Energy Bill [HL]
Lord Deben Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, it is not for the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change to comment much on the means whereby we reach the targets which have been set by the committee. That is not its role. The committee’s role is to set the targets and to insist that they are met. That is one of the difficulties of being the chairman because my instinct is to comment on all these things with enthusiasm and some pretty clear views, but that is not what I am statutorily allowed to do.
However, it might help the Minister if I say this. This may be a formulation that works; I am not sure. There are complications in it which might lead the Government not to want to do it. I want to say a word about a decarbonisation target, which the Committee on Climate Change has recommended. It has done so because a decarbonisation target would give security to those who are investing in low carbon technology, and above all in low carbon generation. One of the problems that all Governments have to face is that the timetable of private industry is very tight. First there is the timetable for how long a particular managing director will be in place and what is going to happen over the next two or three years—I am told that it is generally about three years. The second timetable is an important one, covering the length of time major investment takes between thinking about something and actually delivering it.
One difficulty—it is one which the Committee on Climate Change emphasised in its report to Parliament this year—is that most of the measures we have in place will fall off the cliff in 2020. We are now talking about “tomorrow” in the investment cycle because people often have an investment cycle which lasts certainly for five years and very often for seven or eight years. The committee sought to ask the Government to ensure that we knew where we were going to be in a progressive way after 2020. The Government have made it clear that certain things will continue, but not how much and how long. That security is important for investment.
The second point is that it is occasionally the belief of all politicians that if they promise something in 2050, everyone will believe it and proceed to get there. But I remember an embarrassing debate in this House when I pointed out that the previous Labour Government had an energy Bill from which they had removed every date except 2050, and I worked out that there was not a Member of the Government who was likely to be alive when the one promise that had been made would be delivered. That is a dangerous position because if we are to be taken seriously, we ought to make promises that will be delivered at least in our likely lifetimes.
What I want to put to the Minister is simply this: we need to have some sort of interim point between 2020 and 2050 towards which people can work with some confidence, and we have suggested a carbon intensity target for 2030 entirely on that basis. I hope that the party opposite will not be upset by this, but one of the reasons I want the target is because I am a capitalist and I do not want to judge what is going to be the best way of achieving it by 2030; in other words, I want to be as unrestrictive as I can. I just want to deliver the ends, and that is why I always talk about targets, not means. I do not know what mixture of means will enable us to reach the target, and that is why I am less enthusiastic about those who insist upon this proportion from renewables, that proportion from other low carbon technologies and this proportion from nuclear. I have always felt that a portfolio is what we want, and if possible I want an unprescriptive target because we do not know the ways in which we are going to achieve it. But we must give people the confidence that if they pursue those ways, there will be a proper return from the market on the investment that they have carried through. That is why a carbon intensity target is a valuable thing. I hope that the Government will wish to do that in 2016, for reasons we all now know. A carbon intensity target would be unprescriptive, but it would give real confidence.
This amendment, on the other hand, is much more precise. It gives a role to the Committee on Climate Change, for which I thank the noble Lord, and I am sure that if we were asked to carry through this role, we would do it to the best of our ability. But I wonder whether this particular mechanism is the best one. There are complications which the Government might want to think about, but I hope that in discussing it, the Government will not cast aside the need—I think it is that—for a decarbonisation target for 2030 to give people the confidence to plan. It is no good saying that they know that our emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050. Frankly, it is true and statutorily based, and we all think it is important, but it is not going to drive investment. That is why a decarbonisation target for 2030 is important. I doubt whether this is the right way forward, but I am pleased that it has been tabled as an amendment, not least in order to ask the Government to think hard about the needs of investment and confidence.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for introducing this amendment and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it—or if not directly in favour, at least in favour of us having a debate about decarbonisation. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan during the Committee stage of the Energy Bill in 2013. We had a good debate at the time, and the arguments which were put forward were important then and are even more important now. I say that because we all engaged with the Energy Bill in good faith. We raised our concerns and we went forward on the basis that we hoped that we had a system that may be a transition to something more market-based and slightly less interventionist in order to encourage us to decarbonise our electricity system.
I apologise for stating the obvious, but the reason electricity is so important is that once it is fully or substantively decarbonised, it can then be used to decarbonise transport and heat in an effective way. It is not the only way, but it is one way. It is the sector with possibly the most commercially available technologies and certainly the widest range of known technologies, certainly at this stage, to help us. That is why electricity is focused on and why we have a 30% target for renewable electricity as opposed to 10% or 12% in the heat and transport sectors. It is right to focus on electricity.
This idea is definitely worthy of merit and I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, when he says that we have in the past debated a broader definition of the decarbonisation obligation or decarbonisation target. In fact, that was rather exhaustively dealt with in the debates around the Energy Bill in 2013. The way it was left was that the Government may introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 in line with the fifth carbon budget being set. I very much look forward to hearing some strong words from the Minister stating that that is still the Government’s intention: that a decarbonisation target will be set in 2016 once we have that fifth carbon budget in place.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Deben, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, we lack a moment of clarity to help shake people’s investment decisions beyond 2020. We have renewable targets to 2020, as part of the European renewables directive, but beyond 2020 there is big uncertainty as to what low-carbon technologies, if any, will be supported by the Government. Therefore, there needs to be a framework. Why I like the idea of a decarbonisation obligation on the Government and on suppliers is because it does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, which is to create a market-based system.
I often find myself wondering whether I am Alice who has stepped through the looking glass. Here we are in a world where the Government—a Conservative Government—are presiding over virtually the renationalisation of the energy system. There is no element of the energy system that is not now reliant on the Secretary of State to sign a contract of some sort or another, perhaps with the possible exception of some of the interconnectors, but even there it is quite highly regulated. Now any new clean capacity needs to be signed off by the Secretary of State with a contract for difference, and all the existing capacity receives capacity payments also through the Secretary of State’s gift. Here we are, very oddly, presiding over pretty much a state-run energy system, and here I am on the Labour Benches saying that we need a much more market-based system that allows more choice and for capital to flow to the most cost-effective ways.
It is an odd situation but that is where we are. So I press the Minister to help us to understand whether the Government share our objective, which is to move towards a slightly less interventionist system with more ability for a broader set of players to dictate how we meet our targets, which means the Government setting the framework, and being clear about our objectives, but allowing a wider pool of people to find those solutions for us at least cost.
