Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett, and in mine. It is such a pleasure to hear the words “manmade climate change” coming from the government Benches. It is a real pleasure, because when I first came here in 2013, I was the only person talking about it, so thank you everybody who has mentioned it today.

I support quite a lot of the amendments in this group, but I am slightly concerned about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and perhaps he would like to clarify. It looks as if his amendments would prevent a spatial plan or a local plan from targeting net-zero carbon emissions earlier than 2050. It is not enough to achieve it by 2050; we must make sure that it is done incrementally, not all at the last moment. That would create problems for, for example, the Green-led Stroud District Council, which is targeting achieving net zero by 2030. It would be madness to try to delay anything like that. I am not sure if that is the intention, but I would like to know. Sorry, does the noble Lord want to answer me now, before I have finished?

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I just want to say that my purpose was to incorporate into the legislation what are existing statutory obligations on local authorities. That would not constrain them from planning for something more ambitious.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord; ambitious is good.

On Amendment 226, we need to define “mitigation” and “adaptation” in relation to the Climate Change Act 2008, because that Act’s target is again 2050, and we cannot risk any council plans that seek to achieve net zero sooner.

Moving on to hedgehogs, I think that everyone that I have mentioned this to today is so supportive of holes in fences and hedges for hedgehogs. I am really pleased about that because hedgehogs are an indicator species, which means that we can monitor what is going on with other ecosystems because of hedgehogs. If they become rare or even extinct, it will be harder to track damage to ecosystems and the environment. They indicate the health of the environment and of nature as a whole. The State of Britain’s Hedgehogs 2022 report found that numbers are down in rural areas by between 30% and 75% since 2000. Clearly, we have a problem here. Globally, hedgehogs are of least concern, but here in the UK the population is now classed as vulnerable. Therefore, I beg everybody to support this tiny but important amendment.

On Amendment 273, in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett, I am delighted that it is being supported by Labour, which has an amendment to that amendment. I personally have been talking about this since I was elected in 2000, and I do not know why it is still not understood. All buildings have a carbon content and when you destroy them, when you knock them down and throw the debris away, you are wasting carbon and you are then generating more carbon by replacing them, so, please, something along these lines must go into this Bill. I do not understand why the Government have not woken up to that yet.

On my Amendment 293, I really wish I had put something in, after the hedgehogs, about swift habitats. There are real concerns about the swift population in Britain. Obviously, preserving and enhancing habitat has a big impact on all birds, but particularly swifts. They arrive in the UK during the summer, lay their eggs and incubate them here. They like to live within houses and churches, and they need spaces to get into nesting sites. A lot of developers are now using swift bricks with little holes, which allow swifts spacious housing very safely within houses. Also, we can retrospectively put swift boxes up, which can do the same. Swifts play a crucial role in controlling insect pests, for example, so we need to support them. Numbers have plummeted, with a 53% decline since 2016, which is very disturbing. The Labour council in Ealing is doing its best to develop a site that has got a lot of swift habitats, so I would be grateful if any noble Lords who know anyone on Ealing Council could point out to them how destructive this is and that they should not be developing an area which swifts desperately need in London.

Of course, you need ecological surveys. Most noble Lords here care about nature, and if you do not know what nature is there, then you do not know whether you will disturb it or damage it in any way. A survey is basic to everything that is part of development of any kind. I thank your Lordships for listening.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 200 and 205 which are tabled in my name. I will also talk about one or two other amendments in this group, which were very helpfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, who set out not only the purposes of her amendments but gave a very straightforward description of all the other amendments. I am most grateful for that.

As noble Lords will have heard, Amendment 200 would enable a joint spatial development strategy to

“specify or describe employment sites the provision of which the participating authorities consider to be of strategic importance to the joint strategy area”.

The reason for this is that at this point in Schedule 7 there is reference to infrastructure that is relevant to the joint strategy area as a whole, not just to one participating authority. There is then a reference to affordable housing. I am not quite sure where that came from, since it is not obviously the case that affordable housing necessarily has implications of strategic importance beyond the participating authority in which the affordable housing is to be provided, but leave that on one side.

