Communities Committee, 12 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Official Report 160KB pdf

---

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

Our first agenda item is the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Patrick Harvie has indicated that he has been held up but will arrive later.

I welcome the Deputy Minister for Communities and ask her to make an opening statement on the proposals in the bill.

Good morning, everybody. I thank the committee for allowing me to speak to the Sewel motion and memorandum on the removal of Crown immunity from planning control through the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill at Westminster.

It might be helpful to the committee if I begin by briefly describing some of the background to the issue. As committee members know, legislation does not presently bind the Crown unless there is express provision to say that it does. A series of court decisions has confirmed that the planning acts do not bind the Crown. In Scotland, the Crown follows the procedures in the Scottish Office Development Department circular 21/84, under which the Crown submits to the planning authority a notice of proposed development instead of a planning application. That notice is treated similarly to a planning application, in that it is advertised and entered in the planning register. If the planning authority is content with the proposed development, the Crown can go ahead, but if the planning authority is not content, the proposal is referred to the Scottish ministers for their determination. Any cases that are referred in that way are treated similarly to appeals against refusal of planning permission. Examples of developments to which those administrative procedures apply include benefit offices, military installations and prisons. They constitute a small proportion of the overall number of developments that are submitted to planning authorities for consideration, although, on occasion, they can be pretty contentious.

The United Kingdom Government consulted on the removal of Crown immunity from planning control in 1992, and the then Scottish Office conducted its own consultation on the matter in 1993. The outcome was that the UK Government announced in 1994 its intention to remove Crown immunity from planning control at the first suitable legislative opportunity. The current Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which was introduced in the Westminster Parliament in December 2002, was felt to be such an opportunity and, although planning is a devolved matter, the Executive decided that, in the absence of a suitable Scottish legislative vehicle, the Westminster bill provided an opportunity to deal with Crown immunity in Scotland. The Executive therefore agreed with the UK Government to pursue amendments to the bill to introduce Scottish provisions.

The planning systems in Scotland, England and Wales are similar, and the policy intentions of the UK Government and the Scottish Executive on Crown immunity and planning are the same. The use of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill means that there is an element of consistency in the timing of, and approach to, the removal of Crown immunity north and south of the border.

In Scotland, the three main planning acts are the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997. At first glance, it may appear fairly straightforward to make those acts bind the Crown. However, it is necessary to tailor the arrangements for Crown development.

I will end my comments at that point. I am happy to take questions from the committee on the Sewel motion.

I thank the minister for her opening remarks. She will know that my political colleagues and I are never comfortable with Sewel motions. That subject will be debated on the floor of the chamber, so I will not pursue it at the moment. However, I have a number of questions that are fairly straightforward but which may help to inform the debate when it takes place.

The minister indicated that the situation of prisons will change. She will be particularly aware of the contentious proposal for a prison at Addiewell in West Lothian. I understand that, at the moment, the council is probably a willing seller of the necessary land, but what difference—if any—would the bill make to the compulsory purchase that may be associated with the Addiewell project?

My second question relates to paragraph 9 of the briefing note that we have received, which makes it clear that the change does not make any difference to the Crown's exemption from criminal sanctions. Will the minister share with us why it was not thought appropriate to make a change that would make the Crown criminally liable where appropriate?

My final question, which is also fairly straightforward, relates to paragraph 10 of the briefing note, which states that forestry commissioners will be exempt from these provisions when there are

"specific plans made by the Commissioners."

What does that mean? What are specific plans? Has that information been published, so that it is in the public domain? The wording before me suggests that decisions may be made at the whim of the Forestry Commission, but logic makes me think otherwise. I suspect that that is not the intention.

Mr Stevenson will be very aware that I am very aware of the planning application for Addiewell, given its proximity to my constituency. We are using his arguments for the retention of Peterhead prison to reassure people in West Lothian that provision of a prison there will not bring with it some of the problems that concern them.

The change in legislation will ensure that people are given an opportunity—as with other planning applications—to examine proposals in a more open way and to comment on them. Previously, people were told what would happen, instead of being consulted openly on proposals. The change represents progress, as it will permit the kind of consultation and involvement in the planning system that we all want.

Stewart Stevenson asked about criminal sanctions. We intend not to make the Crown subject to such sanctions purely because tradition and practice make it very difficult for the Crown to prosecute itself. In the past, we have avoided doing that in a number of other areas.