Amendment 35A is an interesting idea which proposes that rather than the Government taking on the obligation and the target, they should be passed down to the supply companies. It has some merit. It is worth noting that suppliers have been obliged to report on the carbon intensity of their electricity supply for some years now. They have a fuel disclosure requirement and an infrastructure and reporting mechanism that enables them to do that with certificates of origin. That enables them to calculate the carbon intensity of their electricity annually and report to Ofgem. Those numbers then probably sit on a website or in a document. Very little attention is paid to them, which is a great shame because we are encouraging these data to be collected but doing very little with them. If we were to look at those numbers, sadly we would see that carbon intensity has remained stubbornly similar over the past decade. We did very well in decarbonising when we had the dash for gas and replaced a lot of our old coal, but since then carbon intensity has just moved around, largely dictated by commodity prices where gas prices are higher than coal or vice versa. So there has not really been a grip on carbon intensity.
An obligation such as this would address that problem and mean that the full range of decarbonisation options, including fuel switching and phasing out of coal, would be incentivised in the most logical way forward. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He and I have worked previously on the phasing out of coal and the use of performance standards to make sure that our old coal, in particular, is phased out in an orderly and certain way so that we can make room for clean investment. A decarbonisation obligation would help us to ensure that that transition out of coal took place. It is not the only way it can be done, but it would be a market-friendly way to meet the obligation because there would be an incentive not to purchase the coal that would count against the target. It would help to make it harder to hit the targets. The other benefit is that it would help renewables to stand on their own two feet and compete alongside other technologies. We would genuinely see which are both affordable and able to be supported by the general public.
Energy Bill [HL]
Lord Deben Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long because what I wanted to say has been said much more eloquently by my noble friend Lady Worthington and by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Oxburgh. To echo the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, giving us some indication of the reference points in previous energy legislation really would make life a lot easier for all of us.
My primary point is that this is an opportunity for some lateral thinking. For those of us who have been listening to the trailers for Jim Naughtie’s programme about the North Sea over a period of 40 to 50 years of exploration, it is astonishing to recognise the change that has taken place just in the past two to five years, or slightly longer. The major change has been that many of the larger oil companies have reduced their footprint in the North Sea and we have seen the entry of a number of independents. As the Wood report set out the case for setting up a regime of collaboration, it is important to bear in mind that for the independents, who are competitors one with another, it can be harder to get that degree of co-operation at the moment, when the North Sea is becoming more difficult. So would it not make sense to review where we are in a year’s time to make sure that we do not have to have yet another energy Bill before both Houses? The change is phenomenal, and we must be prepared for it at every opportunity.
I greatly admire the work of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, on carbon capture and storage. It is the holy grail for this country, which has so much fossil fuel. I am very concerned about the environmental impact of the continuing use of fossil fuels, but I am also concerned about security of supply issues. The flexibility that fossil fuels can give us when there is a potential security of supply crisis is very important, and we will take a lot of the sting out of the tail if we have operational carbon capture and storage.
This is not a political issue—it should not be a partisan issue across this House. This is a common-sense group of amendments that allows us a bit of lateral thinking and allows us to make legislation at a time when considerable change is still going on, not just in the UK continental shelf but across the energy industry.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. I echo the words of the noble Baroness that this is not a party-political issue but is much wider than that.
As was clearly shown by my noble friend, we live at a time in which the issue of energy, in particular oil and gas, is changing so fast that we have to be extremely careful that we do not set up systems that are not capable of easing alteration to meet new circumstance. It may be that the major Amendment 1, which was proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, is not something that the Government will wish to be tied to; the particular time and so on might well be better expressed. However, I hope that the Government will take seriously the need to have within this legislation the means whereby this House can address the speed with which these things are changing and have the opportunity to make such alterations as become necessary—because we all know that however well one writes legislation, it is surprisingly easy to move to a situation in which you wonder why on earth you did not put that in, or why on earth that was not there.
Secondly, it would be very odd to produce legislation that did not allow specifically for the transportation and storage of greenhouse gases. This will not change in the future; it is central at the present time. The Committee on Climate Change has advised the Government of the importance and centrality of carbon capture and storage for many of the reasons that have already been addressed. However, the noble Baroness was right to say that there may well be an interim period in which we will need to use more fossil fuels than we would like, and the only way we can do that without having a damaging effect on the climate is of course by using carbon capture and storage. Britain has a leadership role in that and has already committed significant amounts of money to seek to ensure that we can do it. It would be simply odd to produce a Bill at this moment without enabling ourselves specifically to talk about carbon capture and storage.
Thirdly, it is important that this is in the Bill itself. I spent a long time as a Minister—some 16 years—and one thing I learned very rapidly was that it is very easy for institutions to say, “It’s nothing to do with us because it isn’t in the Act; that’s not where our responsibility lies”. I remember very nearly having a stand-up row with the person who was then responsible for the gas industry, because what should be done seemed so obvious, and she was determined to say that she could not do it because it was not in the Act. I thought that with a bit of imagination she would be able to do it, but that is a different issue. I do not want the need for imagination to be required here. It is one of the rarest talents and therefore it is a quite a good idea to make sure that we put into the Bill the ability—and also insist that it is part of the responsibility—of the new institution.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, perhaps I may first pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington on the impact assessment. It is only by splitting the impact assessment between the parts of the Bill dealing with oil and gas, and those dealing with wind, that we are able to publish tomorrow the impact assessment relating to the Oil and Gas Authority. I will update the Committee on Wednesday on where we are on the wind issue and on the dialogue about grace periods.
I thank noble Lords for the amendments and for the non-partisan way in which points have been made. I do not think there is a material difference—certainly not from the speeches I have heard today—between the Government’s position on the importance of CCS and points made by noble Lords today. The best way forward might be if I go through where we stand at the moment in relation to the various amendments, and where we might be by Report.
My noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Howell, the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington and Lady Liddell, and various others spoke about the non-partisan nature of getting it right on energy for this country and for the planet—that is a very useful way forward and we certainly have a shared interest in it.
Let me address the pot pourri of amendments in this group. On Amendment 1, I acknowledge that it is important that regulatory measures be kept under review and for Parliament to be informed of the outcome of such activities. I also acknowledge the point made about the rapid nature of change in this area and in many other areas.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would require a review to be undertaken within one year—rather than the six months that she mentioned; perhaps I misunderstood her—of the coming into force of Clause 2. Neither I nor the department think that such a period is sufficient to enable an effective review of the Oil and Gas Authority’s activities, it being a new body in a new area. For this reason, I am not able to accept the amendment. However, the noble Baroness and others have raised interesting and valid points about a review which my officials are already considering, and we will return to this topic on Report. I hope that that addresses the immediate concerns. It is clear that we need to see how the legislation is working, how effective it is and whether there may be a need for a touch on the tiller or more. I accept that there is some need to look at how the legislation is working.