If one is to identify and specify in this part of Schedule 7, which is about making a spatial development strategy and looking at what is of strategic importance, it seems fairly obvious that employment sites—which, by their nature, will be the large employment sites—absolutely give rise to a need for them to be identified in a joint spatial development strategy. That links directly to the question of infrastructure and, in due course, to housing need. The infrastructure point is where the SDS really comes from. The SDS is about enabling that strategic planning to be achieved.

On a later group I will reiterate a broad point, which I will return to on a number of occasions in our debates, which is that, if we do nothing else, I hope we can identify and move towards opportunities for the planning processes to be co-ordinated, not just land use planning but transport planning, utilities planning, power supply and water supply. These all need to be properly integrated to have the best overall effect.

How is this to be achieved? I should remind noble Lords again that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum; that is a registered interest of mine. Back at the beginning of the year, we had a very good presentation by Graham Pointer from WSP, who worked on the integrated planning processes in New South Wales. The essence of it was very straightforward: integrated planning of land use, transport, power, water and the environment and ensuring that these plans were then able to be funded together. We are not going to get into the funding mechanisms, but we can certainly ensure that there are integrated plans, ideally on integrated timetables.

One would imagine that this is very straightforward and it should be possible to make it happen. It almost never happens in the places I go to. There are constantly different tiers of administration in local areas that are conducting different aspects of planning at different times and with different parameters. We really need to try to integrate planning. If my noble friends on the Front Bench can push that forward, using spatial development strategies, that would be really useful. At the Westminster Social Policy Forum, I chaired a discussion on the OxCam corridor the Friday before last. It was one of the strongest messages to come out. Here is a key economic area. On travel to work areas, as a consequence of, for example, the east-west rail development, those areas may well be extended, so that the travel to work area for Cambridge extends potentially to new sites and settlements in Bedfordshire, and the travel to work area for Oxford and Harwell might well extend increasingly to settlements in and around Milton Keynes.

Increasingly, we have different authorities in different counties whose planning processes need to be co-ordinated and integrated together. Spatial development strategies are a way of doing that. I am old enough to remember when we had the Standing Conference of East Anglian Local Authorities and we used to do planning processes through regional mechanisms. We do not have regional planning now but that does not mean that we need to abandon the concept of strategic planning. Strategy does not require us to have integrated and large-scale authorities; it just means that the authorities need to come together.

Amendment 200 is specifically about employment sites, because of their relative strategic importance to an area or combined areas. Amendment 205 is about bringing additional authorities with a role to play into the process. I am grateful to the County Councils Network for its assistance in shaping an amendment for this purpose. I added the reference to travel to work areas, so I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, commended that it should extend specifically to those authorities within a travel to work area, even if they are not one of the participating authorities. That is why we want to focus particularly on district councils, which may not join in the SDS but need to be consulted in the process. Also, counties and county combined authorities should be included in the consultation.

This engagement and consultation is in relation to their functions but it does not make them participants in the spatial development strategy itself. It does not give them a veto over the spatial development strategy but is confined to their bringing to the party the things that they can do. Given that for counties it includes something as integral as transport planning, this is fundamental to a spatial development strategy being able to work effectively. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for signing that amendment. I confess that I cannot see that we can put counties into the spatial development strategies as such, because of the difficulties of their not having planning powers—this is a combination of those that do have the planning powers—but it is absolutely right that they should be involved.

Apart from my own amendments, I want to say a word about Amendment 199. When I read it, I asked myself why the combined authorities are not part of this. The only reason I can think of is that they already have a non-statutory spatial strategy power. Frankly, I think that should come to the party. If noble Lords have a moment, I suggest they look at pages 288 and 299 of the Bill, and the new subsections at 15AI to be inserted. This is about what happens when a combined authority is created, and where these areas are already engaged in a joint spatial development strategy. It is awful. Basically, it collapses and it is cancelled; it is all withdrawn. That is the last thing you want. Where participating authorities are working together on a spatial development strategy, the creation of a combined authority should supplement that and enable them to accomplish it more effectively, not cause it all to be withdrawn or cancelled. The language is terrible, but the intention seems to me to be wrong too. I would much rather combined authorities joined in.

