Death of a Member: Lord Carrington

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, as the last Member here who was his fellow member of the 1979 Cabinet of Margaret Thatcher, I also want to say a word because he was a wonderful friend. I previously served under him when he was Secretary of State for Energy in the rather fraught conditions of the early 1970s and continued to work with him in the Cabinet of Mrs Thatcher in the equally fraught conditions of the late 1970s. He was a moderating influence. It is often said that Willie Whitelaw was the great moderating influence but, in fact, Peter Carrington was also a calming force in a frankly rather raucous and not very calm atmosphere in that Cabinet.

The Prime Minister was of course very frank and open and sometimes rather brutal with her colleagues, and she would begin a conversation by saying, “Foreign Secretary, I hear you’ve been suborned by your civil servants again in the Foreign Office—what a pity”, to which he would answer quite calmly, “Prime Minister I’m not sure that’s entirely fair”. I would not have been so calm, but that was how he controlled the otherwise difficult atmosphere in the Cabinet.

There has been no mention in the tributes, but after doing all those other things he went off to the west Balkans, I think as a representative of the United Nations to try to untangle some of the atmosphere there. He came back not embittered but quite convinced that most of the leaders in that region were on the verge of madness and certainly not people to be easily dealt with. But he was very realistic—he had some rather stronger words about them, which I do not intend to repeat here.

Finally, in his very later years, when I shared an office with him here, he had views about all the leaders of all the political parties. I am afraid that he did not have a very nice word for any of us. He thought that things had gone distinctly off the rails. But this was a lovely man who performed a vast service and was a great pleasure and amusement to be with. Of course, we will all miss him dearly.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I worked for Lord Carrington when I was very young, and it was really rather frightening. Here was I entering the Conservative Central Office, and there was this very distinguished man. I only want to say that he was immensely kind. That is the one thing that no one else has said. Throughout his life—and I knew him throughout his life, and lunched with him not very long ago—he was always kind to young people. He encouraged them, and you never felt other than that you were dealing with someone who cared about you. That is a truly remarkable quality in anyone, but in someone of such quality it is almost unique, and I would not like this House to complete its tributes without remembering his kindness.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, if Parliament voted to bring down the process—the whole confection the Government had worked on and negotiated over two years—it would not need a law, just a majority. Three or four years ago, Parliament voted against the Government’s wish to mount military action against Syria. No one wrote a statute saying that we must not fire cruise missiles at Bashar al-Assad and no one needs a statute here. A majority may well move against this. It is quite possible that, over the years, the media view may build up that this is unacceptable, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others have rightly reminded us. Some reversal may happen half way through. The Governments of France, Germany and Italy are all likely to change and turmoil is about to take place in the European continent. The people we are negotiating with may well change completely in the next 18 months. All this could happen and would change the approach totally. At that point, whoever can muster a majority in Parliament and form a Government—until they are overthrown—can and will have their say. That is called the sovereign role of Parliament. That is the reality. We are moving around ideas of statutes, which belong nicely in the world of law but not in the world of reality—of parliamentary procedure, parliamentary history, parliamentary action or parliamentary will when MPs really get going. It is a different world down there and that should be understood by the supporters of these amendments, which are unnecessary.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, this is not a debate which will be solved on the basis of this group of amendments. It is quite clear that we have to make an amendment to ensure parliamentary sovereignty. I remind your Lordships that we are only having this debate now because we had to go to court to insist upon having it. I remind your Lordships that it is not a proper way for Parliament to proceed via the courts. This happens in other countries without our history and without, I am afraid, the intrusion of Parliament. That phrase should be remembered. Parliament does not intrude when it makes a decision about the future of this nation.

We need to say to the Government that they cannot make a decision without it being put before Parliament in circumstances where Parliament is empowered to make that decision. It is perfectly happy for my noble friend to say, “Well, Parliament will do that anyway”, and “My goodness, we have been doing it all over the years” and all the rest of it—but we have not made a decision of this kind in these circumstances which can possibly be brought forward as a parallel. We have for the first time invented a system whereby we have asked the people for their decision. They have made a decision, but we do not really have a system by which we can naturally enforce and carry it through.

It is therefore perfectly proper for this House to seek the way that most defends parliamentary sovereignty. We do not work on the basis of “one man, one vote, once”. We try to accept what happened in the referendum. I admit, as this House knows, that I am a fierce opponent of Brexit—but that is not the point of this debate. The point of this debate is to stand up again for parliamentary sovereignty. My noble friends can say what they like about the details of the law, but they have to accept that we had to go to court to have the discussion. Therefore, they must also accept that this House ought to ensure that there is a copper-bottomed statutory protection for what the Prime Minister has promised in all good faith.

