| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Minister is referring to someone else, not me.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my apologies. At this time of night, I shall not try to detect to whom I should be referring, but I shall do some homework with Hansard later.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed raised the right to equal quality of education. The national curriculum will apply, Ofsted standards will apply, and we believe that we will fully meet our obligations and duties in that regard. Good quality accommodation will be provided. My noble friend also raised the question of amending the British Nationality Act 1981. Parliament endorsed that Act, which introduced changes to the right of abode, confining it to those with the closest connection to the UK. We have no plans to change that.
My noble friend also asked what provision was made for uneducated relatives to become British citizens. There is provision in the Bill to waive the requirements for a knowledge of the language for those for whom it would make the acquisition of citizenship impossible. The discretion to waive the requirement is likely to be used in cases such as that of someone whose mental or physical disability or age might make it difficult. I hope that that will be seen to be fair and proper.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans sought to emphasise the importance of meeting the spiritual and emotional needs of people in accommodation centres. I am happy to agree with him. There will be facilities for religious observance, and it is intended that there will be a manager of religious affairs in each centre, as there is in existing removal centres. Officials are consulting a religious affairs advisory group on how best to take such issues forward.
We note the point about Yarl's Wood. The Prison Service's head of security is conducting an overarching inquiry, and the Government will take into account any lessons to be learnt from that. The child welfare provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres, as they do to children elsewhere.
In a robust speech in which he addressed some of the realities, my noble friend Lord Borrie raised the question of statutory review and the curtailment of judicial review. The aim of statutory review is to reduce the delay in the system while providing the opportunity for High Court judicial scrutiny. I shall not go into more detail now but shall do so subsequently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, asked why the Government had not allowed more time for consideration of the Bill in another place. I gave one answer to that to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We believed that it was right to change the Bill and that the issues could not be left for a year or two. We also recognise that the House of Commons was unable to consider the whole Bill, but it did consider much of the Bill. Programming is a legitimate part of Bill management in the Commons to ensure that the Government can keep their legislative programme on track. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord will not be overwhelmed by that response, and I look forward to the challenge—and cost—of the additional scrutiny that will be carried out by this House. That is life.
Why does not the Bill say that legal advice will be provided in accommodation centres? Essentially, we do not need that power. We already have it, so there is no need to put it in the Bill. I have already spoken about co-located appeals machinery.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the importance of doing more work with other countries. I accept that point. I share his view—if he implied it—that the border controls should be more concerned with raising standards than with designing uniforms and that the EU needs a proper policy on resettlement. We touched on some of those matters. I thank him again for the tone of his contribution tonight, which matched the tone of the thoughtful debate that we had last week. The noble Earl also said that there was pressure to speed up the system. That has been insufficiently said. It is in everyone's interest that we get the system working better, quicker.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether the sum of £2,000 per immigrant was fair and appropriate. I should like to give the noble Earl a fuller reply, but, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not. I shall come back to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, criticised us robustly. He said that 333 representations were not even considered. That is not so. They were considered in the department and I spent a fair proportion of my weekend reading a number of them. They have been considered by officials and they will be considered further by Ministers. They have not gone to waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, spoke about the contribution that Ugandan Asians had made to this society, which I believe most of us recognise. One can also recognise that it was not an easy decision to make at the time. There were dissenting voices asking why we should take in more people from outside. It was not easy to accept that we should do so. We did and it was right to do so.
This debate in part is about sustaining the support of the British people for taking decisions like that and not being swept away by a tide of public opinion which believes that governments have lost control of the asylum process.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a point about an EU-wide approach. That is absolutely right. He also mentioned the pressures imposed on a liberal society like ours. We have heard much in this debate from the liberal end of the pitch and that is right and proper. I refer to the liberals with a small "l" because that is where the challenge should come from. But we need to balance that with the need to get a grip on the situation and give confidence that the issue is being dealt with fairly and that quick decisions are taking place.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the reform of the Dublin Convention, the need for an EU asylum system and a policy on legal migration. I shall not go into it in more detail. I also agree that the activities of the UNHCR are additional rather than an alternative. I shall study with interest the thoughtful points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about citizenship. I welcome his support as well as the criticisms which he raised.
I apologise to the House for speaking at some length. It was a full debate and I have not done justice to half of the speakers, which I regret. I shall seek to follow through relatively rapidly with further contacts, both oral and in writing, where appropriate. I look forward with some vigour, anticipation and trepidation to six days of Committee coming rapidly forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002
10.37 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 13th May, be annulled (S.I. 2002/1223).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I declare a couple of interests. I am currently president of the Town and Country Planning Association and I am a member of the London Assembly, which gives me a very remote interest as the Mayor has certain planning powers and the Assembly has the duty of scrutinising the Mayor's decision.
