Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 444: 444: Clause 207, page 130, line 2, leave out ““the House of Commons”” and insert ““both Houses of Parliament”” The noble Lord said: The amendment’s wording refers to the parliamentary approval of the regulations made under this part of the Bill. This was referred to very briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on Second Reading. I have been asked to say that he totally supports the amendment and offers his apologies to the Chamber for being unable to be here today. He chaired the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House and it is right that I draw attention to what it said on this issue. Paragraph 26 of the report says: "““Regulations under clause 198 are subject to affirmative procedure in the House of Commons only. The memorandum””—" that is, the government memorandum— "““seeks to justify this on the basis that the regulations may result in the imposition of a charge, a matter for the financial privilege of the House of Commons””." It is a matter for the other House to decide that; but one has to point out, as this report does, that, "““receipts are not paid into the Consolidated Fund or any other particular fund but are to be spent by the receiving body (clause 202(1)); and that the regulations, so far as dealing with the matters referred to in clauses 202, 205 and 208, are not obviously financial””." Perhaps most significant, as the committee pointed out, is the statement that, "““the following charges are subject to a procedure in both Houses: national insurance, council tax, business rates, the Business Improvement Districts levy, the climate change levy and indeed the two charges””," which were mentioned in the Government’s memorandum. It goes on to recommend, "““Except in so far as the House considers that provision in Part 11 … is related to matters over which the Commons will claim financial privilege, we recommend that the power at clause 198 … should be subject to control in both Houses””." This is a matter of considerable constitutional significance. I have consulted the House authorities about the exact position. The first sentence in paragraph 7.173 of the Companion to the Standing Orders, which the authorities referred me to, says: "““Each House of Parliament is guardian of its own privileges. It alone may invoke them. Until it does so, the other House is free to act as it thinks fit””." So it is entirely appropriate for us to table the amendment that I have tabled. It will be open to another place to claim the financial privilege, but only after the Bill is returned with the Lords amendment. There is an exception to that rule—a category of matter which, "““prima facie are material and intolerable infringements of privilege””—" such as imposing a charge on public revenues, and so on. The Companion goes on to say: "““With these exceptions, the Commons may either invoke their financial privileges in respect of Lords amendments or waive them; and the Commons regularly accept Lords amendments which have financial implications. The Speaker of the Commons directs that a ‘special entry’ be made in their Journals implicitly asserting their general rights but stating that the Commons accept the Lords amendment, ‘the Commons being willing to waive their privileges’””." Given the very clear and comprehensively argued case made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it is not only entirely proper for us to table the amendment that I have, but incumbent on us to do so as we think fit as an expression of our entitlement to do so. I add only one other point in favour of the amendment. When I was Secretary of State for the Environment, I had a very senior civil servant working for me with whom I kept closely in touch. He rose through the ranks and became a Permanent Secretary in another department. I speak of Sir Geoffrey Chipperfield, who has given me permission to use his name. At the end of a letter, in which he voiced a number of other criticisms, he said: "““But what worries me most is that all the secondary legislation needed to implement all this will merely be subject to affirmative resolution in the Commons. We all know that it is virtually ""impossible to find the time or the will for MPs to debate affirmative resolutions thoroughly. It is a great pity if the CIL is regarded as a financial measure which the Lords can’t look at, because it does seem to me that any regulations made to implement it need the sort of detailed scrutiny that only the Lords can give””." That is a very powerful opinion from somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the system of parliamentary government in both Houses and we should treat it seriously. It is absurd that the Bill should allow the regulations to be debated only in the House of Commons, requiring only the approval of another place. It is not a tax—I criticised my noble friend earlier about that—but a charge. It is a charge which goes to local authorities; it does not go into the Consolidated Fund; and it is exactly like all the other charges that were listed in the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. I beg to move.