it any clearer than that. Clause 187 has been drafted in such a
way as to ensure that the devolution settlement is respected. I commend
both clauses to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Lait:
I accept the Minister’s assurance that the
provision applies only to planning. On that basis, I will not press the
matter to a vote, although we might have to return to it on
Report.
Clause 183
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
s
18
4 and 185
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