In the Cambridge area, we have the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. The need for planning in that key economic hub extends out from Cambridge to Royston in Hertfordshire, to Haverhill in Suffolk, to Thetford in Norfolk, and to Bedford and Cranfield. It is obviously a candidate that is not only economically important but requires the joint working of local authorities and integrated planning across a wider region. It seems to me that spatial development strategies are a good thing, designed to enable that to happen, but we need the legislation to be more permissive. I would particularly focus on Amendment 205. I hope my noble friend will indicate that Ministers are sympathetic to the ability of counties, and other county combined authorities, to get involved in this way.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow 11 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, explaining the amendments. I have tabled amendments in this group and supported others because of the potential importance of strategic planning in tackling the climate emergency. We need to embed it in everything that councils do, alongside solving the acute housing crisis in this country.

Mine are probing amendments to find out how the Government see the role of county councils within the production of a joint spatial development strategy. County councils sit one tier above planning authorities, but many have strategic functions—for example, transport, health, social care or education. It seems slightly odd that they do not have a planning role as well.

Schedule 7 as currently drafted would need participating planning authorities to consult the county council once a draft strategy has been produced. It seems to me that this perhaps misses the opportunity to involve county councils actively in the development of the strategy, which I think they could very much contribute to. Taken to its highest level, the county council could even initiate the process and convene the planning authorities to work together. It seems to me that that is likely to happen anyway.

I would like to know the Minister’s thinking on how the Government see the role of county councils in strategic planning and whether they might explore the opportunity of more fully involving counties in spatial development plans.

For most Bills, the more I get involved the more fascinating they become. This Bill is an example of that not working at all. I am finding it incredibly difficult, and I sympathise with the Minister dealing with it. It is very difficult to find a coherent thread through this whole Bill. I applaud her and the Labour Front Bench for toughing it out.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I shall presume to follow my noble friend and speak to Amendment 310 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I support my noble friend’s amendment, which is very helpful in setting out in full the potential structure of a power to enable local authorities to hold meetings remotely. Of course it does not require them to do so—it simply permits them to do so.

The story of this, essentially, is that during the pandemic the Coronavirus Act 2020 permitted local authorities to hold meetings remotely, and many did. That expired on 7 May 2021, and the Local Government Association and others sought a declaratory judgment from the High Court as to whether they could continue to meet remotely, in the absence of specific legislative provision. The High Court said that they could not—that it was clear that meetings required persons to be in the place required under the 1972 Act. Since 7 May 2021, they cannot proceed with remote meetings, which is a serious impediment, not least since the LGA’s chair at the time said that:

“The pandemic proved that using virtual meeting options can help councils work more effectively and efficiently and can in fact increase engagement from both councillors and residents”.


The first is fairly obvious; the second is particularly helpful. A survey conducted by the LGA back in November 2021 demonstrated that costs were lower for virtual meetings but also, and more significantly, public attendance could be higher at virtual meetings. It is very important to give local authorities those options.

The point that I come to is that the Government at the time, back in 2021, issued a call for evidence on remote meetings. We are now the best part of two years on and they have not proceeded on the basis of that call for evidence. I would hope or expect that the call for evidence demonstrated that this is an opportunity to assist local authorities to structure their meetings in a way that can maximise engagement and participation, and I am at a loss to know why they have not proceeded. At the time, of course, they said that there was a lack of a suitable legislative opportunity—well, here we are, and here it is. The Government have not put it in the Bill, but we have the option to do so. I may press my noble friend the Minister a little more than my noble friend Lady McIntosh might do: the time has come for the Government to get off the fence on this one. On Report, the best possible solution would be for them to bring forward their own amendment for this purpose.

There is a difference between the two amendments. Mine relates only to planning meetings and its structure is to create a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State. I suspect that, for that reason, it is preferable to the Government since, in Amendment 158, we have a regulation under the Coronavirus Act 2020 that is being turned into primary legislation. That is not always the most helpful way to structure things. I think the right way forward would be for the Government to introduce their own amendment on Report.

I was interested in this from the point of view of planning meetings, as part of the general process of trying to encourage efficient and effective decision-making in planning. I understand that there is an argument for this to be applied more generally, although it was obvious, from some of the references to evidence given before the High Court, that there is some hesitation on the part of experts about holding, for example, councils’ full or annual meetings virtually. The problem is the lack of personal interaction between councillors at such meetings and the difficulty of managing business under those circumstances. It is fair to say that simply giving local authorities this power would be a straight- forward way to do it, but I completely understand if some restrictions, particularly on full or annual council meetings, limited the exercise of that power. Either way, I hope that my noble friend indicates, whether definitely or otherwise, that the Government will think urgently about whether to bring forward measures to give local government this power in the Bill, through amendment on Report.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 158 and 310. Obviously Amendment 310 is more limited so I see it as a fallback, but I honestly cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept Amendment 158.

