Planning Bill

moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert ““but do propose Amendments Nos. 160B and 160C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 160””: 160B: Page 130, line 1, at beginning insert ““subject to subsection (2A),”” 160C: Page 130, line 2, at end insert— ““(2A) With the exception of regulations under sections 200, (Liability: interpretation of key terms) and 201, regulations shall not be made unless, before approval by the House of Commons, a period of 60 days has elapsed, beginning with the day on which the regulations were laid. (2B) During the period of 60 days— (a) either House of Parliament may— (i) debate, or pass a resolution relating to, the regulations, or (ii) refer the regulations to any committee for a report; and (b) the Secretary of State must respond to any such debate or resolution or to any such report of a committee before the House of Commons gives its approval to the regulations under this section.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to the government Motion to accept the rejection of Lords Amendment No. 160 by the other place is intended once again to ask whether it is right that only the other place should have a formal role on the 20 or so sets of regulations to be tabled under Part 11 of the Bill. I remind noble Lords how we have got here. The Bill as it reached this House provided that all the regulations to be made under Part 11, on the community infrastructure levy, were to be approved only by the other place. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee criticised this, and saw no reason why the Lords should not have the same powers as the Commons. The Government’s line all along has been that CIL is a financial matter and therefore, as a matter of financial privilege, must be reserved to the other place. An amendment tabled on Report to substitute both Houses for the House of Commons in the Bill was rejected by only six votes, so at Third Reading I moved a different amendment to give both Houses the right to debate the draft orders on CIL and to require the Government to respond but not—I repeat not—to reverse the previous decision of this House. All it asked was that this House should have a say on the draft regulations before they are approved by the Commons. Noble Lords who were here will remember that that amendment was carried by three votes. The Bill was therefore returned to the other place with this amendment as one of the many to be considered. The Bill has now come back to us and we have the Motion to reject it entirely, which is where we are today. The other place, no doubt led by Ministers, had a number of options as to how to treat the amendment which we accepted. They might have accepted the clear recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee and given both Houses the right to approve the regulations. However, I entirely accept that, as that option was rejected by this House on 12 November, it might have been very difficult for Ministers to accept that proposal. As an alternative, it might have recognised the distinction drawn by the Delegated Powers Committee between regulations which are clearly financial and those which, in its words, ““are not obviously financial””. On this basis, it might have tabled an alternative amendment to provide that the Commons would have the sole right to approve the financial regulations, but that both Houses would have the power to approve the others. Despite the discussions which I had with the noble Baroness and her colleague John Healey, for which I was most grateful—it was, I hope, a useful meeting—this, too, has now been rejected. Another option might have been to recognise that our amendment did not seek the power to approve the regulations and would do no more than allow us to have a say. If there were drafting flaws, as there might well have been, they could have been amended to deal with that while still retaining a right for this House to have our say. However, we have before us what I would regard as the worst option of all: simply to remove this House altogether from any role in relation to the 20 or so sets of CIL regulations to be tabled next year. CIL is a new charge. Part 11, which introduces it, is no more than skeleton legislation. As was repeatedly pointed out during the debates, almost all the details will be in the regulations and, apparently, we are to have no say on any of them. The upshot is that we have been asked to approve the skeleton but not the substance. I do not think that that is good enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, who I am very glad to see in his place, said at an earlier stage, ““It is deeply offensive”” and I agree with him. That is why I have tabled my amendment. As those who are familiar with the procedures will recognise, the amendment is based on the super-affirmative procedure set out in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. It requires that the Government consult this House, among others, on the proposed regulations while they are in draft, while retaining for the other place the right to give the final approval. I find it very difficult to see how this could infringe the financial privilege of another place, unless it seeks to rely on what seems to be a very extreme interpretation of the relevant paragraphs of Erskine May. However, my anxiety about this goes further than the CIL regulations. I am not alone in becoming increasingly aware of a tendency on the part of another place to regard a reference to Parliament as applying only to the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said: "““I am beginning to think that the other place has got into the habit of conflating the word ‘Commons’ and the word ‘Parliament’, when they are two different things””.—[Official Report, 14/10/08; col. 660.]" I expect that there are some Ministers in another place who may not be too unhappy about that: the more business that can credibly be reserved to the other place, which they effectively control, and the less that is allowed to come here, where they do not have control, might suit them very well. But this tendency holds profoundly dangerous implications for our constitution. We are a bicameral legislature in which each House has its proper role, and its rights and privileges. If we allow Ministers or the other place to whittle away at these, we will find ourselves inadvertently making significant changes to our constitution, with consequences that I suspect most of us would deeply deplore. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert ““but do propose Amendments Nos. 160B and 160C in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 160””.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)