(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:57 - Division on Lord True’s amendment - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 261 - Lord True’s amendment disagreed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 22 October and Wednesday 29 October to enable Report stage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to begin before oral questions on those days.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I would not normally remain on my feet after doing so, but I understand that the party opposite—the Opposition—has tabled an amendment opposing the Motion, so I thought it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House to be clear about what the Motion does, what it does not do, and why it has been tabled.
The Motion concerns the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. By agreement between the parties, the Bill starts Report on 20 October—next Monday—and the House will debate and decide amendments over four days. On two of those days, the Government ask that the House considers the Bill for two to three hours before Oral Questions, starting at 11 am. Notice of this was given on 17 September.
The planning Bill is central to the Government’s plan to get Britain building again and to deliver the economic growth that we need to drive up prosperity and improve living standards across the UK—aims overwhelmingly backed by the electorate just last year. It is crucial that the Bill is swiftly put on the statute book, to help us deliver the 1.5 million homes and fast-track the 150 planning decisions on major infra- structure projects that we pledged in the plan for change.
As we know, planning and infrastructure is a topic that attracts interest from all sides of the House. Many of us have spent many hours in this Chamber debating planning reform; Committee on the Bill was no exception. I am grateful to the Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats, who worked with us to ensure that Committee was completed in the agreed time, including some very late sittings. We appreciated that.
I know that there can sometimes be what I would call “noises off” about scheduling and what is happening in your Lordships’ House. I recall the fury in the offices of the then Opposition—I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Kennedy in this—after we had agreed the Government’s proposals on the timing of the Rwanda Bill and the then Prime Minister proclaimed that Labour was the cause of the parliamentary delay, which was not true, so we understand that. I say clearly that an agreement was reached at Committee stage and all sides adhered to that agreement. We are grateful and appreciate that.
I turn back to Report. So far, 134 Back-Bench and opposition amendments have been tabled on the Bill for Report. I understand from my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage that there are at least 10 issues that the Official Opposition intend to press further on Report. The reason for tabling this Motion is simply to ensure that the Bill completes Report within the four days and that, on those four days, our deliberations and decisions can conclude at a reasonable time.
These two mornings will provide up to an extra six hours of debate. It is a practical step on a single Bill, reflecting the interest in the topic, to ensure that we are able to effectively discuss and debate the amendments without sitting unduly late. We understand the difficulties that it causes for Members when the House sits very late; we felt that this approach was in the best interests of Members across the House.
The Motion does not permanently change the sitting times of the House, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders. I know a number of Members support such a change, but that can happen only through the settled will of this House. This Motion is specifically for two Wednesdays—22 October and 29 October. The Motion does not give these Benches any advantage. I do not want to incur the wrath of my Chief Whip or cast any doubt on his whipping process, but I have to say, looking at the numbers in your Lordships’ House, that the Government might more easily be defeated at midday than at midnight.
As I said in my opening, the Motion does not subvert the conventions of the House. As the Leader of the House, I have no desire to systematically abandon our conventions, as the opposition amendment says. I give the House that assurance. What the Motion says is that the House may consider the Bill before Oral Questions on two days in the next month. On the other 12 sitting days in October, the House will sit at our normal times. On all sitting days, Oral Questions will be at the normal time.
I reiterate: this Motion has been brought forward to be helpful to your Lordships’ House. Suggestions were made to my noble friend the Chief Whip from across the House that it would be easier and better for the House to debate Bills starting at an earlier time rather than later in the night. In that spirit, this Motion was brought forward to be helpful. I hope all noble Lords will be willing to support a pragmatic proposal to ensure proper and effective scrutiny of legislation.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord True
To leave out from “that” to end and to insert “given no persuasive case has been put for systematically abandoning the usual conventions governing the sitting times of the House, the House should meet at 3pm on Wednesday 22 and Wednesday 29 October and that consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should begin after oral questions on those days; and the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times, as set out in the Companion to the Standing Orders.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for the constructive tone in which she spoke. I fear we may not be able to reach agreement at the end, but I appreciate the way she addressed the matter.