Indications are that a decision by the Crown not to allow a local authority access to an area that is under consideration could be challenged in court, and that the court would regard that decision by the Crown as unsatisfactory. Such a court statement should ensure that acceptable action is taken in relation to planning applications. We are following tradition; this is not something new. However, by removing Crown immunity we are pushing back the barrier a little further and seeking sensible and open responses from the agencies involved.

The forestry commissioners' specific plans have gone out to consultation so they should be widely known. We do not seek to duplicate anything. However, I will ask my colleagues to explain to ensure that that is clear.

The provision will be in accordance with the plans of operations, or other working planning, that are approved by the Forestry Commission. The normal arrangements for the preparation of such plans, and for the accountability of the forestry commissioners in respect of those plans, would apply.

The provision that we are talking about relates specifically to tree preservation orders; it is not a general exemption.

I understand.

I welcome the bill, which will bring the Crown into normal planning processes. I am a bit concerned about paragraph 8 of the Executive's memorandum, under the heading:

"Urgent Crown Development and Urgent works to Crown Land".

I seek further information on who makes the decision that something is of national importance and who decides that, as a matter of urgency, they have to bypass the local planning authority. What examples can you give us of when this provision may have to be used?

It would be for the Crown body to prove that a development was urgent and needed to go ahead without delay. To give an example, I return to the issue of prisons. If there had been a fire in a prison, temporary accommodation might be put in that was not suitable. It would then be possible to concertina the application for rebuild and to shorten the delay in providing permanent accommodation. Be assured, however, that although the time scale could be shortened, we are not saying that there would be no consultation. There would be consultation, and information would still be available on what was being proposed. It is just that the eight weeks in local authorities—and the time scales elsewhere in the consultation process, however long they are—might be shortened. The process would still be open.

Do local authorities not have a mechanism for dealing with such things through the local democratic process? I appreciate the point about the time for planning notification, but, in the example that you gave, why would the local authority not be able to deal with that situation?

Because it is still possible to appeal against such an application. The example may not have been great, but if there is a requirement for something to be done very quickly, it is still possible to appeal. After the eight weeks, there would then be the period of appeal. The new measures would shorten the overall period because the first period would be removed. The decision would therefore be quicker.

Other members' reservations over the use of Sewel motions notwithstanding, I feel that the Westminster bill is an appropriate vehicle to remedy a long-standing problem in some parts of Scotland.

A number of large establishments—for example, the former royal dockyard at Rosyth in my constituency—have retained Crown immunity. The changes will be welcomed in Rosyth, as there have been major problems there with proposals for development. The bill offers a better way of regulating the planning process compared with the current two-track process.

In answer to an oral question a few weeks ago, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development announced that the measures in the bill would be coming forward. That was the first that I had heard of them and I was excited to hear that they were on their way. I am glad that we are progressing them today, because a proposal pertaining to Rosyth is currently causing me and a number of my constituents some concern.

We must look at the merits of the proposed legislation, rather than taking a principled stance on the use or otherwise of Sewel motions. The measures are long overdue, and they should be welcomed.

How will the increased regulation affect certain environmental issues? I am thinking in particular of the large tracts of land that are owned by the Ministry of Defence. Will Scottish Natural Heritage get more powers to designate sites of special scientific interest? Will the proposed legislation apply the provisions of European directives? Will additional environmental regulations apply on MOD land?

The general principle behind the change to the planning system is to ensure that the decision-making process is more open and accountable. As Scott Barrie has just suggested, that has not been the case in the past. People have not always been able to know exactly what proposals have been made, and they have not been able to contribute to the discussions around them. We seek to bring the legislation in this area into line with the rest of the planning system, which allows for an open debate to take place.

Alan Cameron will comment on your point about SSSIs, from the planning perspective.

SSSIs are not designated under the planning legislation itself. The bill is about bringing to bear a specific set of statutory requirements on the Crown. That said, planning legislation contains requirements to consult SNH. If a development is proposed in an SSSI, there is a statutory requirement to consult SNH and to take on board its comments. That can trigger further steps in the process.

There is also the environmental impact assessment directive. Although the non-statutory procedures that we currently use cover the submission of an environmental statement, the EIA directive will now be on a statutory footing, so that the letter of the law will be applied to proposals to which environmental impact regulations would normally relate.

