| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that his version was shorter and simpler, which may be the case—but I have to say not, to me, sweeter. I agree with noble Lords about the importance of the national policy statement. I depart
6 Nov 2008 : Column 422
My concern about taking out most of that, which is in the second of the noble Lord’s amendments, and putting the national policy statements almost immediately to a parliamentary vote would polarise and politicise something which needs a much more careful approach. We all know that the Government would whip their people, as would the Opposition, and the Opposition would not be likely to be able to dig in and sort out the detail and the various points of principle in a way that I hope parliamentary committees are able to do; I hope too that that is not hope against experience. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to the need for Parliament to question and challenge the Executive. I agree with him absolutely, and the approach proposed by the Government in fact provides more opportunities for such question and challenge. The affirmative resolution procedure is precisely the way to ensure that the Executive get their way, possibly quite rapidly, unless there is a narrow majority or a lot of rebels. The Government’s model gives an opportunity—I use the word carefully because I hope that it will be taken up—for reflecting Parliament’s views and for adjustments to be made, and is therefore a very important opportunity.
This is something to which my noble friends and I have given a lot of thought because we understand that a number of Members of the House of Commons might well prefer to see a rather more straightforward line. I appreciate the passions that this issue arouses and I am well aware, through my experience in a different sphere of government over the past eight years, that scrutiny may not always be as good as its advocates wish. We have to make it as good as its advocates wish. I say sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but we are with the Government on this.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, as this is the first time I have spoken as opposed to intervening at this stage, I declare a business interest in a partnership that works with major developers on large schemes. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will not be surprised that I oppose the amendment, and I hasten to say to him that I am not cross or angry or any other pejorative term in relation to moral authority; I simply feel that it is not the appropriate phrase to use and I am glad that he agrees.
The Government are the Executive, and Parliament is the legislator and scrutiniser of the Executive. The example was given of something becoming law, but the law is different from policy; statutory instruments are secondary legislation, not policy. Parliament has a
6 Nov 2008 : Column 423
In the end, however, the electorate expect the Government to pursue policies, and it is Governments who are held to account by the electorate. Examples were given at the previous stage and I will not go into too much detail now because of time, but the idea that both Houses are well suited to develop, approve and pass policies is, I think, a very dangerous one indeed. I have given before the example of the completely different situation we saw in the United States when the financial package was up before both Houses on Capitol Hill—the Congress and the Senate—and the pork-barrel wheeling and dealing that went on in order to get legislation through. Many of the people involved were not concerned about issues of substance but only about what they could get for their constituencies.
6.45 pm
This is what would happen if policies were passed by the Commons and, heaven forbid, we intruded into them in the Lords. Lobby and interest groups will approach people they believe they can exert pressure on and, instead of carefully balanced judgment and careful reflection of consultation, there will be the arm-twisting of MPs, depending on their majorities, and MPs will demand their pound of flesh for their support. It would be worse if a general election resulted in a finely balanced House of Commons. The power that would go to small groups which gave support to the Government would have no connection with the merits of the policy statement, but they would use it as leverage to get the support of the Government of the day. I hope very much that we are not tempted to go down those lines.
The proposal that this House should have the power to vote down policies would politicise it in a deeply regrettable way. This House, thank goodness, does not now have a built-in majority for any party, and I hope that that always remains the case. If we went down those lines it would call into question the willingness of Governments of the day to accede to that kind of balance in this Chamber because they would not like to see their measures voted down by an unelected House. It would be very dangerous indeed. I hope that, on careful reflection, the opposition spokesman will not push the amendment to a vote.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have had a powerful and enjoyable debate. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part.
6 Nov 2008 : Column 424
In Committee, I undertook to think further about the points raised by noble Lords because I was deeply impressed by the quality of the argument, and I have tabled Amendment No. 36 in response. I do not want to reiterate the thinking behind it except to say that we have put in place a genuinely novel form of parliamentary scrutiny. It is the product of hard work and integrity between the Minister and the chairs of the Select Committees in the other place. We now have a stronger role for Parliament in scrutinising draft national policy statements.
