Business of the House

Motion on Standing Orders

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.

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.

Moved by

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.”

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.

Let us look at the planning Bill so far. The Government asked us in the usual channels, as the noble Baroness told us, whether we could undertake to complete Committee before the Recess. As good-faith partners, we agreed to that—not without cost in sitting hours, and not without criticism, I may say, from some of my noble friends behind me. We kept our word. We sat for 65 hours in Committee, including, with our agreement, morning sittings and, with our agreement, going late. There was no Tory obstruction: quite the reverse. There was co-operation, as the noble Baroness acknowledged.

Taking all business, however, in September as a whole, we sat for 27 hours in three weeks outside our customary sitting times, and that was not just on the planning Bill. The specific problem with the planning Bill is not obstruction by any party in this House; it is that the Bill is too long and is still being rewritten. We have heard that there were 134 amendments from these parts of the House, but 67 more have just been slapped down by the Government.

When it comes to Report, the right way forward is surely to proceed in the same way as in Committee: by agreement. But this is not what has happened. So far from pursuing compromise, the Government have unilaterally tabled a Motion requiring, before consideration on Report has even begun, that the House, contrary to the specific firm guidance of the Companion, must sit in the mornings. Then, after doing that, they unleashed a storm of press releases declaring that the Bill would be rewritten. Then, after the media were briefed, the House will want to be informed that scores of new amendments to the Bill—67, as I have said—were tabled, including major new powers for the Secretary of State to override local councils that refuse planning applications, and depriving local communities of due process where their villages are to be flooded for new reservoirs. In normal circumstances, such far-reaching measures might well justify consideration under Committee rules, not Report rules.

Long after this briefing was given to the media, an explainer of the measures was finally sent out to your Lordships today at 11.07 am. I do not think that is an appropriate way to treat Parliament. It was bad practice when a coalition or Conservative Government did it and it is bad practice now. How are Members of the other place expected to scrutinise these far-reaching measures that will so directly impact their constituents? A Bill that was already too big is being made even bigger, and the House is being asked to break our conventions and sit early to consider material that we had not even seen until little more than hours ago.

There comes a point, and I think we are near that point, where we must decide whether we wish to keep what are described as “firm conventions” in our Companion. These are: that we meet in the afternoon, which lately we have not always done—we met at 11 am on one-third of the Mondays to Wednesdays in the September session; that we rise at 10 pm, which lately we have rarely done—we went after 10 pm on all but one of the Mondays to Wednesdays in the September session, and three times after midnight, which I agree is unacceptable; that we rise at 7 pm on a Thursday, which lately we have not always done—indeed, we did not do so once in September; and that we rise at 3 pm on a Friday, which we did on only one Friday out of three in September.

That is what is happening, although maybe some of your Lordships had not noticed. If we do not wish to keep to these firm conventions, which are designed to protect our hard-working staff as much as our own Members, let that matter be considered by the Procedure Committee and, if need be, considered again by the House—although, the last time we discussed changing our hours, the House voted to keep them as they are.

The noble Baroness did not emphasise that this Motion was tabled without the consent of usual channels. It is a slippery slope indeed if the Government of the day are to alter the sitting hours of the House at their own whim. I give notice that, where this is not agreed in the usual channels, we on this side will almost invariably resist it, with all the attendant pain and time that will be involved. However, I say with equal commitment that, wherever it is asked for with reasonable notice and just cause, we will always consider it constructively, just as we did in Committee on this Bill.

I think no one wishes this House to go down the road of the other place, where the Executive determine the timetable and as much time is spent debating timing allocated to business as it is to business itself. This occasion should be unusual and never become the norm. I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the whole House to keep to an approach of agreeing progress across usual channels. If she withdraws her Motion, I will withdraw my amendment and I give her a firm undertaking in the eyes of the House that we on this side will approach Report on the Bill in the same constructive spirit as we did Committee.

Agreement, not unilateral action, is the only sensible way forward for the House on this Bill and all other matters. Frankly, if it means an extra half-day or day’s consideration within our usual hours to review a Bill that Ministers boast is being rewritten, is avoiding that one-odd day’s scrutiny worth breaking the precious jewel of consensus that is the mysterious secret of managing this revising Chamber? I submit that it is not and I ask the noble Baroness to continue in the normal course of compromise and not press her Motion. If not, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

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.

Hear, hear!

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.