Is it the case that SNH has, in the past, been excluded from those areas of land that have been under Crown immunity? Is it right that if the areas involved were of outstanding natural beauty or concern, or if there were some unique species there, SNH would not have been able to exercise any powers over those areas? Will SNH now have the power to go in and designate land?

Only in so far as we are talking about planning legislation. As I said, planning legislation is not used to designate land.

I understand that; I am asking whether one thing leads to the other. It is a big issue in the Highlands.

The intention is to open things up so that they are more transparent. Agencies such as SNH will be consultees, and they will therefore be able to consider such situations in more detail than was possible in the past. Although that opportunity was never closed to them, the legislation will give agencies a footing on which they can ensure that they are consulted.

Yes, that was really my point. If SNH designates an area of land that is currently used by the MOD, the ministry might in effect be excluded from training on that land. Is that a possibility?

Yes, although such decisions would be based on environmental directives not on planning legislation.

But the proposed legislation will open the door for that to happen.

It will allow SNH to become one of the consultees through the normal, open consultation process.

First, I apologise to the committee for arriving late.

Earlier, it was suggested that if a Crown body sought to demonstrate that a development was urgent or related to national security, any planning meeting about the application could be held in secret. A private planning application allows objectors some time to make their objections. Would there be opportunities for people to object during the period in which a body had to prove that the matter was urgent or relevant to national security?

I want to be clear that I was in no way saying that those proceedings would be carried out in secret—

But they would not be held in public.

As far as an urgent Crown development or urgent works on Crown land were concerned, such an approach would enable the process to happen more quickly. However, people would still be notified of any works.

So objectors would be able to argue that a particular development was not urgent.

Yes, but I am not sure about the process for doing so.

Basically, it would be up to the developing department to make the case whether works were urgent and the statute would also require the department to demonstrate that the works were of national importance. A submission would be made to Scottish ministers, which would trigger the urgent development procedure. Scottish ministers would then deal with the matter in the same way as they would deal with a case that had been appealed to them or which they had called in for a decision. As the minister has explained, the urgent development procedure simply accelerates the process by which a matter arrives with the Scottish ministers. The process and level of scrutiny would be the same and ministers would have regard to objections, which would be made in the same way.

And the same would apply if a Crown body sought to demonstrate that a development was relevant to national security.

Yes.

The arrangement is slightly different. We have devised a system to ensure that it will not be possible to put certain national security issues into the public domain; however, we are putting in place an arrangement that would allow special advocates to act on behalf of objectors to ensure that their views were known and considered in the process. We are trying to facilitate objections in cases involving issues of national security in which information cannot be made freely available to the general public.

Under the current law, there is no requirement for planning permission to build a Parliament building or a large Government office block in Leith. Am I correct in saying that when the bill is passed such projects will need planning permission?

Sorry?

At present, someone who builds a large Government building does not need planning permission. However, they would require such permission under the terms of the bill.

Yes. At the moment, departments can notify their intention to develop a building. However, that does not give people the opportunity to object or to make representations on the application. We will put the matter on a statutory footing to allow people to have such an opportunity.

Theoretically, if this legislation had been in place, the City of Edinburgh Council could have refused planning permission for Victoria Quay or the Parliament building.

Yes.

Of course, the Government could then appeal the decision—and would consider its own appeal, which raises other interesting issues.

Like any other applicant, the department would have the right of appeal.

Following on from Scott Barrie's point, I am not clear about what is still Crown land—if that is still the right description. I wonder whether we could have a general—not specific—list of such land.

From past conversation, I believe that the Crown still owns the foreshore. I am not clear about the status of the Forestry Commission estate, the railway estate and all sorts of things that used to be Government property and have been privatised. Could we be given a list of the main categories of land that the proposal would cover?

We can provide such a list, although it will not cover every piece of land that would be affected. Basically, the proposal covers Crown lands and those that belong to the Government—land in which Government departments have an interest. We can provide members with that information in a clearer form.

I refer to the point that Scott Barrie made about privatisation, if that is the right word. I am not sure how much that has affected the situation. It would be helpful if we could be given a list.

We can provide that.

Thank you.

First, I want to comment on the use of Sewel motions. I remember that when the Scottish Parliament was established, Donald Dewar said that they were to be used sparingly, but it seems that they are being used increasingly frequently. The minister suggested in her opening remarks that much that is proposed in the memorandum could have been dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. Although the measures will clearly be beneficial to many people, perhaps if something can be done here, it should be done here.

