Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 34: 34: Clause 9, page 5, line 21, at end insert ““for the approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to a small but none the less significant group of amendments. I have Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 in this group, and the Government have Amendment No. 36, which the Minister will no doubt explain in due course. We are talking about a preferable form of procedure for dealing with the approval of national policy statements. Our Amendment No. 34 adds to Clause 9(2), "““for the approval … of both Houses””," so that the Bill would read: "““This section sets out the parliamentary requirements referred to in sections 5(4) and 6(4) … The Secretary of State must lay the proposal before Parliament for the approval … of both Houses””." That is quite clear and easy to understand. Amendment No. 35, if accepted, would deal with the consequential change and would remove subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 9. That is fairly simple. I acknowledge that the Government’s amendment would remove the rather unfortunate use in subsection (4)(b) of the words ““House of Commons”” and would insert in their place ““either House of Parliament””, but it would leave the approval process in a rather less clearly defined manner for Parliament. Our amendment requires both Houses of Parliament to give approval. The Bill as amended by the Government would read: "““Subsection (5) applies if, during a relevant period””—" which is defined in subsection (6) and we need not bother about that— "““(a) either House of Parliament makes a resolution with regard to the proposal, or""““(b) a committee of either House of Parliament makes recommendations with regard to the proposal””." This is a matter of degree. I think our wording is simpler, clearer and easier to understand. I know that the noble Baroness will argue that that is not the case. For the life of me, I do not really see, if either House of Parliament can make a resolution with regard to the proposal or a committee of either House makes recommendations with regard to the proposal, why that is approval. I accept that subsection (5) states: "““The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the resolution or recommendations””." The difficulty is whether that is approval. What happens if the Secretary of State disagrees with the resolution that is passed? We are not left with a clear understanding. We are back on the issue which we have debated on so many occasions, the integrity of the decision-making process. That is vital to the success and, more importantly, credibility of the Bill. I submit that our amendment, which is shorter and simpler, would leave the Bill in a much easier position for ordinary members of the public to understand. What is more, if ordinary members of the public understand that both Houses of Parliament have approved the national policy statement, they will find it easier to accept that policy statement, as Parliament has given its seal of approval in a positive fashion, and they will be much less likely to wish to challenge it.