I thank those noble Lords who spoke to Amendments 3 and 23, which are significant and would extend the maximising economic recovery principal objective and, in the case of Amendment 3, the subsequent strategy to include transportation and storage of carbon dioxide. I accept that CCS is central to what we are seeking to do on decarbonisation, but I reassure noble Lords that things are happening—it is not as though we are not doing anything on this issue. The Office of Carbon Capture and Storage is already committed to comprehensive programmes on CCS, perhaps the most comprehensive anywhere in the world, to support the commercialisation of the technology and develop the industry.
My noble friend Lord Howell mentioned Norway, which is indeed important. However, Canada—where it is working on a commercial basis—is especially important in this context. Officials from DECC are going out to look at this on a fairly regular and sustained basis.
It is not as though no work is happening on carbon capture and storage. We are committed to a competition with up to £1 billion capital—that is current, and we will make an announcement on it early in 2016—plus operational support for large carbon capture and storage projects and a £125 million research and development and innovation programme. That is already happening.
I accept that we need to ensure that this dovetails with the work done by the Oil and Gas Authority. From my study of it, the Wood review—I accept that things move very quickly—said only two things about CCS, which perhaps illustrates how quickly it is moving, and both those are being picked up. The review suggested that the Oil and Gas Authority should work with industry to develop a technology strategy that will underpin the UK strategy of maximising economic return, and should include enhanced oil recovery and carbon capture and storage. A draft is already being prepared on that, and it is going to happen. Page 49 of the Wood review goes on to say that the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage should continue to work closely with the Oil and Gas Authority and oil and gas licensees,
“to examine the business case for the use of depleted reservoirs for carbon storage and possibly EOR”—
or enhanced oil recovery. That, too, will be happening. I am sure that that provides some reassurance to the noble Lords who raised this issue.
If I may, I will come back to the purpose of the Bill, which seeks to incorporate all the key proposals of the Wood review into legislation. The Wood review has therefore to some extent tested and explored the new regime envisaged for the oil and gas industry, and the justifications for such changes are set out in the document. There has been no such exploration of how such an extension would affect carbon capture and storage, so I believe that more time is needed to consider fully how the OGA can take forward its role—it does have a role—in supporting carbon capture and storage.
Lord Deben
Would it not therefore be valuable if we give the new authority specifically the powers to do precisely that, rather than say that we will work on it and then do it? After all, if we give it those powers, work on it, and then find that it is not necessary, it will not do any harm. I always wonder why we do not do the things that will not do any harm when they might do some good.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
As my noble friend I think knows, I am always in favour of doing things that would do good and against things that would do harm. Therefore, I will, I hope, be coming on to some points that may provide some reassurance.
Amendments at this stage could cause delays to the strategy that is set out in the Wood review and the legislation enabling the Oil and Gas Authority to carry out the vital functions that we have set out in regulating and stewarding the United Kingdom continental shelf. That said, the Oil and Gas Authority will have a key role in relation to carbon capture and storage. It will issue carbon dioxide storage site licences and approve carbon dioxide storage permit applications. We are also considering—this is important—how carbon capture and storage may be considered as part of a proposed decommissioning plan. The Oil and Gas Authority will take into account the viability of utilising captured carbon dioxide in enhanced oil recovery projects. I am very happy to engage with noble Lords between Committee and Report, along with officials, to see how we can do that. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
In addition, the transfer and storage of carbon dioxide is an important technology, which is why it is likely to form a key element of the technology and decommissioning sector strategies that will be developed by the Oil and Gas Authority in consultation with industry. These strategies will help to underpin the overarching strategy related to maximising economic recovery. I can therefore reassure noble Lords that we are certainly open to looking at how we move this forward, but I do not want to give the impression that we will change the principal thrust of the primary object of the Act, which is to maximise economic recovery. Certainly, we can explore ways of seeing how we can ensure that carbon capture and storage is incorporated within the remit of the work done by the Oil and Gas Authority.
I hope that I have covered the key points. One point was made by my noble friend Lord Oxburgh and echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, which as a Minister I have much sympathy with. That is making sure that we have some clear reference points on legislation. I hope that we can let noble Lords have that because it is a point well made in this area as no doubt in many others—taxation, company law and pensions spring to mind as just three areas that would benefit very clearly. With my assurance that we are happy to look at how we can move this forward on both of the points made—a timely look at the legislation and how we can ensure that carbon capture and storage is not forgotten, and we certainly do not intend that it should be—I hope that the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw her amendment.
Climate Change
Lord Deben Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Baroness will be aware that the green economy is growing and, at the same time, there is a lowering of the carbon economy within the United Kingdom. This is a very favourable sign, which exhibits the point made by Sir Nicholas Stern and his committee. Clearly, many businesses have signed up to the importance of tackling climate change, as the noble Baroness will be aware.
Lord Deben
Does my noble friend accept that the largest problem is that the Government have no plans for continuing the advantages for renewable energy and the like after 2020? We need to have clear pathways as quickly as possible because, unlike my noble friend, I think the science shows that we will reach 2 degrees much more quickly than he suggests.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I agree that there is an urgent need to look at the renewables programme. My noble friend will be aware that there is a new department and that we are all in new roles, but we are looking at the issue urgently.
Wales Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his amendment and for the flexibility that he has just expressed. As he says, we have now achieved critical consensus in support of a reserved powers model, which is a result of the growing esteem in which the reputation of the Welsh Assembly is held and the maturing of time.
I think that it now strikes almost everybody—I hope that it strikes the coalition Front Bench—that it is a matter of simple equity between Wales and Northern Ireland and Scotland that devolution should be reconfigured for Wales so that it is on a reserved powers basis. That must make pragmatic sense because it is highly undesirable that questions of policy jurisdiction should have to be resolved in the courts. This is a policy for which the time is ripe. Whether it will be precisely ripe in six or nine months’ time is something that we can consider, but the noble Lord is drawing attention to a matter upon which we should now seek to precipitate universal agreement.
I was fascinated by the historical excursion of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon and I would demur in only one respect. It is presumptuous for me to do so, given his vast experience of these matters, but I am apprehensive about his proposal for the scope and make-up of a constitutional convention. It has suddenly become very fashionable to favour a constitutional convention, since the dramatic and very difficult events that occurred in Scotland—indeed, in the United Kingdom—only a few weeks ago.