I return to an issue on which Patrick Harvie touched. I refer the minister to paragraph 7 of the Executive memorandum, which concerns the special provision relating to national security. Will the minister clarify the process by which someone may raise an objection with the Lord Advocate? How would that happen? Would the person concerned have to petition the Lord Advocate to set up the panel for which the bill makes provision? If the Lord Advocate decided not to hold such an investigation, what recourse would the person have?

I will deal first with the issue of the Sewel motion. Unfortunately, Mr Dewar is sometimes misquoted on that matter. He said:

"The usual rule will be that legislation about devolved subjects in Scotland will be enacted by the Scottish Parliament. From time to time, however, it may be appropriate for a Westminster act to include provisions about such matters."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol 1, c 358.]

That provides us with some leeway when deciding whether the Sewel procedure is acceptable. We also benefit from being able to enact UK legislation. I am sure that none of us wants Scotland to be behind the rest of the UK on matters such as this. Campbell Martin accepted that for some time many people have been anxious for us to deal with the matter. I am pleased that we are now able to do that.

As Mr Cameron said, the Lord Advocate will have the ability to appoint an advocate who can be given information that cannot be made public for reasons of national security. That will enable the views of objectors to be expressed, made known and considered in the light of the information that has been provided to the advocate. I ask Louise Donnelly to fill in specific details of the proposals.

In the first instance, the relevant UK secretary of state or the Scottish ministers, after consultation of the secretary of state, must be satisfied that the giving of evidence would be likely to result in disclosure of information relating to national security or to the measures that have been, or will be, taken to ensure the security of any premises. Ministers will receive an application from the developing department stating that it considers that disclosure of information about the layout of a prison or a Ministry of Defence development somewhere in Scotland would be contrary to the national interest. Ministers must be satisfied that that is the case.

When they are considering giving a direction, the Lord Advocate will consider appointing a special advocate. That is to ensure that anyone who might have an interest in having that information can have their interest considered by someone who is independent of the process that ministers and those conducting the inquiry have gone through. That has now been put on a statutory footing in the provisions on national security. Provision is therefore being made for oral evidence to be heard in public and for documentary evidence to be open to public inspection. There is then the exception in respect of national security and/or the provisions that are being made in—

It is more a matter of the direction from which the provisions are coming. If an advocate was appointed, would he or she call for people to come forward? Could an individual ask the Lord Advocate to appoint an advocate to carry out—

As in any other circumstances, representations may be made to the advocate. In a case such as Campbell Martin describes, it would have been appropriate to appoint a special advocate.

What recourse would someone have if the Lord Advocate said no to that?

The normal provisions would apply, whereby the Lord Advocate and the ministers would be required, under the general law, to act reasonably. They could be challenged by way of recourse to the court in respect of any decision not to appoint a special advocate. There is provision in the bill for making rules as to the procedures that are to be followed. The detail of how the procedures would be set out would be for the Scottish Parliament to consider by way of subordinate legislation.

Although we have been putting forward the principle and have been outlining what would happen, a great deal of these matters will be decided through subordinate legislation. There will therefore be another opportunity for members of the Scottish Parliament to examine the details and to reassure themselves that they are happy with them.

I assume, from what has been said so far, that the proposed extension at the Dungavel immigration removal centre, for example, would be subject to planning procedures if the bill were passed, unless the case were made that it should not. When the legislation goes through, will everything have to comply from that time? If intent to make a development had been intimated, would there be an exemption? When exactly would the legislation take effect?

Will the proposed legislation in any way affect building control regulations? I am not sure how they work with Crown property, and I am not sure whether local authorities have input through building control. If authorities do not have that input, would the legislation have an effect?

On your first point, there will be transitional arrangements for developments that exist at the moment and which have not been subject to the measures that we are now proposing. It will be assumed that, in such cases, the appropriate planning permission will have been agreed in the past.

On your second point, building regulations bind Crown developments; that will continue.

I wish to clarify that further. If a building were already in place, and an extension was proposed—I used the example of Dungavel—would that extension be exempt during the transitional period?

The building will be acceptable because it already exists. If a proposal for an extension were made, that would fall under the new regulations.