Covid obviously provided us with a lot of challenges, one of which was how to keep things going and how society and, for example, your Lordships’ House could still function. At the time, I thought that your Lordships’ House managed better than the other place. We were quicker to put in remote systems for voting and participating, which I thought was a huge advance in the methods that we used for debates and to create legislation.

I actually did not know that councils cannot meet virtually any more and think it is a terrible shame. I have been a councillor and it is really hard work. Going to council meetings on a cold wet night in November, December, January or February can be an extra challenge. Quite honestly, why on earth would we not do this? Virtual council meetings—and virtual meetings of your Lordships’ House—worked extremely well. We all found that we could work the mute button, although some have gone backwards on that. We still allow noble Lords to engage virtually, so it is logical for councillors.

Work has changed because of Covid. More people are working remotely and not going into the office as much. One of my daughters, although she has a full-time job, goes into the office only two days a week now. My partner goes into his office one day a month and my other daughter goes into her office once every two months. Even so, they all work extremely well and efficiently. I do not understand this regressive move.

There have been other regressive moves here. I loathe how we still start in the afternoons, even though we started earlier during Covid. It is easy to slip back into bad, old habits instead of taking new ideas forward and engaging in the best way possible. I hope that the Government see sense on this and, as is suggested, bring their own amendment forward. We would all support it.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Lansley

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words about these two amendments. I can be a bit simpler than I had intended to be because my noble friend and the movers of the amendments say that these are probing amendments. To that extent, I want to add one or two questions of my own; I look to my noble friend the Minister for his response.

I have a feeling that, once again, these are amendments that fall into the category of trying to put into statute that Ministers should not do things that they do not wish to do. I am not quite sure why that is necessary. In this particular instance, the amendment proposes—in a number of areas relating to the environment, animal welfare and SPS—to take out of the hands of Ministers the business of negotiating the nature of the trade agreements that we are to enter into, largely tying the hands of Ministers. Ministers have been immensely clear, repeatedly, about their intention not to enter into trade agreements the effect of which would be to dilute the standards applicable by us in this country in all these respects.

What we have here says, in effect, that when we seek to enter into any agreement with other countries, we have an extraterritorial application of own standards to them. I fear that, in practice, that would mean an inability on the part of the United Kingdom Government to enter into trade negotiations with countries that apply different standards to our own. I am not sure that the signatories to the amendments have addressed the issue. They talk simply in terms of the impact in this country of the import of goods that are subject to different standards. That is a matter of domestic legislation; that is something we can stop. There is absolutely nothing that requires us to import goods that are produced to animal welfare standards that are different to and lower than our own, or that have environmental consequences that we would not accept. We are perfectly free to say no to that. The implication of these amendments, however, goes beyond that to the idea that we should not enter into trade agreements with countries that supply standards that are not our own.

I am not sure that noble Lords necessarily need to answer this, but I am not sure where the words “or higher than” have come from. What is this international trade commission supposed to do? Should it look at our standards and say, “They’re not good enough. We are going to apply higher standards to other countries than we apply to ourselves”, and seek to enforce them through the terms of an international trade agreement that we enter into with them? That seems inherently and deeply unlikely.

Finally, it was asserted by the noble Lords who put their names to the amendments that this amendment would put in the Bill something that is primary legislation and is therefore wholly applicable. What they are talking about are standards. They are not talking about regulations. In truth, what really matters is the implementation of international trade agreements in the form of regulations. For example, in a later debate, we will talk, I hope, about the implementation of our unilateral scheme of preferences with developing and least-developed countries, many of whom would find it intensely difficult to maintain standards—for example, of animal welfare or food safety and traceability—comparable to our own.

Is it noble Lords’ intention that the international trade commission should require that such regulations should have the same standards built into them, and that we would not accept goods from those countries if they were incompatible with the standards set by the ITC? That is not what these amendments say because they talk about international trade agreements. There is no international trade agreement required for us to offer unilateral preferences to these countries; therefore, perhaps it is their intention simply to exclude developing and least-developed countries from the issues they talk about. I do not think that that is their intention, but that is not the effect of their amendments.

