Clause 37 - Crown application

Part of Traffic Management Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 5:30 pm on 29 January 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Wilshire David Wilshire Conservative, Spelthorne 5:30, 29 January 2004

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in

page 17, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Crown immunity is a matter of some fascination to me, and we could debate it at great length, but another occasion would probably be more appropriate. I realise that it is a sensitive issue, and that all sorts of provisions in Standing Orders and ''Erskine May'' relate to discussing the Crown. That is why I did not table an amendment to subsection (1), and I am sure that Her Majesty will be pleased no end to note that she is entirely free to pop out of Buckingham Palace to dig up the Mall with a pick and shovel.

Subsection (2), however, raises a substantial question, and I suspect that the answer will be highly technical or, indeed, lost in the mists of time and Crown immunity. Subsection (1) says:

''This Part and any provisions made under it bind the Crown''.

It seems strange, therefore, that subsection (2) should say:

''Nothing in subsection (1) is to be construed as authorising the bringing of proceedings for a criminal offence against a person acting on behalf of the Crown.''

We have debated criminal sanctions and criminality in relation to statutory undertakers and others who dig up roads, but we are now being told that someone who does so on behalf of the Crown cannot be considered to have committed a criminal offence, even though the provisions apply to the Crown. We are discussing not the Queen herself, because she is specifically and personally exempted, but Crown employees. If the provisions apply to them, why can they not be treated in the same way as every other citizen of this country? If they committed an offence, they would be as much of a criminal as you or I would be in those circumstances, Miss Begg.