I want to make one thing clear at the start: we on this side recognise the importance the Government attach to this Bill. Indeed, we support many of the measures in it and we have absolutely no intention of blocking its passage to Royal Assent. Since we hear mutterings offstage about the OBR, let me make that clear to it as well—although, in fact, the OBR says nothing about requiring Royal Assent; all it asks for is consideration of policy announcements. It asks the Government to provide it with details of any proposed policy changes so that it can incorporate these in its forecast. Announcements have been made, so the OBR can incorporate them. Let us leave that canard aside.
The issue I want to raise is not delay, not the OBR, not even the Budget, which many people are looking forward to with some foreboding. The reason why I have tabled this amendment, and it is unusual, is that I believe it is time to review how we may best conduct our affairs. This was in some ways implicit in what the noble Baroness said. No one wants late nights. Many do not want morning sittings, which interfere not only with those who have business to conduct outside the House but with our Select Committees. Yet, because of the sheer weight of legislation, often ill thought through—this is not a novel matter—we are slipping into both morning sittings and late nights.
We best conduct our affairs by agreement in the usual channels, based on what I hold as the sacred constitutional principle that the King’s Government must be carried on: where, if greater scrutiny than originally envisaged is required, more latitude is given to the revising House by the Executive; and where, on the other hand, if the Government have extra need and good cause to make progress, the other parties agree exceptionally to sit outside normal hours. I believe profoundly that the best way to go forward for us is a reinforcement and restatement of our conventions in a spirit of give and take between all sides.
There are constant insinuations outside that your Lordships’ House obstructs government business. I took the previous Prime Minister to task on that when it was said, quite wrongly, as the noble Baroness will remember. What this House does is scrutinise legislation.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the usual channels, I regret that we have not reached an agreement. But I think it has to be recognised by the House that every Government ask for help when their legislative programme is under pressure. That is inevitable in a House where the pace of the business is unpredictable. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that he was responsible for the Procurement Bill, where we had 350 amendments tabled in Committee—so there is a little whiff of hypocrisy, I fear, in this amendment.
Noble Lords
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
There are three good arguments for opposing this amendment. If we do not accept some flexibility, we are going to be here later and later at night. We are going to have more late sessions: that is the reality. The late sessions are not good for scrutiny. People of our age should not be working late hours of the night. Last night I was here at midnight and there were about 12 other Peers in the Chamber, scrutinising a very important Bill. That is the reality of working late.
We also have—and I accept that the noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned this—a duty of care towards our staff and ourselves in working the late hours that we have been doing. We spend millions on the security of this House but do not give much attention to the fact that people are leaving very late at night when public transport is no longer available. We therefore have to show some flexibility. We have accepted this Motion and accept the quid pro quo that, if we are going to meet early, we finish at a reasonable time. That is how the House should operate.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I do not represent a considered view of the whole Cross Bench, but I will make one or two points. The first is that what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about making sure that we reaffirm the various conventions that operate this House would be a good thing. I certainly would play my part in trying to deal with that because, in some ways, this is a mild breakdown of conventions.
My second point is a very simple one: the Report stage of this Bill was the right size to fit into four days before the 67 amendments appeared. Looking at the 67 amendments, I think that they are quite major amendments and one would expect, therefore, there to be additional time required for the proper consideration of those amendments, particularly in view of the fact that they will not have been discussed in Committee, at Second Reading or even in the House of Commons. When the usual channels talk about this again, there may have to be some further time for this all. We will have to sit very late on at least a couple of those days that are coming up.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, this debate becomes more and more confusing as time goes by. It strikes at the heart of the way we manage this House, where we ask the usual channels to meet regularly and come to agreements. Most of the time that is exactly what is done to the advantage of us all. Even if some of us do not like the decision that the usual channels have taken, we accept them.
What I do not understand in this case is why things have broken down so catastrophically, particularly when my noble friend Lord True has explained how, at earlier stages of this Bill, the Opposition worked very hard with the Government to be able to deliver the Bill on a timetable. I would understand if the end of the Session were a few weeks away or a couple of months away, but we know that the end of the Session will not happen for another six months. There is no rush; there is no reason we have to sit in the mornings to complete this Bill.
Furthermore, we are a part-time House in the sense that we meet in the afternoons and evenings. I speak as chairman of the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords, which meets on a Wednesday morning at 10 o’clock. That means that very distinguished senior Members of the House who sit on that committee will be unable to come and listen to the deliberations on what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend Lord True have recognised is an extremely important Bill. I echo my noble friend in saying: would it not be better if both Motions were to be withdrawn so that realistic discussions could be had by the usual channels in order to come to an agreement?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two very brief points: one specifically aimed at the noble Lord, Lord True, and the other a more general point about the House and its procedures.
