UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2022-07-04
Topic: Government Operations
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 18. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend Lady Kramer for adding their names to both amendments and to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for adding his name to Amendment 18 The Bill contains Henry VIII powers in Clause 2(6)(a) and (b). These powers would enable the Treasury to amend the activities of the bank and change the definition of infrastructure by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. There is no constraint, the Treasury has carte blanche: it can add to, subtract from or modify any or all of the bank’s listed activities; it can change what counts as infrastructure by adding, subtracting or modifying. This would enable fundamental changes to be made to the bank’s operations without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have previously asserted, and may do so again today, that the affirmative procedure for SIs constitutes meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, but this is obviously not the case In its 2018 report, the Constitution Committee noted: "Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable." But there is a way of enhancing scrutiny of secondary legislation. This is the super-affirmative procedure, and our Amendment 13 would replace the affirmative procedure with this super-affirmative procedure. Erskine May, in Part 4, chapter 31.14, characterises this procedure as follows: "The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form … the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them." During the passage of the recent Medicines and Medical Devices Act, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, very helpfully summarised the super-affirmative procedure as follows, saying "that procedure would require an initial draft of the regulations to be laid before Parliament alongside an explanatory statement and that a committee must be convened to report on those draft regulations within 30 days of publication. Only after a minimum of 30 days following the publication of the initial draft regulations may the Secretary of State lay regulations, accompanied by a further published statement on any changes to the regulations. They must then be debated as normal in both Houses and approved by resolution."—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 376.] It was in that Bill that the House last voted to insert the super-affirmative procedure. There was widespread support from across the House—from Labour, from these Benches, from the Cross Benches and even from two extremely distinguished Conservative Peers. Prior to that, according to the Library, the last recorded insertion was by the Government themselves in October 2017 in what became the Financial Guidance and Claims Act When they are not doing it themselves, the Government traditionally put forward any or all of three routine objections to the use of the super-affirmative procedure. The first is that it is unnecessary because the use of the affirmative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. This is obviously untrue. The second routine objection is that the super-affirmative procedure is cumbersome. I take this to mean only that this procedure is more elaborate than the affirmative procedure; which is, of course, the whole point. It is necessarily more elaborate because it provides for actual scrutiny where the affirmative procedure does not. The third routine objection is that it all takes too long. This has force only if there is some imminent deadline, and there is none in this case In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, argued in favour of retaining the Henry VIII powers in Clause 2: "There may, however, be instances where we need to update the definition of infrastructure or the bank’s functions to ensure that the bank can continue to fulfil its objectives as a long-lasting institution." He went on to give an example: "New green infrastructure technologies may emerge in the future which we would want … to include in the bank’s definition of infrastructure, to signal to the bank and the market that the bank can invest in these technologies."—[Official Report, 14/6/22; col. 1541.] I am afraid that this is a very weak argument. The definitions of "infrastructure" in the Bill are not exhaustive, as the Minister has again said this afternoon. The bank could simply decide that it wanted to include new green technology and say so in an official press release. In any case, the Treasury could always direct the bank to include these new technologies and any such direction would be published. As things stand, the Henry VIII powers would enable the Minister to change both the bank’s activities and the definitions of infrastructure without constraint or meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. Our Amendment 13 would restore an element of parliamentary scrutiny; Parliament should not be bypassed.