It was startling to see the title of these rules in view of the recent Green Paper and its associated proposals. I appreciate that the rules before us are not an attempt to introduce fundamental new proposals by the back door. But they are clearly linked. Being unclear as to how the rules and the proposals were connected and what was their relationship, I thought it right to bring the matter before your Lordships' House.
The proposals we heard about towards the end of last year on major infrastructure projects and those connected with the Green Paper were, and are, to give Parliament a role. I hope that the Minister can take this opportunity to update noble Lords—such as those who remain in the Chamber and no doubt many others from the profession and interest groups who will be interested—on what is happening to the proposals. I understand that there is some gossip in the planning world that the Government may not go ahead with them. I believe that that would have a very great deal of support among the many people whose response to the proposals was either concern or cynicism, compounded unhappily at one point by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, confirming that whipping would apply during consideration of the proposals in another place. I remain of the view that until Parliament improves the holding of the executive to account, such an arrangement would not work. I accept that other critiques have been more technical.
The Library of the House of Commons produced a note on the statutory instrument which states that it is clearly aimed at preventing a situation in which an inquiry rambles on with inconsequential cross-examination and endless hearings causing great delay. Over the past few months, and longer, we have heard much criticism in particular of the inquiry into the Heathrow Terminal Five. I do not believe that that inquiry rambled, although it took a very long time. Nor do I believe that one can argue from the particular—that was very particular—to the general. Indeed, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said recently that since 1984 there were fewer than a dozen national scale projects for which a public inquiry lasted more than three months.
How many projects or applications are likely to be subject to these rules? The schedule to the order sets out the projects which would be governed by it. It is similar to the schedule attached to the proposals paper published in, I think, December. Will the schedule to the statutory instrument pre-empt the primary legislation? I wonder why there are some omissions compared with that paper, notably power stations, nuclear reactors, large-scale renewable energy plants and what was described as major development by the Crown judged to be of national significance. I suppose for "the Crown" one reads the Secretary of State and perhaps that absence is welcome.
Why are some new projects included? Some, such as flood relief work extending over more than one hectare, seem out of proportion with the other projects listed. Some, such as major road schemes, are absent. On re-reading the list, I wonder, too, at the inclusion
of others such as the industrial scale production of pharmaceuticals and plant health products. Can the Minister give the criteria used to compile the list?Reading the document, I understand that many of the projects are likely to be controversial. However, the controversy may centre more on safety and underlying policy and environmental impact. I think that many of the schemes are more suitable as a subject of environmental impact assessment than this designation.
Perhaps the Minister will say more about how the Government propose to set the policy content. If the inquiry procedures are reformed and national policy statements introduced, is there a need for the parliamentary process? It might be argued that a parliamentary process would slow down the project.
I am sure the Minister will agree that public involvement in planning is vital. I am well aware that we have not yet succeeded in concentrating that at the plan-making stage.
I hope that the Minister will agree that in seeking to balance the rights of applicants and objectors we should not over-react to the delay which may be caused by objectors. I note that the planning reforms were first trailed last summer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech to the business community. Can the Minister comment on what appear to be restrictions on objections? There is an apparent restriction on the right of objectors to appear. There is the right for the inspector to curtail cross-examination if that affects a timetable which has to be approved by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that inspectors already have sufficient discretion not to need such a sledgehammer.
The rules also provide for mediation. Does that mean that some views will not be represented? I do not argue against mediation but it does not amount to the advocacy role which small groups need at inquiries with regard to planning aid. Better support for objectors at inquiries might lead to the resolution of objections. After all, we still have an adversarial process, however much many of us wish to see a more inquisitorial system.
Of course, mediation will not resolve objections to the principles of an application. I note under the rules that government representatives will not be required to answer questions on the merits of policy. I am not sure how that is to operate in the absence of major changes being proposed. One might ask why anyone should contribute to an inquiry if the decision has already been taken.
I come back to the underlying concern; namely, that the rights of objectors and the very important contributions made by them should not be stifled.
Finally, I turn to the underlying question: why now? Is there a major project in the pipeline? I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to refute any suggestion that the rules are being changed at this point in order to prepare the ground for a particular inquiry. My own background based in west London leads me to seek confirmation with regard to a matter that was previously topical with the then department
combined with the office of the Deputy Prime Minister; in other words, runway capacity. We expect to have a Statement on that quite soon. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that is not in the Government's sights when setting these rules.When this House debated the Green Paper, many comments were made to the effect that the process of planning could be much improved without fundamental change. If the Government introduce these rules to smooth the course of inquiries, will it then be necessary to introduce the greater and more controversial changes? If they are going ahead with those larger changes with regard to major infrastructure projects, surely it would be proper to introduce all the changes at the same time so that the implications and the implementation could be addressed as a package. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 13th May, be annulled (S.I. 20002.1223).—(Baroness Hamwee.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page