I am not against a constitutional convention, and I think it would be a good idea to have senior politicians as members of such a convention along with academics who are deeply expert in these matters, constitutional lawyers, appropriate representatives of civil society and so forth. However, I think it would be a very bad idea for party leaders to be members of such a convention. They would be prudent to keep their distance from the convention, because the problem for a convention is that, toil as it will and wise as its members may be, almost certainly they will get it wrong. As my noble friend acknowledged, the Kilbrandon royal commission was inconclusive. I think he even said of himself and his colleagues and partisans in that Labour Cabinet, “In the event we were proved wrong”.
The complexity and scale of potential constitutional change is such that even the wisest are most unlikely to hit upon a blueprint for the future of our constitution that will prove as universally beneficial as they hope and stand the test of time. Even the preternatural wisdom of those who met at Philadelphia seems now to be tested by events. Many people consider that the constitution of the United States of America has become pretty dysfunctional. Well, it has served its purpose very well for a very long time. But there are many other instances of constitutional conventions that have started off in a blaze of optimism and ended in a blaze of political destruction, so we should be very cautious about this. Constitutional change occurs most benignly when it is incremental and incrementalism has been the approach for constitutional change in Wales.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, proposes one more phase of incrementalism. It invites us all to acknowledge that the moment has come for devolution to be reconstituted on a reserved powers model. Let us be content with that as we think further and feel our way forward on some of the more difficult aspects of all of this.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise because I feel that there ought to be an examination of what the noble Lord has just said. I am very unhappy about this amendment although I agree with it in terms of the next increment. I just think that we are fumbling around in constitutional discussions without taking things in the round. It is all right talking about increments but there has been no constitutional incrementalism as far as England is concerned. That is our problem and we ought not to allow ourselves to continue with these bits—a bit here, a bit there—with no real consideration of the totality of the United Kingdom.
We are fumbling in the dark and I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept this amendment, not just because of the time but because I hope she will go back to the coalition Government and say that, although it may be tough, there comes a moment in a nation’s life when it has to consider what its constitution ought to be as a whole, not just in bits, and what happens to the other bits when you change some of them. We must face up to it. I know it is not going to be perfect and I know it is going to be very difficult but if the choice is between randomness and trying to work something out, I am in favour of rationality. I want people to think this through and try to discover what the balance ought to be.
As the son of a Welsh-speaking father I have some reason to congratulate the Welsh people on the way in which devolution has worked in the Principality. I am not speaking against this because I do not think that it should continue; I am merely saying that the United Kingdom matters too much for it to be left—
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am most grateful. I am very much in sympathy with what my noble friend is saying. Does he agree with me and others that a royal commission might well be the answer here?
Lord Deben
Well, it would seem the obvious answer, but the real question is that the United Kingdom matters too much for it to be the result of a series of random decisions about each bit of it. We ought to start the other way round.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does the noble Lord not agree that if it were not for the pressure for change in Scotland and Wales in particular, and perhaps in Northern Ireland, England would do nothing? Therefore, if we do not have that pressure, there is no incentive. Rationality is all very well, but you need to do something.
Lord Deben
I quite agree with my noble friend, but that pressure is there. It has been there, and it has meant that we have had to do things. I have always believed that we should have worked this out rationally before we were pressurised into it, but pressurised we have been. It is not going to stop now. Let us make the answer rational. Let us not just say that we will add another bit here and another bit there and hope that the result is something sensible. I believe the moment has come to grasp this nettle, not to say that it is too difficult. Let us do it as well as we can. It will not be perfect, but I suggest to the noble Lord that it is more likely to be closer to perfect if it has been thought through rather than if it happens accidentally.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate until I heard the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I shall make two points. First, he is absolutely right that the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole needs a good looking at. There is no question about that. It needs looking at rationally, sensibly and at a very high level. Therefore, I have for a long time been in favour of some kind of convention or royal commission which would do precisely that task. That is one issue.
The other issue is what you do about Wales now. You cannot mix the two up and pretend that the Welsh issue is not an issue that has to be dealt with before the royal commission begins to sit. The position with the Welsh Assembly at the moment is that it has—to use the noble Lord’s phrase—an irrational system whereby it is entitled to legislate. I would have thought that the noble Lord would agree that perhaps some rationality should be brought into the Welsh system. You would then at least have conformity between Wales and Scotland.
The relationship between the devolved Administrations and the centre is precisely the issue that then has to be looked at by a royal commission when it comes to consider the constitution as a whole. I do not think you can just pretend that the situation in Wales does not really exist and wait for the deliberations of a royal commission, which may take some time, as they usually do, and when it reports, the report usually takes a long time to be properly considered. I think there is a distinction there.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, far be it from me to intervene in a discussion among the representatives of the people of Wales on their devolution, but I wanted to make an observation. As someone who was involved in negotiating a reserved powers model some years ago, I can tell noble Lords that it is not the Valhalla that they expect it to be; it has its downsides as well as its upsides.
I wanted to comment on some of the remarks from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. First, on the consistency issue throughout the United Kingdom, I do not think that it will be achievable to have an entirely consistent model everywhere. Indeed, why should we necessarily have one? The famous vow issued immediately before the Scottish referendum had a section in it that almost supersedes devolution, by almost implying that the Scottish Parliament will be a totally free-standing and permanent institution that is not in future perhaps capable of being legislated over by this Parliament. That is one interpretation of the vow.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a significant point when he said that the people of England may feel left out of the constitutional debate. There is quite a bit of substance in that, but I point out to him that it is the Government who have brought forward in this year alone the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which brought more powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the Scotland Act, which gave more powers to Scotland—and now they are bringing forward the Wales Bill. Parliament can respond only to the legislation that the Government of the day bring on to the Floor of the House—and it is the Government who are bringing forward these Bills.
Lord Deben
The noble Lord is saying what I said—that this is how it is being approached and I think that it should be approached in a different way.
Lord Empey
The noble Lord will get no argument from me on that. How we are going about our business is a tragedy in many respects. Obviously, this Government have tried hard on the economic front, and so on, to help us recover, but their Achilles heel has been how they have dealt with constitutional matters. This is only part of it; there are other examples from the earlier days of the coalition Government, when things were brought forward that were not successful. So there is no question that we need to get a grip. There are those with much more parliamentary experience than me—and, whether it is through conventions or royal commissions, we have got to get a grip on this.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the Lord Chairman of Committees, is in his place. The question of how this Parliament relates to the devolved institutions has not been satisfactorily resolved. The Minister will know that on a number of occasions I have raised issues about the fact that the Sewel convention operates in a particular way; it was a product of its time. By removing this House from anything to do with the day-to-day running of the devolved regions is a mistake. It was a historic mistake in my own part of this country because, if Parliament had had some engagement between 1920 and the late 1960s, we might not have ended up in the position we were in. Noble Lords should not believe that it is not possible for something similar to happen in Scotland, Wales or any other form of devolution. This Parliament cannot absent itself, because it is voting on how the resource, in very large measure, will be dispensed by these devolved Administrations.