I suggest that, in so far as these are probing amendments, let us recognise that there are some glaring deficiencies. If we come back, as I know we will on Report, to the question of how we maintain our standards in this country, let us think carefully about how we do it and recognise, with a degree of humility, that international trade agreements should not be a mechanism by which we seek to apply extraterritorial jurisdiction for UK standards to other countries throughout the world.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in a moment. In the meantime, I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh, Lady Henig and Lady Ritchie. I am delighted to support these two amendments.

I really congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It is almost like having a third member of the Green group sometimes. I am sure that she hates that thought and that the Minister might as well. It has been quite a slog for us during this Bill. We have repetitively talked about these issues and it is getting a tad boring.

This amendment is a mechanism to maintain trade standards that are as high or higher than domestic UK standards. For the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that means that it is okay to trade with countries that have higher standards, even though they are not the same as our standards; that is the point of this part of the amendment. He asked why this is necessary. It is necessary because we simply do not trust the Government. If he can put his hand on his heart and say that he trusts the Government—go on; no?—I will be astonished. We have fantastic Ministers here—we even have a fantastic government team—but we do not trust the Government.

This amendment addresses the criticisms raised in previous iterations of the Bill, when noble Lords suggested that defining UK standards and equivalent standards would be a difficult legislative exercise. The amendment would create a specific body to undertake that exercise, and would grant it the necessary resources to do so. That might be a bit of a sticking point but, quite honestly, it is possible to move resources around, so I do not see that as an essential problem.

My colleagues, the three noble Baronesses, have covered almost every aspect on which I should have liked to speak, so all I will say is: will the Minister commit to working with us, perhaps to find a compromise amendment ahead of Report? Otherwise, there will the inevitable Division and government defeat, which will obviously be quite exciting for many of us but probably less so for the Minister and his team. So it would be wonderful if we could see a positive way forward.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Lansley

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. On the points she made about the relationship with the devolved Administrations, when we were debating the Fisheries Bill before the summer, I was struck by how constructive the relationship with the devolved Administrations was in deciding what the fisheries regime should look like and how it should be administered. There is a good precedent there for how we should look at trade agreements, where they bear on the industry of particular parts of the United Kingdom. We will look at that more as we go through some of the other issues, but it was a very positive illustration of the Government’s willingness and ability to work with the other Administrations.

In this group, I will speak in particular on Amendment 63, which is in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The purpose of the amendment is to strengthen the statutory provision in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Noble Lords will recall the much-referred-to 21-day period. I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee, and nothing I say today is any criticism of the way in which Ministers have been dealing with this new committee. On the contrary, they are giving us the kind of access and information that we are looking for.

But the point is that, in addition to the 21 days, there is a period before the laying of such a treaty during which it can be looked at by the relevant committees of this House and the other place. It is a matter for Ministers how long that is. Once the document is laid, the 21-day limit applies. Amendment 63 relates to the part of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that makes it clear that Ministers can create further periods beyond the 21 days. They can renew that period to allow for such a debate to take place in either House.

Ministers have said that, as a matter of convention, they will seek to allow such a debate wherever practical and where the parliamentary timetable allows. My point is that this should not be, in any sense, at the discretion of Ministers. Where either of the committees in the two Houses has resolved that the agreement or treaty raises issues of sufficient significance that it requires a debate in that House—in the case of either House, it might be critical of the agreement, and in the case of the other place, it could even go so far as to seek to reject its ratification—Ministers must allow such a debate to take place before ratification itself occurs. That is what this amendment does, and I hope it is effective in that regard. It requires Ministers to continue to extend the 21-day period until such time as a debate has taken place in either House where that has been sought by the relevant committee. I hope that is reasonably straightforward.

Turning to other amendments in this group, it is rather important for us just to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—I mean no criticism of him—has retabled amendments that took the form of new clauses at Report in the House of Commons. Amendments 36, 37 and 38 bear upon the issue of a report from Ministers to highlight where there is any divergence between the continuity agreement and the originating agreement between the European Union and the relevant third country. As a former member of the EU Internal Market Sub-Committee of our EU Committee here, I know that we looked at quite a number of these continuity agreements, and the idea that they were cut and pasted is actually rather limited. Even if they were intended to be a cut-and-paste job, as with the Switzerland agreement, for example, we were reminded that they were a bit like Swiss cheese: more notable for what was left out than for what was included.

