John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

With this is will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in clause 173, page 97, line 20, leave out ‘35’.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I spoke too soon, as I had forgotten about amendment No. 261 and apologise for disappointing hon. Members. I shall try to make up for it by being brief.

The purpose of the amendment is to tease out from the Minister a little more of the reasoning behind setting up a special regime to apply to the Crown in relation to the applications under clause 35, as it is not entirely clear to us. We appreciate that the Crown occasionally has difficult situations, but would like some explanations for that special procedure. Under what circumstances will applications be made by the Crown, and what kind of difficulties could arise as a result of the Crown being subject to the law?

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Although my amendment to delete the clause will not be considered, I would like to explore this clause further. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst quite rightly said that we need to explore the circumstances in which the Government may depart from the provisions that everyone else in the country has to conform to.

Also, will the Minister define what is meant by Crown land? Does it include, for example, Duchy of Lancaster land or, in the case of my own constituency, Duchy of Cornwall land, because that land serves a different purpose from Crown land, which is used for purposes on behalf of Government and the nation as a whole? I would be interested to have some clarification of exactly what is covered by this measure. I hope that the Minister can see the distinction that I am making about estates in which the primary purpose is to raise revenue for particular members of the royal family.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe, whose amendment prompted the debate on clause 32, referred to the potential conflict of interest in the Secretary of State determining applications. He saw that as a potential criticism of his own argument. Here, we could have the conflict of interest above all others if the Government are able to impose particular strictures upon anyone else who applies to construct a development. They could completely disregard the applicant for their own ends. It would be helpful for us to hear from the Minister how often he thinks that such action would be appropriate. Even if he is able to clarify the matter, I am a little uneasy with the whole concept. I think that members of the public and people in industry who are forced to live by the Bill would feel aggrieved if the Crown were able to sidestep the regulations that are imposed on everybody else. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

I shall do my best. I would say to the hon. Member for North Cornwall that it is quite unlikely that the Duchy of Cornwall or the royal family would want to promote a nationally significant infrastructure project on their land.

Daniel Rogerson (Shadow Minister (Arts, Culture and Heritage), Culture, Media & Sport; North Cornwall, Liberal Democrat)

Just as the Minister is getting going—I am aware that the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, will be raising his eyes about the progress that we are making—I would like to mention that there are significant plans for housing developments on land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which may have complicated implications for infrastructure projects. That is the circumstance that I foresee. Obviously, we also want to hear what the Minister thinks is appropriate on the wider issue of Crown lands.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that this regime does not cover housing. We have already dealt in some detail with the criteria that qualify an application for a project. This is principally about Crown applications for Government projects, such as highway projects in which the Highways Agency would be the promoter. The measure is designed to be a fall-back provision that is used in special circumstance. Hon. Members will recognise that occasionally domestic or  international circumstance require the Government to be able to act quickly in response to events that by their nature are unpredictable and may not be capable of being captured and set out in a national policy statement. Without the power set out in the clause, the Government would not be able to respond.

Let me give an example. The foot and mouth crisis required the urgent provision of infrastructure in order to deal with the large quantities of animal waste that resulted from the necessary culling that took place. The provision is designed to deal with that sort of circumstance.

The regulations we propose would be subject to the negative procedure in the House and would, therefore, be subject to an annulment resolution of either House. It is an important power that we are only likely to consider using in special circumstances and occasionally. I hope that that explanation gives hon. Members some reassurance.

Bob Neill (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

I will not make any cracks about Duchy Original wind farms or anything of that kind. I understand the Minister’s point and I will not seek to press the amendment.

Jacqui Lait (Shadow Minister, Communities and Local Government; Beckenham, Conservative)

On a point of order, Sir John. Before I launch into moving the amendment, I seek your guidance on a matter that I raised at the beginning of this morning’s sitting. The Minister kindly indicated to us that he was hoping to get the consultation on the community infrastructure levy out in plenty of time for organisations and ourselves to be able to consider amendments. I now understand that it will be next week before that consultation goes out, which makes it exceedingly tight for us to be able to get advice from the bodies that are most directly concerned and to table amendments, particularly if we were to be able to move on to consideration of that next Friday. Could you give us some guidance as to how we could cope with that situation, so that we can have a proper debate on the levy?

John Butterfill (Bournemouth West, Conservative)

That is not a point of order for me, but the Minister may wish to comment on it.

John Healey (Minister of State (Local Government), Department for Communities and Local Government; Wentworth, Labour)

I thought that I made my intention clear this morning. I said that we would get the consultation out, that it would not be, as the hon. Lady mistakenly argued this morning, about consultation on the draft regulations, but it would be a consultation that set out more fully our approach to developing the community infrastructure levy. We aim to do that in good time for the debate in the Committee and that remains my intention.