We have been asked to decide whether we have any concerns to report to the Parliament. From the earlier discussion, it is clear that members have views on the use of Sewel motions. However, that is not what we are being asked about at the moment. During the forthcoming debate in the chamber, Stewart Stevenson will, as he indicated, not be bound by what the committee says on the matter. Aside from that, does the committee have any concerns to report to the Parliament about the substance of the measures that are proposed in the bill?

I still think that there is some ambiguity about whether objectors will in Crown planning cases have the same opportunities to object and have their objections heard as they do in private cases.

Would that be dealt with in subordinate legislation, which would allow us to examine matters at that stage?

I am not sure what the ambiguity is. The whole point is to put matters on the same footing as the existing planning system. Representations from objectors will therefore be open and public. Details of how that will happen will probably come through in subordinate legislation. I reassure the committee that the new measures will allow objectors—in the cases of applications that have previously been granted Crown immunity—to have their full say and to have their opinions acted on.

If an objection to a local authority application goes to ministers for a decision, the objectors are free to ask for a public inquiry and free to make their objections known in writing. Will objectors to Crown applications have the same opportunities?

The Crown is being brought into the statutory planning legislation regime, and the right to be heard is given in statute to the developer, the applicant and the planning authority. If a case goes to a planning inquiry, or if an appeal has gone to Scottish ministers, that right exists for the developer, the applicant and the planning authority. The Crown will not be in a different position.

As for opportunities to object, the statutory framework for making representations about developments will be in place for Crown developments as well—just as they are for developments by you or me or a company down the road. The statutory basis for Crown developments will be the same as for Wimpey developing a housing estate, or whatever. We are not changing the fundamentals of the planning system; we are just applying them in the same way to everyone.

I suggest that the committee draw Parliament's attention to the Crown's exemption from criminal sanctions, and that we observe that that exemption must not be used as a cloak to prevent criminal prosecutions of officials acting in the Crown's name.

I will deal with those suggestions in a moment, but are there any other comments?

We have discovered that SNH is likely to have more input than before on Ministry of Defence land. I would like clarification on who has the final say over such land. Historic Scotland and the Ancient Monuments Board for Scotland could also be involved. If the MOD is restricted in its operations, who has the final say over quangos? Quangos are likely to have more powers and there are concerns about the impact that that will have over the vast tracts of land that are currently used by the MOD.

We seem to have gone back to asking questions.

I would like that point to be raised.

With respect, we were considering whether we wanted to report anything to Parliament. I will ask the minister to clarify the point and then come back to Mary Scanlon to ask whether she wants to report something to Parliament. We will then deal in turn with other points that have been raised.

I can only repeat what I have said. We take the planning system for granted in other areas but we have not been able to apply it in the past to land that is covered by Crown immunity. The new measures will make the system more open and accessible for those who have an interest in, or an objection to, an application on such land. Bodies such as SNH will be allowed to take part in that process. I hope that the measures will allow a cross-section of views to be heard before a planning decision is taken in the normal way.

But the question is: who has the final say? I know from SNH's operation in the Highlands that it always has the final say. Will it have the final say over MOD and other land that comes within the terms of the proposed legislation?

As with the current planning system, ministers will have the final say. However, they are also answerable to the Scottish Parliament and so form part of that democratic process.

But the Executive is also SNH's controlling body.

In a number of areas for which Parliament is responsible, we have procedures to ensure that responsible applicants are not in charge of making certain decisions and that no conflicts of interests result. However, at the end of the day, ministers have responsibility because they are democratically elected members who are answerable to Parliament.

Patrick Harvie has suggested that we might wish to report our concern that ambiguity remains over objectors' rights. Do you want us to press that proposal, Patrick, or are you content with the minister's response?

I am not arguing that removing Crown immunity is a bad idea or that it is not a significant improvement. In fact, such a move is very welcome. However, because factors such as relevance to national security, urgency and immunity from criminal prosecution remain, Crown planning applications will still have an advantage over objections that private planning applications do not have.

I seek members' views on whether we report Patrick Harvie's suggestion to Parliament.

It is reasonable to give issues such as relevance to national security special consideration in law and in administrative procedures, as long as that is not abused. As a result, the proposals in the bill are not unreasonable.