The divergence is really very important. Where the Japan agreement is concerned—and, of course, I have not seen it, but we hope to see it soon, as the Minister said on Tuesday—it is not just an enhanced agreement; we also want to see how it relates specifically to the EU-Japan agreement. For example, the EU has a most favoured nation clause built in, so is it the case that that is triggered? Will we have a most favoured nation clause as well in our agreement with Japan, so that if the European Union starts to say, “Well, if you’ve given the United Kingdom this in this regard, then we want a compensating benefit”, would that benefit also accrue to us under a most favoured nation provision?

We previously discussed the question of tariff-rate quotas, and there are significant tariff-rate quotas applicable to agricultural goods exported to Japan from the European Union. The question of how they are to be distributed is quite a significant issue. Is the Japan-UK agreement wholly additional to the EU’s existing quota, or is the EU quota being reallocated in ways that will be beneficial to the UK, or is the UK reliant, as we have probably discovered, on the rest of the European Union not using its quota in respect of some goods, in which case the UK is actually dependent on whether that quota is used by the EU? These are rather significant issues, so the point of Amendments 36 to 38 is to require Ministers to tell us about that.

Ministers can quite legitimately say, “Well, that is the job of the International Agreements Sub-Committee to go away and check.” We will do that job, but it should not be a requirement to initiate such an examination. It should be taken as read by Ministers that they should present such a report as part of the scrutiny process. I note that those new clauses at Report stage in another place were actually tabled by six Conservative Members of Parliament.

That brings me to Amendment 35 which, of course, is the same as new Clause 4, which was considered at Report stage in the Commons. I have the greatest respect and sympathy for my former parliamentary neighbour, Jonathan Djanogly from Huntingdon, who was the mover of those amendments, but I will say two things. This particular amendment was divided upon at Report stage in the other place, and negatived with a majority of 63. That must make us consider whether, in due course, we actually want the House of Commons to think again. Are they likely to think again and why would they think again? They could change their minds because this goes to a central issue, which is the Government’s use of the prerogative power and the extent to which they are mandated and their prerogative power is circumscribed by a mandate from either House. It also means some significant constraint on their negotiating flexibility. This is different from the question of parliamentary scrutiny and the approval/ratification process. It can actually support negotiators in that they can say, as American negotiators quite often do, “That wouldn’t pass on the Hill.” They should be able to say, “That would not pass through Westminster.” It is something that we can use.

When we come to look at this again at Report, we should only send amendments back to the Commons which are asking them, in the other place, to strengthen the ratification process and the parliamentary scrutiny leading to ratification, rather than suggesting that we should create a whole new assumption that the prerogative power of the Executive must be overridden by a mandate from Parliament for all of these treaty negotiations. I hope that Ministers will say, in relation to Amendment 63, that they are prepared to see the conventional approach given statutory backing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on clearly laying out the issues in this group. I largely agree with almost everything that has been said. In fact, I put my name to Amendment 63 not only because I thought it was a good amendment but because the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, looked a little bit lonely there, so I thought I would support him even though we are not natural allies on almost anything.

I am not really one for rules and regulations—I tend to kick against that sort of regimentation—but I am essentially rather law-abiding, so I have quite honestly been absolutely horrified by this Government. They are breaking the law: they are actually sending two Bills to your Lordships’ House in which they ask us specifically to break the law. I just think that that is dreadful. Parliament is actually recognised as the unwritten British constitution; it is the will and the voice of the people. We could make Parliament more democratic, but the Government are actually saying that they do not want to. They are almost saying: “Well, the discretion of Ministers is as good as anything.” No, it is not; that is absolutely laughable. It sidesteps parliamentary scrutiny in the most horrendous way. We cannot let the government majority in the Commons absolve the Government of any meaningful scrutiny. We have to scrutinise and we have to be tough.

I very much hope that, when it comes to Report, we can pull a lot of these ideas together and ensure that we send them back to the Commons and make it clear that we are actually scrutinising in a way that MPs really ought to be but are not. From my point of view, we have to embed binding scrutiny into the Bill and we have to make the MPs feel, I hope, a little bit shamed if they do not support it.