Most recently, this has been set out in a report of the Liaison Committee. The process shows the House of Commons at its best and doing its job of scrutinising policy. Because of the time, I shall not read through how it will happen but, when the committee has finished its work, parliamentary scrutiny will continue for four to six weeks beyond the close of public consultation to enable the committee to take any additional account that might be necessary of the significant issues raised during that consultation. Ministers have undertaken to ensure that briefing and information on those issues is made available to the committees to enable them to do this. Then Ministers will consider what change is needed to the draft NPSs in the light of the views of the committees and in respect of any resolution of either House and public consultation. A statement will then be laid before Parliament setting out the Government’s response. The draft proposals will be revised, as appropriate, before the laying of the final version of the NPS.
This is a novel and robust scrutiny process for the NPSs. It will ensure that a committee is able to scrutinise proposed policy in detail, to call witnesses as necessary and to take account of consultation responses. It will ensure that where, on the basis of this consideration, the committee thinks that there are issues which Parliament as a whole needs to consider, it can recommend that there should be a debate in both Houses on the draft NPS. It will ensure that Ministers have to explain to Parliament how they have addressed any recommendations of the committee and resolutions of either House. Parliament will have spoken, and Ministers will have listened. I believe that in doing so, they will indeed have demonstrated what has been discussed across this House as the nature of parliamentary authority. They will also have demonstrated the power of scrutiny.
I have gone into that background because I want to make the contrast between parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary approval, which is what the debate has turned on. Parliamentary approval of policy is an altogether different proposition, and noble Lords on all sides have demonstrated that brilliantly in the past half hour. I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. They require parliamentary approval of national policy statements and I believe that that is seriously inappropriate.
National policy statements are documents that set out government policy. They are not secondary legislation; they are not primary legislation; they do not seek to change the law. They are similar in nature to White Papers and planning policy statements. Just as the Government do not seek parliamentary approval before they set out their policy—
6 Nov 2008 : Column 425
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Baroness remember saying in an earlier debate on this subject that planning policy statements are the law? I can give her the quotation if she wants it, but that is what she said, and national policy statements will also be the law.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, they will indeed, my Lords. They will have legal effect, but they are not legislation in the way that I am using the term.
There are several fundamental reasons why I believe that parliamentary approval for national policy statements is inappropriate. This is a perverse proposition as it would undermine one of our key aims for the Bill, which is to ensure and make clear ministerial accountability for policy. While we have created a new dimension for parliamentary scrutiny, to give Parliament the final responsibility for determining the policy is to move in the other direction completely. Secondly, to take a wider view—a view that my noble friends have powerfully argued—it would also represent a significant and destabilising shift in the historic and fundamental relationship between the Executive and the legislature. It alters the balance; it undermines the clear and understood separation of roles that have been established over many years. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not only for her speech but for her support.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to Parliament as the place where law is made. Indeed, as I said, the problem is that national policy statements are not primary or secondary legislation. Other noble Lords have pointed to a paradox: we have created a very thorough process for parliamentary scrutiny of extremely complex and technical issues. The right place for that is the Select Committees, as the noble Baroness said. Where the committees recommend that both Houses will have had a debate, the outcome will also have to be taken into account by government.
What is it that a binding vote will do other than introduce a real uncertainty that, despite scrutiny and public consultation, the policy might still be overturned on a vote of both Houses? My noble friend Lord Woolmer was extremely eloquent on this point. Uncertainty is the enemy of everything we are trying to achieve, with the support of so many noble Lords.
Noble Lords argued in Committee that there may be a precedent for parliamentary approval in similar circumstances, such as guidance from the Lord Chancellor to the Judicial Appointments Commission under the Constitutional Reform Act. We have no parallels with the NPSs; these are wholly new policy statements.