The point for the noble Lord, Lord True, concerns the wording of his amendment, which says that,
“the House should continue normally to sit at the customary times”.
That is a long-winded way of saying it should continue in the future as it always has done in the past with no revision whatsoever. I am sure the noble Lord has not forgotten, but I remind some Members of the House, and maybe inform some new Members, that it is not so long ago since the customary times for meeting in this House involved Wednesdays for Private Members’ Bills and Thursdays for government Bills starting at 3 pm. This is a House with people, we hope, coming from all parts of the country. We did not start the business of the day until 3 pm. It was a struggle to get that change through, but we got it through. I am not aware of anyone —please stand up if I am wrong—on these Benches or any others who thinks we should revert to what was then the customary times of sitting.
The other point is about the procedures of the House. The fundamental function of this House is to scrutinise legislation. That is what we do. If anyone suggests to me that we scrutinise more effectively at 1 am than at 1 pm, I would ask them to reconsider their position. I watch day after day the attendance in this House—we know the figures; we can look them up; we can check the voting figures. When the House is sitting even at 9.30 pm, there is many a time when there are only about eight, nine or 10 people in the House: two on the Government Front Bench, a couple on the Opposition Front Bench, someone in the Chair, a couple of Cross-Benchers and maybe one or two with a particular interest in the Bill. That does not compare—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am sorry; I apologise to the Lib Dems. It is an error I have made frequently in life.
It is not uncommon at all to have such numbers of people in the House scrutinising. It is beyond argument that, if we are looking at the detail of a Bill at a sensible time, at midday or 1 pm, more people will be in the House, more people will be taking part in the scrutiny of it and, if there are any votes, more people will take part in them. It is a very simple, straightforward proposal from my noble friend the Leader, and I really hope the House has the sense and the common sense to pass it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have been very involved in Committee on the Bill, and I have a number of amendments before the House on Report. I think the very fact that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has brought her Motion before us today shows that four days was insufficient, even before the government amendments were tabled. I very much support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, but I also support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The Bill originally looked at nationally significant infrastructure projects relating largely to energy; it has now been extended in large measure to water and other projects. The impact on the countryside, which I hold dear, is going to be huge. I believe we owe it to residents of country areas and rural areas to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised. Whatever time it takes and however many hours we have to sit, four days is not sufficient.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to this debate. The first thing I would say is that it shows a desire from all across the House to scrutinise legislation properly and effectively. The noble Baroness said that extra time is needed. This is why the proposal was brought forward, to provide some of that extra time, at a time of day when Members are perhaps at their best and sparkiest. I certainly think I am better at 11 in the morning than I am at 11 at night.
I want to address a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord True. He talked about the planning Bill being far too big. I remind him that I think we had the same discussions about the LUR Bill, which was significantly bigger than the planning Bill. The planning Bill has 111 clauses and six schedules. LURB had 223 clauses and 18 schedules, and a significant part was added. I know he has mentioned before the number of amendments that were tabled to the LUR Bill. There were some 700 on Report alone—no, there were 700 in Committee and 466 on Report, and over 200 of those amendments were from the Government. That Bill just went on and on and late at night. We are trying to provide the time required without having these late nights.
The noble Lord talked about press briefings. I have learned for a very long time, particularly as we get closer to party conference season, not to rely too much on press briefings but to see what amendments actually say. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: I think that over half of those 76 amendments—some 35 of them—come from discussions with the devolved Administrations to give effect to legislative consent Motions, so it is not an unusually large number of amendments to have.
On the issue of early sittings, so far in this Session there have been 196 sitting days, and we have sat early on nine of them—that is 5%. That was in response to the number of people wanting to contribute, and to the number of amendments. For example, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill had a large number of amendments and Members wanting to contribute.
I have to say to the noble Lord that, under the previous Government, early sittings were used for Bills, including important Bills. The noble Lord may remember Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—which I have mentioned—in September 2023, and the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Illegal Migration Bill earlier that year. This is not anything particularly unusual.
