Clause 35
Planning Bill
6:30 pm
Dan 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.