On the question of exemption from criminal sanctions, which Stewart Stevenson also raised, I would have thought that any civil servant who acted improperly would be prosecuted under some other law. They might not have broken any planning laws, but their conduct might not have been what we expect of civil servants. For example, they might have taken a bribe or whatever. It seems acceptable to retain the Crown's exemption in that respect. We are not saying that the Queen is above the law, but I do not think that the people who act collectively in her name as the Government should be able to prosecute themselves. One prosecutes individuals who have gone seriously out of line, whether they are politicians or civil servants. As a result, I am happier with the proposals than with the objections.

I will deal with Patrick Harvie's objection first. Patrick, do you want to push your concerns about objectors' rights to a vote?

Yes. I am keen for the committee to report that.

Members will be clear about the proposal that we are voting on. The proposal is, that our report should mention concerns about ambiguity in the bill over objectors' rights. Are members agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)

Against

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)

Abstentions

Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 2. The proposal is disagreed to.

We have also discussed Stewart Stevenson's proposal that we express concern that an exemption from criminal sanctions might be used as a cloak—I think that that word was used—to protect officials who acted outwith the law. Donald Gorrie has made the case against including those concerns in our report, but I am content to give members a few more minutes to discuss the point. I will hear Stewart at the end of that discussion.

It would help if I could ask the deputy minister another question on that point.

It would not really help, because we are trying to progress the matter. Otherwise, we will be here for ever. I suppose you could ask a rhetorical question, Patrick. If the minister then felt obliged to interrupt me later, she could do so at her peril.

I wonder how a minister with responsibility for planning would respond to being asked about what the problems would be for a planning authority if such constraints on enforcement existed for private planning applications. How would such difficulties be overcome in respect of Crown planning applications?

Even with what is being proposed, we can still enact an enforcement notice, which would ensure that the direction was placed on the planning register. If an individual should then become the owner, they would have to take on board the enforcement notice.

I still have doubts relating to Government departments ignoring an enforcement notice. Ministers who are responsible for such departments would still have to come to Parliament—or to Westminster in the case of the MOD—to justify their actions. There are, therefore, still democratic ways in which we can pursue our concerns.

I want to respond to Donald Gorrie, who said that it makes no sense for the Government to prosecute the Government. That misses the absolutely fundamental point about how our legal system works. The Executive—the Government—is entirely separate from, and cannot exercise direct control over, the judiciary or the prosecution services. That important principle protects people in our country.

Crown exemption is a rather odd issue. As the minister pointed out, in a formal sense it would seem bizarre for the Crown to prosecute the Crown, but that is a convention. I am not necessarily taking a particular position, but am simply seeking to draw Parliament's attention to the matter. In Parliament's debate on the Sewel motion, members should consider the matter, because it is unclear to me what a Crown exemption is, if it does something other than protect individuals who would be subject to criminal law. Who and what is exempt from criminal sanctions if, as has been suggested, individuals who have acted illegally or improperly can already be prosecuted? We should draw Parliament's attention to that ambiguity and encourage Parliament to consider it when it debates the Sewel motion—that is all we can do.

Whatever the outcome of that debate, I hope that, when Westminster proceeds with its considerations—as I imagine it will—what is said in that debate will be an important part of its consideration of how it wishes to respond to the Scottish Parliament's concerns. On that basis, I wish to press my suggestion in respect of a report to the Parliament.

I also hope that Westminster's consideration of the issue would reflect the substance of what the committee has said. Our discussions will be recorded in the Official Report. The fact that such issues are being raised in the committee means that they are already part of the discussion. The question is whether we want formally to report the matter to Parliament as a particular matter that we want to highlight. I thank Stewart Stevenson for his comments.

The question is, that Stewart Stevenson's proposal that we report the committee's concern that we do not want Crown exemption from criminal sanctions to be used as a cloak to protect officials, be agreed to. Is that agreed?

No.

There will be a division.

For

Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP)
Stevenson, Stewart (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)

Against

Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab)
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Gorrie, Donald (Central Scotland) (LD)
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)

Abstentions

Scanlon, Mary (Highlands and Islands) (Con)

The result of the division is: For 3, Against 5, Abstentions 1. The proposal is disagreed to.

On the point that Mary Scanlon made, I ask her whether she wants to formulate something to report or whether she is content that the matter has been taken care of.

If the MOD has any issues to raise, there are elected members down the road in Westminster who can raise them in the appropriate place and at the appropriate time.

Do members therefore agree that there is no need for the committee to report to Parliament on the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the minister for attending the meeting. The meeting will be suspended for two minutes.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—