Let us address the elephant in the room. Two of the reasons why we have had so much business, sat so late and had longer hours have been the number of amendments tabled, which has been larger than usual, and the Opposition’s preference for debating smaller groups of amendments. Both those reasons are entirely legitimate. I make no criticism of doing that, and I recognise that they are within the rights of Members and in line with procedure. There is nothing untoward about that, but we have to recognise the reality that it does increase the time taken for discussions.
Some 67 amendments, over half of which are related to the devolved Administrations, have, as usual, been tabled a week before Report starts. They were discussed with the Opposition spokespeople, and I think the Opposition have now asked for a Keeling schedule for the most technical and complex amendments, which we are pleased to provide.
I have been very clear that I have no intention of systematically abandoning—I think that is the word the noble Lord used in his amendment—the conventions of the House, because they are important. The noble Lord talks about further discussions. We would welcome those discussions; they would be very helpful, because moving forward it would not be conducive to good scrutiny for Members or staff to have so many late-night and long sittings. Those discussions can be held.
I say to the noble Lord that the additional time required is provided for in this Motion, but if he wants to have further discussions through the usual channels, we will welcome them. My Motion is an enabling motion. If those discussions can reach an agreement whereby it is not necessary to have earlier sittings, then we will not use what is in the Motion, but we have it as a fallback if those discussions do not conclude in a satisfactory way.
We brought this forward as an offer to the House that is pragmatic and sensible, and in order to assist. Although there was not agreement through the usual channels, we would much prefer to have that. The Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy, did receive representations from across the House from those who said that they would rather sit in the morning than have late nights, and we have tried to reflect that in this debate. However, it is a matter for the House. There is a large attendance here today, which is not quite so usual for Business of the House Motions. If Members want to sit here very late, they are fully welcome and entitled to do so. That is a matter for the House, and if that is the will of the House, I look forward to seeing a full House on those occasions.
I have been clear that although it might not benefit the Government, scrutiny at 11 am would probably be a bit more robust and thorough than it would be at 11 pm. Therefore, we offer the option to the House, but it is ultimately for the House to decide. We think it would be helpful to the House. We can continue with discussions, but if we do not need that extra time because the noble Lord and the noble Baroness can reach agreement with the Chief Whip, then that would be great. This is an enabling Motion that may be a fallback if discussions conclude unsatisfactorily. We are responding to requests to scrutinise legislation at a time when we can do our best work.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who spoke and to the Leader. I will come to her remarks at the end. I do not want to abuse the Companion, so I will not make a long wind-up speech. I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, was saying that the Liberal Democrats’ view was that morning sittings should become the norm. If that is the case, this should be a matter for Procedure Committee.
I agreed with what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, and I grateful to him for picking up my point on reinforcing conventions, which the noble Baroness also picked up. He and my noble friend Lady McIntosh highlighted that 67 amendments have gone down. This is new material, and that must have an effect on the consideration on Report, notwithstanding what the other place might think of it.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde made a point I made about the difficulty of morning sittings for the committees of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, referred to the words “customary times” in the amendment. These were suggested to me by the clerks, rather than setting out all the existing times, which would have led to a lengthy Motion. I certainly do not want to go back to the traditions of long ago, when we sometimes met on a Saturday.
I am grateful for the tone of the Leader, and I believe that this should be possible, as it was in Committee on this Bill—and it should be possible for all Bills. That is always my aspiration. The noble Baroness referred to the LUR Bill. We let that Bill run for 15 days in Committee, over which many people in the House got to know something about what my view about that Bill actually was. I hope my noble friend is not behind me.
My fundamental point is that I hope this occasion will be an unusual occasion, not a usual one, because the usual place should be the usual channels. I am confident that, if we do have the kind of discussions that the noble Baroness has talked about in the normal spirit of amity between the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and my noble friend Lady Williams, we can find a way forward on this Bill that will allow for the time that may be required by the new material.
But I do not particularly care to negotiate with the equivalent of a revolver on the table. I was disappointed that the noble Baroness would not withdraw her Motion, so I will test the opinion of the House because it should be marked that this is a business Motion that has gone down without the consent of the usual channels. This is a moment in the passage of this House from the way we conduct our business towards where it might otherwise go. The noble Baroness has given us an assurance that she does not want to go in that direction, and I accept her word. But I believe that we should mark our displeasure at this, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.