In our devolution debates, I said that there was a risk that the devolved institutions would become giant ATM machines, and that local people would see all this money flowing out and the local politicians all at it, cutting the tape. I am sure that the Minister has had her day of glory doing that, as did many of the rest of us who were devolved Ministers. The fact is, if we run out of money or do not have enough, as is the position at home, the evil Westminster Parliament is to blame. We cannot have our cake and eat it, so there is an issue to be resolved on how the people of England are dealt with. They are becoming frustrated and angry, which cannot be right. That cannot be good for the United Kingdom.
I also just observe on this amendment that, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has already conceded, the six-month deadline is neither practicable nor realistic. I am sure that he will bring forward proposals to amend that in due course.
The Government are continuing to introduce these Bills, and they are being brought forward in a totally independent process from looking at the wider constitutional issues. The more Bills on devolution, the less consistent the United Kingdom becomes. That only exacerbates the position of the people of England, which must be resolved. It is entirely inconsistent that the regions get these powers, if indeed that is what they want; if anybody thinks that the people of Northern Ireland are queuing up for more powers, with the sole exception of corporation tax, I have to say that that is not our position. On the idea that we have income tax powers devolved to Stormont, for instance, I do not particularly look forward to paying 99p in the pound. I think that is where we would end up. At the moment, I believe that the incremental process is the right model to follow. I hope that we get off the blocks, whatever we do in England, but things cannot be left as they are. I think that everybody knows that.
Justice and Security Bill [HL]
Lord Deben Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment in much the same way as it was presented. In other words, I can understand that these may not be the words which the Government could accept, but some definition is essential and I can give a personal example of how I believe that to be so. During the time when I was in the other House, I sought to establish, for constituency reasons, the precise details of why a number of aeroplanes flew over my constituency to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. The information was available in detail in the United States. As I got nearer and nearer by asking a series of questions, I was told that I could ask no more questions because the Prime Minister had decided that it was a matter of national security not to tell me the terms under which these flights took place. It was very difficult to accept that because I could read in the American papers exactly what had happened, but evidently it was not something that could be given to me as a Member of Parliament in this country about something which had happened from this country, which had been an outrage and which was based upon false information provided by the American security services.
I am one of those who voted against the Iraq war on the basis that I did not believe what the Prime Minister was telling me—or rather I thought he told me more than he knew, which is perhaps a more polite and parliamentary way of putting it. One reason why I did was that I had learnt—as the French say—to méfier when it came to such a firm statement that it was about national security. We have gone through a period in which these words have been used more to avoid embarrassing comments and questions than to fulfil their important role of protecting our lives and those of our servicemen. I do not think that anybody could accuse me or my noble friend Lord Hodgson of being other than clearly on the side of the right, in more senses than one, so we are not likely to wish to undermine national security. However those of us who take that view have an important role in making sure that it is not misused, as it so often is. In this House we have a series of examples when, because of public outcry, we legislate in all sorts of areas, saying that there is a greater national good which overcomes the normal concerns. At no time is that more important than when we have a great concern about terrorism.
If we look back into history, some of the biggest losses of freedom have taken place in defence of national security and in the prevention of terrorism. In a sense, it is not for those who always dislike the forces of law and order to fight this battle; it is for those of us who are instinctively and almost by DNA on the side of the forces of law and order to explain why we are worried when this sort of thing happens. I have four children. One was taking a dog for a walk when it stopped—as dogs do—on the other side of Whitehall from Downing Street. While the dog fulfilled its purpose, a policeman approached my child and said that he should move on. My child politely said: “The dog is just about to finish”. The policeman said: “If you don’t, I’ll arrest you under the Prevention of Terrorism Act”. My child was intelligent enough to say: “I do not think, officer, that you can do that, but if you just let the dog finish”. It was only through the intervention of a senior officer that there was not what I might call “an incident”.
I know that this does not happen widely but it is very easy to use these phrases as though they help in these discussions. That is why I want a definition. “National security” is far too wide a phrase. It may be that we need to extend it from this, but I hope that the Government will take seriously the fact that the time when we are most concerned with terrorism is when freedom needs to be protected. It is now that we have to take these measures and make sure that we are not giving future Home Secretaries, Prime Ministers and the like the ability to use ill worded phrases to do things that, both in prospect and in retrospect, would do a great deal of harm.
Scotland Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I am surprised that there is not more interest in this important piece of legislation. This amendment is very straightforward. If my noble and learned friend is not able to accept it, I hope that at least he will be able to give an undertaking that the substance of it will be adopted by the Government.
It is perfectly apparent that the Government do not intend to use the Scotland Bill to provide for the forthcoming referendum on independence. As my noble and learned friend has made clear, the preferred procedure is to use a Section 30 order, but subject to the important conditions that such a referendum taken forward by the Scottish Parliament would be regulated and run by the Electoral Commission, and that there should be a single question.
This amendment is concerned with what happens in the run-up to the referendum. I take it that if my noble and learned friend is not successful in persuading the Scottish Government of the need to move forward on a Section 30 basis, they will bring forward a Bill in the next Session of Parliament to provide for a referendum. No doubt the date of that referendum would be decided at that point.
It is important that we have an informed debate within the United Kingdom as a whole and Scotland in particular. So far the debate has all been about process, about who is going to set the question and what the question should be. This is an important question. It concerns the future of the United Kingdom as a whole, and will have an immense impact on people in ways that many people, including myself, have not even thought of.
This amendment asks the Government for a clear undertaking that every single government department will set out in a Green Paper, in objective—not political—terms, what the consequences of independence would be and what issues would need to be addressed. There are large-scale issues that are obvious, such as what would happen to our nuclear deterrent given that the Scottish Government are opposed to nuclear material being on Scottish soil, and the costs and employment consequences of that. There are also issues about public sector pensions as Scotland, because of its long tradition of public service, has a disproportionately large number of people involved in public service.
In the field of banking and finance, the Treasury should indicate what would happen to organisations like the Royal Bank of Scotland; for example, how could it possibly meet its requirements for raising capital in an independent Scotland? What would happen on the currency? What would happen on the role of the Bank of England? How would we avoid a Greece-like situation?