If we took the step proposed by the amendments, it would be extremely unclear where we would end up. Indeed, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made that perfectly clear. We do not want to begin walking a path that leads to calls for votes on the next White Paper on health or education. I say that in all seriousness to noble Lords opposite, given their ambitions for government.
The noble Lord opposite also demolished his own argument. Noble Lords do not need reminding that if both Houses were to have a binding vote on whether to accept an NPS, practical difficulties would occur if
6 Nov 2008 : Column 426
This question was considered and debated at length on Report in the other place. An amendment to make NPSs subject to parliamentary approval was defeated by a clear majority of 54 votes. While the role of Select Committees and enhanced scrutiny was warmly welcomed, amendments for a binding parliamentary vote were soundly defeated. The elected House has already rejected the idea of a binding vote. It is surely wrong for this House to overturn that. This House has many responsibilities, but they do not include telling the other House how to conduct its business.
The noble Lord’s Amendment No. 35 would remove subsections (4) to (7) of Clause 9. The procedures for parliamentary scrutiny so carefully worked out in another place would thereby come to nothing. I repeat that it is simply not appropriate for this House to dictate to the other House how to conduct its business.
For all these reasons, it would not be right to accept Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. They would bring chaos and uncertainty to the system, and undermine some of the fundamental principles of the workings of government.
We have a better way, which we propose in our amendment and which more properly enables this House to make its unique and greatest contribution. Noble Lords have spoken about the importance of a committee of this House being able to examine the draft NPSs in detail, particularly in light of the expertise that exists here. That case has been persuasively and eloquently put, and I believe in it passionately.
I have therefore tabled government Amendment No. 36, which would amend Clause 9(4)(b) so that the Secretary of State would be required to lay before Parliament a statement setting out her response to a committee of either House. That would give this House a strong and clear role in the parliamentary scrutiny process. It would give a committee of this House a role similar to that of committees in the other place. Without prejudice to any decisions that Parliament or the authorities of this House might make about the exact arrangements, it would mean, in essence, that an NPS could be examined by committees in each House.
I believe that this meets what many noble Lords were after. It improves and strengthens parliamentary scrutiny of draft NPSs. It recognises the unique contribution and strengths of this House. It will mean that our expertise will be applied in a way that fits with the traditional role of this House—we are, after all, a scrutinising Chamber. It will mean also that it will be applied in a way that fits the nature of what will be complex, technical documents, ensuring that we make a contribution to those documents and policies in the most effective way. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me.
6 Nov 2008 : Column 427
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting, helpful and clarifying debate, because we have made real progress since Committee. If one or two fast balls from the government Benches have hit me in the ribs, it is fair enough—it is partly the nature of what we do.
It would be superfluous at this hour to prolong the discussion or be rude enough to press the issue to a vote. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for making the case so strongly. If he had not done so, we would not have had from the Minister the clear explanation of what is intended and how she hopes the process will ultimately work.
The proof of the pudding will as always be in the eating. I have to hope that the Minister’s expectations are proved correct and that our pessimism is proved incorrect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 36:
36: Clause 9, page 5, line 29, leave out “the House of Commons” and insert “either House of Parliament”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Sustainable development]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 37:
37: Clause 10, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) the Secretary of State must (in particular) have regard to the desirability of—
(a) mitigating, and adapting to, climate change;
(b) achieving good design.”
6 Nov 2008 : Column 428
[Amendment No. 37A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 37, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 37 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Suspension pending review]:
Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
38: Clause 11, page 6, line 2, after “that” insert “the condition in subsection (1A) or (1B) is met.
39: Clause 11, page 6, line 9, at end insert—
(a) since the time when part of a national policy statement (“the relevant part”) was first published or (if later) last reviewed, there has been a significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any of the policy set out in the relevant part was decided,
(b) the change was not anticipated at that time, and
(c) if the change had been anticipated at that time, any of the policy set out in the relevant part would have been materially different.”
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 41:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Patel of Bradford: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 7 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |