New clause 11 - Enforcement in relation to Crown land
Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill
5:28 pm
Ms Yvette Cooper (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Pontefract and Castleford, Labour)
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.