In the Department of Energy and Climate Change, what would happen in respect of the interconnectors and how would the so-called green policy of being entirely dependent on renewables work in an independent Scotland? It might be cheaper for England to buy its electricity from France, which is generated by nuclear, than from Scotland, where the whole business model for the Scottish Government’s green agenda depends on being able to add to the bills of English, Welsh and Northern Irish consumers.
Those are some examples; I could go on but I have no desire to spin out the debate today because I know people are anxious that we should conclude these proceedings as speedily as possible. But if we leave it to campaigners and politicians to exchange perhaps not entirely well informed arguments, the public will tire and the very serious consequences of the disintegration of the United Kingdom, of the balkanisation of Britain, will be lost sight of.
If I were in my noble and learned friend’s place, I would say, “I am not sure that it is necessary to put this in the Bill”. I accept that, but we should have an undertaking that every government department and its executive agencies will set out the implications for their policies and planned expenditure, so that people go into this with their eyes wide open, and the separatists who advocate breaking up Britain have to explain how they would address these issues. At the moment, people are going round saying that it is up to us to make a positive case for the United Kingdom. I reject that. It is up to those who propose change to explain how they will maintain the benefits that we all enjoy as part of the United Kingdom, wherever we live and whatever our political convictions.
Lord Deben
Does my noble friend agree that this is absolutely crucial for those who are not Scottish as well as for the Scottish? Many in England feel that they need to understand exactly what the consequences are and unfortunately up to now they have had no such opportunity, which is why his amendment is so important.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I look at this from a Scottish perspective and I should have given more emphasis to that. He is absolutely right. This will have huge implications for people in England as well as Scotland. I find it very difficult to see how we could keep our role and influence in the United Nations, for example, if the United Kingdom was broken up. I think our country would be seen to be greatly diminished internationally. I do not quite know how it would work, given that the Scottish nationalists are opposed to our membership of NATO. Most countries are queuing up to try to get in to NATO, but this lot want to leave NATO. What is the position of our armed services, whose dedication fills everyone in the country with admiration?
Scotland Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very useful and informative debate. There are clearly issues that go to the core of the referendum issue and what shape a Section 30 order might take. Before I address those points, it might be helpful if I pick up some of the more specific points that were raised, not least in the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Caithness.
In many respects, his amendments proceed on the proposition that in the event of Scotland voting for independence there should be a subsequent referendum of the whole United Kingdom to ratify it. I certainly take the view, which was expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Reid, that, to use the words of Sir Malcolm Rifkind—if it was he who coined them—“If you want to leave the club, the other members shouldn’t really stop you”. Therefore, it is not a tenable position to suggest that if Scotland were to vote for independence, there should be a subsequent vote in the United Kingdom as a whole. In that sense, the subsequent vote of the people of Orkney and Shetland and the position of Rockall would not arise.
That said, my noble friend has raised an important issue. He gave us the history of Orkney and Shetland’s association as part of Scotland and, subsequently, the United Kingdom, having previously belonged to the Danish kingdom. The Government fully acknowledge the distinct community view of the people in the northern isles. This has been an important feature of previous debates on the Scottish constitutional position. The famous Grimond amendment on the position of the isles was taken through by my predecessor as MP for Orkney and Shetland, Jo Grimond. It led indirectly to the establishment of the Montgomery committee by the late George Younger when he was Secretary of State to look at the position of the islands’ communities. In the debates on the 1997 referendum, distinct issues were raised on the position of Orkney and Shetland. When the Scottish Parliament was established, I was able to ensure through its Standing Orders that a policy memorandum should address the implications of policy for Scotland’s island communities. I also recall that, in the 1987 general election, the Scottish National Party stood down in favour of a candidate from the Orkney and Shetland Movement, who stood on a platform of self-determination.
Since this issue clearly attracts attention, consideration and debate in the islands, we take as our starting point that we very much hope and believe that Scotland would not vote for independence and, therefore, that the position would not arise. For those eligible to vote in Scottish Parliament elections in Orkney and Scotland, our preference would be that that should be the franchise for the referendum. They will have the opportunity to express their views in the same way as those eligible to vote elsewhere in Scotland. As such, we do not see the need at present to treat residents of any particular part of Scotland differently from those elsewhere in the country when it comes to the consequences of the referendum result.
I can assure my noble friend and the Committee that I always listen carefully to the views of the people of Orkney and Shetland. I am in regular dialogue with those who represent them in both this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. If they choose to make a case for formal constitutional recognition of their social, cultural and economic distinctiveness, I will certainly listen with care and respect. The coalition Government have a very soft spot for and pay great attention to the people of the northern isles.
Rockall is administered by the Western Isles Council under the jurisdiction of Scots law. The amendment, which seeks to change the original Island of Rockall Act 1972, could sow confusion. We do not believe that any of the issues raised by the various approaches to the United Nations about the continental shelf in any way change the United Kingdom’s ownership of Rockall. However, we would possibly be in an anomalous position if there was independence and the amendment went through, since the Act would assert that Rockall was no longer part of Scotland but it would be administered by a Scottish local authority. I am sure that is not what my noble friend intended but he has raised an important issue. The United Kingdom Government are clear that Scotland is stronger in the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom is stronger with Scotland in it. Although there is no one on Rockall to vote, we are sure that it, too, will remain part of the United Kingdom.
I say to my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have a completely different constitutional history and relationship from that of Orkney and Shetland and, indeed, Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, pointed out that Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man have never sent Members of Parliament to Westminster. Therefore, their constitutional position is somewhat different.
I have listened carefully to the points made in the wider and more general debate. I certainly found it valuable to hear the different views expressed, although there was considerable consensus among them. As I have set out, the Government believe that it is right that there should be a single-question referendum to address Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. We have set this out in our consultation paper and have sought views on it. The responses that we have received roundly support this position. Over the coming days and weeks, we will continue to assess in full the detailed arguments made in response to that consultation.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Forsyth seeks to provide a referendum on independence, to be run by Westminster. It was supported by my noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Caithness. I made it clear that we would not look to use the Bill to deal with a referendum. As we made clear on page 19 of our consultation document, the future of devolution and independence are two entirely separate constitutional issues. The Bill is concerned with the former—the future of devolution—not the latter. It would not be in anyone’s interests to confuse the two issues. Amending the Bill to deal with independence would risk that confusion.
As I have indicated, and as has been widely recognised, our clear preference is that a Section 30 order, agreed between Governments and approved by both Parliaments, should be used to give the Scottish Parliament competence to hold a referendum on independence. As I stated in my opening speech, that position is supported not simply by the volume of responses to our consultation but by a number of experts and key commentators, several of whom have already made their comments public. Professor Adam Tomkins of the University of Glasgow said:
“The section 30 solution is both the neatest and the most compelling solution available, not least because it offers to the Scottish Parliament the fullest possible say in the process”.
The Law Society of Scotland has said:
“The Society is of the view that the making of such an Order should remove doubt as to the question of legislative competence and for that reason it may be desirable that an Order be made”.
The response of CBI Scotland also makes that point. The Scottish Government themselves have accepted that a Section 30 order is the best way to remove what they acknowledge are doubts about the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence. With that weight of academic and legal support, support that goes much wider than that and the support expressed in your Lordships’ House, we are confident that we will reach an agreement with the Scottish Government on a Section 30 order.
I shall pick up some of the points that were made in dealing with this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, asked how we would determine a referendum on federalism across the United Kingdom if different parts produced different outcomes. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, answered that point very effectively. The debate demonstrates why we need a clear referendum on a single question about independence. There should be one question in a legal, fair and decisive referendum to settle this matter before we turn to consideration of any further changes to devolution across the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan raised the question of the referendum, the importance of the question that is asked and the use of the Electoral Commission. As set out in this Government’s consultation paper, our view is that any referendum held in the United Kingdom would be subject to normal rules on referendums as set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The commission would have responsibility for overseeing the conduct and regulation of the referendum independently of the Government. Since the Electoral Commission was created, it has overseen three referendums, which have followed the framework of the 2000 Act, and no minimum turnout or threshold has been raised. My noble friend referred to the question to be asked and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, suggested that it might be loaded. On the wording of the question, again it is our view that any question for a referendum on independence should be subject to the same rigour and the same rules as a question in any other referendum. It is the Government’s view that the Electoral Commission should fulfil the same role in reviewing the question as set out in Section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act.
My noble friend Lord Maclennan also asked—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, reiterated this but we are all interested in this—how this Parliament can continue to play a role in ensuring the content of any Section 30 order before it is formally put, and in ensuring that any question is fair, legal and decisive. We have made clear our view that a Section 30 order agreed between Governments and Parliaments is the best way to deliver a fair, legal and decisive referendum. Today’s debate is an important part of seeking views from this Chamber, just as the consultation paper allowed a wider input. It has been suggested that a draft should be made available before debates in this Chamber on any Section 30 order. As I indicated earlier, these are important and interesting suggestions that we will certainly consider further. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, understands that I cannot make any commitment on what will happen. However, I am sympathetic to the concept of identifying a means by which there can be further consideration, and indeed further accountability, on the part of Ministers who are negotiating these matters. We all have an interest in these matters and a part to play. It might be useful to engage with others in opposition and our colleagues in government to try to identify how best we might achieve that.
Lord Deben
I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way but does he accept that this is also very important for those of us who are not Scottish, and for the nation as a whole? We must feel that this decision, which will be made by the Scottish Parliament, is fair. I am not saying that we should have a say in it but we should understand the system. I hope he will ensure that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish are fully informed of the care with which this measure is being taken forward because there is a distinction between this decision and any decision that may be made subsequently on further devolution. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, on that are very important. However, we must make sure that the whole of the United Kingdom recognises that this process is fair, not just to the Scottish people but to the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I have considerable sympathy and support for what my noble friend says. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, was the first Peer to express a view on this matter who did not speak with a Scottish accent, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, also contributed to the debate. I am certainly acutely conscious—the Government are also acutely conscious of this fact—that although a referendum on independence is a matter for the people of Scotland to decide, nevertheless that process impacts on other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that this is a two-way process. I believe that Scotland is better off as part of the United Kingdom. I also believe that the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland being part of it. Therefore, other parts of the United Kingdom have a legitimate interest in this matter. A Section 30 order would have to come before your Lordships’ House, and indeed the House of Commons, for approval by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(13 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight
I should probably defer to the noble Lord, but I do not think that was a full answer to my mind to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, or to the whole issue of judges subsequently choosing to interpret the position with regard to the martyrs’ case. It seems perfectly possible in theory that there may be a House of Lords judgment which is perfectly valid and accepted at the time it is given, but subsequently manages to get twisted by the interpretation of particular judgments by noble Lords. I come back to the rather straightforward point, which is that from the point of view of those who wish to have this territory absolutely nailed, what is wrong with a belt and braces approach?
Lord Deben
I would not like it to be thought by your Lordships that those who were not lawyers disagreed with the lawyers. As a non-lawyer, it seems to me to be very clear that there is a good reason why we should not have the additional parts: it is misleading to have them. It suggests that the additional parts have the same validity and strength as the central issue of the 1972 Act. I would account it as the proudest moment of my parliamentary history when I voted for that Act—it was the moment when we achieved the thing that in all my young life I longed to achieve, which was the beginning of closer European unity, for which I have always stood. I do not want that Act to be removed from its pedestal place. It is the Act that says, very clearly, that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state, and from its sovereignty it grants this particular place for European legislation. Should at some future time a Government, in foolishness almost unimaginable, decide that they did not wish to continue with that Act this sovereign Parliament could, by repealing that Act, change the circumstances—and change them of its own strength, volition and powers.
This is a declaratory statement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that it is not necessary but given that it has been raised, it becomes necessary. Now that it is necessary it is crucial that it should be extremely clear. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has given a great opportunity to this House to unite around something which should not divide those on either side of the European divide, or indeed those in the general mishmash in the middle. The worry which I have—this is why I have become less happy in the mean time—is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised earlier: if the Government do not accept this as a reasonable matter, what is it that is hidden in that alternative? For this must be right and if it is not, the rest is wrong.
I shall say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. If his worry is a real one, he is worried by either of the statements before us. If his worry is a real one and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, got it wrong, the fact is that he would be wrong about the Government’s formulation as well. Although I therefore have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, he cannot defeat his problem by preferring the one against the other. To defeat his problem, he would have to initiate some extra bit to the Act to make it clear. I do not believe that is necessary but his intervention, although admirable, is really not about the division between these two formulations, so I pray that your Lordships’ House will support the amendment.
However, I would like it even more if the Government were to say that they thought, on balance, it would be better to go with what is clearly a widely held feeling in all parts of the House and with those who are in favour and those who are against our membership of the European Union.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, it does not matter a great deal whether the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, or that made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is correct. At the end of the day, it means not only that the European Communities Act 1972 made great inroads into our independence but that other Acts of Parliament have done exactly the same. However, through the machinery of Section 3 of the 1972 Act, the inroads are not permanent. They are as permanent as we wish them to be. It is very much the same as if we made a lease of part of our sovereignty, but a lease that we can recall and cancel at any time we so decide.
The only other matter that I would like to mention is the modesty with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, disassociated himself from the triumph of the 1972 legislation passing through the House of Commons. It is true that he did not draft the Bill, but he steered it with magnificent competence through the House. I remember the back-handed compliment which he had from the late Michael Foot, who said words exactly like these: “The honourable and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General has shown such nimbleness and adroitness as would make the great Houdini look like a helpless arthritic”.
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Well, of course, my noble friend is speculating. It is hard to believe that the other Chamber would bring forward proposals for the creation of a second House which would so hugely diminish its own powers by bringing in a new electoral system that would then be claimed in the second House to be more legitimate than that in the first; and for a period that was three times as long; for a House that was already widely recognised as being greater in its maturity and wisdom. That would be the greatest case ever of turkeys voting for Christmas.
Should such a proposal come forward, I think that many people in the House of Commons would be very reluctant to diminish their own position, particularly since they have just seen a campaign launched for changing the British constitution—this was the yes to AV campaign—on the basis that MPs were all lazy, cowardly laggards. I think that such a proposal would not be met with universal approval in the House of Commons. I say merely that, if by some mental aberration of that House, such proposals were brought forward and were to concern not only a subject for which one of the criteria had already been put to a referendum—that is, the voting system, which is elemental to the British constitution—but also the abolition of one of the Houses of Parliament and the diminution of the other, each of these individually would be reason for having a referendum. Taken together, there would be an absolutely compelling case for it. I am sure that the Minister in his straightforward fashion, and given that he is a man known for his neutral and objective position in all these matters, will be able to put this to his colleagues, up to and including the leader of his own party, bring it back and reassure us all on it.
Lord Deben
Is it not a common feature of the four examples that the noble Lord has suggested that a referendum can be argued for only when it changes the basis upon which those who would otherwise vote for it have been elected? I am personally opposed to referenda in all circumstances, but it could be argued that it is improper for people who are elected on one basis to make huge changes in their own interest and present that to the people. The four examples that he used have that commonality. Would it not be a good thing for Governments, oppositions and coalitions to think carefully before they bring before the Houses of Parliament such changes without a referendum built within them?
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill
Lord Deben Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Reckless is the word for it. As my noble friend Lord Bach was talking, I was sitting here and considering what the common factor was behind all this. It is the Deputy Prime Minister. I must choose my words carefully, but I do not think that he thinks in British terms. He thinks in terms of continental European constitutions and is moving our constitution inexorably towards some kind of continental European constitution, with fixed-term Parliaments, a different electoral system, and changing the composition of the second Chamber—all of this. Okay, that is the agenda, but is it a Conservative agenda? Is it one that all my friends on the Conservative Benches really feel in their guts, in their blood, their water or their instincts? Some of them are my friends—there are only three on the Back Benches at the moment but there were quite a few earlier. I am sorry, there are more; there are five of them. I missed the two distinguished Members perching in the corner. Do they really want this country to go that way?
Someone is shaking his head almost imperceptibly, but I can see it. I know that I am going well beyond the terms of the amendment. If someone with the powers of a Speaker of the House of Commons was in the chair, they would be drawing my attention to it. However, this is relevant, because we are going down a road which is really troubling me and should be troubling Members opposite even more.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible for us to imagine the state of mind of those on the other side who, having suggested AV, now consider this to be evidence of a plot. They themselves recognised that we should have a system whereby constituencies should be at least more or less the same size, which was why they stopped—it was they who did it—keeping a special factor to enable people in dispersed constituencies to have fewer Members of Parliament. It was a Labour decision to stop that. They now come to the House and argue that both things are unacceptable. Surely being fair is a Conservative concept. Should we not have constituencies of the same size? That seems to be a very Conservative principle.
Is it not also a Conservative principle to suggest that the public might make their own choices in these circumstances? It happens to be a Conservative principle with which I disagree. I do not believe in referenda and I never have believed in them. However, it is very curious that noble Lords opposite suggest there is something intrinsically un-Conservative in having a referendum. I do not understand that at all. There is something deeply wrong in referenda, but that does not mean that people who believe in them could not be Conservative.
Why are Labour Members making such a fuss about this matter? Could it possibly be that they are seeking with some real difficulty to find reasons why they should spend as much time as possible discussing these matters? I do not want to help them in that, so I will finish by saying one simple thing. I came to this House expecting and finding that there was, in many cases, a degree of quality in debate unfound in my 35 years in the House of Commons. I am very sad to find that during these recent Bills, those who have experience of the House of Commons and those who have been press-ganged into the little battle have used all the techniques which brought and bring the other House into such disrepute. I am very sorry that yet again on this Bill we have lowered ourselves to doing the kinds of things which are done elsewhere. It is a pity that we cannot look back on our traditions, even for someone as newly hatched as myself, and raise the standards again.
Lord Bach
Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. It is really just information that I seek. He says that it was the Labour Government who changed the rules to make it not possible for more rural seats to have a smaller electorate. I should be grateful if he could give us chapter and verse on that. As I understand them, the rules we work under now were passed under a Conservative Government in 1986 of which I think he was almost certainly a distinguished and leading member. We actually believe that those rules are well worth preserving.
Lord Deben
Perhaps I may reply to that. The change to the sparsity rules, continued in the 1986 arrangements, was brought in by the Labour Government, who argued that it was unfair that some constituents, because there was a smaller number of them in a constituency, would have a bigger vote than other constituents. All that is happening in this Bill is that we are repeating to the Labour Party something which it has long forgotten.
Lord Deben
I do not believe that I get upset as easily as the noble Lord thinks. All that I believe is true is that we tried for a consensus. What is happening now is the correction of a deeply offensive fact that some constituents have a much smaller vote than others, because of the retention of very small constituencies which ought not to be there.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am very surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is suggesting that the debates so far on the Bill have not been appropriate. If he reads Hansard, he will see that contributions from all around the House have been thoughtful, succinct and related to entirely appropriate matters that Parliament ought to be thinking about. I put it to him that the cynicism of the motivation of the coalition in yoking, as they have, the two main components of the Bill together is a sore provocation to us and might have tempted some of us to engage in wrecking tactics. The fact that we have not done so reflects very well on us.