We also have to take seriously the issue of what happens if the Government decide that they do not like the solution that they have come to and therefore want to relapse into a WTO arrangement, or whatever it may be. If that happens, we will have to have a procedure by which both Houses of Parliament are able to make the decision. Why do the Government not want to do it? I do not understand this. I would have thought that the Government would have wanted to make sure that everybody accepts that this very difficult decision, based on a 52-48 vote and a good deal of misunderstanding on both sides, needs to have proper parliamentary procedure.

The only people who really oppose it—it is very difficult for me to say this, because I am always against lawyers, but I am much attracted to the proposals which we have just heard—and are really pressing for this not to happen are those newspapers that are determined to press their case, irrespective of what we will think in two years’ time. All I want to say is that I do not want to reverse, or fight, or stop what was in my view an entirely wrong decision. It has been made. But I remind us all that we are a parliamentary democracy and that it is necessary for Parliament to be sure that it has a proper say.

Finally, if we insist on this, we will also strengthen the hand of those who are trying to reach a solution which we can all accept and win the best solution for Britain, and will strengthen the hand of those who get up in this House and argue the case for it. We strengthen the hand of moderate, sensible people against those who appear to think that it does not matter how you do it as long as you do it. In that sense we will be asserting not only parliamentary sovereignty but the right of Parliament to insist that the case is put to Parliament and that Parliament is enabled to answer it.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Turning to the amendments, they are very generous and I congratulate my noble friend on bringing them forward, even though they are rather extensive. They are what we used to call in the other place “liquid legislation”; that is, legislation going through Parliament that all the time is massively amended so that it changes from day to day. The amendments are indeed extensive but also very generous. This is a very exciting industry, part of the great low-carbon renewables transformation in the world that most of us want to see. All around the world, costs not only for solar power, which we were discussing earlier in the Chamber, but for all forms of wind power, onshore and offshore, and all sorts of other associated technologies are coming down dramatically. Really amazing technological advances are being achieved.

I listened to the expert legal commentaries of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and I am all for speeding up the planning. However, it has to be remembered that what we are doing here is not legislating to stop all onshore wind. That is a vast industry that will continue and contribute to the energy transformation of the entire planet. What we are legislating for is to bring to a halt, with the various adjustments embodied in the amendments, further subsidy that falls upon consumers. This has to be weighed in the balance. We hear horrid stories about the closure of businesses; the Redcar steelworks is perhaps the most dramatic recent one. When you look at the small print, you find that one of the difficulties is that they are facing much cheaper imports from countries that are not carrying such heavy energy costs. We have to put that in the balance and not just ignore the other side of the argument. There are consumers and taxpayers, often poor households and consumers with very low incomes, at the other end of this process, and we cannot ignore their position.

In addition, it has to be remembered that many of the investors behind the projects we are talking about have not just entered into them entirely from the goodness of their hearts or because they want to save the planet. Investors enter into these great projects because they can make a profit, and I have nothing against that; that is excellent. Less excellent, however, is that they sometimes enter into them because the subsidies seem so juicy and attractive and they think that they are going to make exceptionally large profits. So I just say to my noble friend, and I am sure he would agree, that we should bring to an end—with these many concessions and in a very balanced way—this particular growth of additional subsidies. In future, let us make sure that investors in these industries understand, as I believe the wise ones do, that the projects that they want to go for are the ones that are really likely to be extremely profitable, particularly in Scotland, and very competitive with all other forms of energy. They should be careful if they think that they are just going to ride on an indefinite continuation of very large subsidies because Governments and policies change. Wise advisers to wise investors will always warn them that the best projects are those for which the subsidies are a minimal part of the reward, and the profitable and efficient operation of the industry itself, and the rapid adaption of new technology, are the larger part of the profit generated. In every case, we advise that subsidies can end.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, in discussing these amendments, it is worthwhile reminding ourselves of the enormous success of the system which the Government and their predecessor put into place. The fact that these prices have fallen significantly is in part—indeed, in very strong part—due to the encouragement that this Government and the previous Government have brought to play. Sometimes, we talk as if all this technological advantage has just happened because people have been clever. Actually, it has not: a market was created. Certainly, the successes of offshore wind have been achieved because people had a proper market, with a proper continuum, and were therefore able to invest.

I declare an interest as chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. Although I have to sit on one side or the other, that makes me entirely independent on these issues. The fact that we can talk about offshore wind being competitive now, in a way that we had never thought of, is entirely the result of the foresight of all three political parties in various assemblies putting this opportunity in place. Let us not just say that the technology has improved so wonderfully that it is now in this new position; it is actually a very good example of the relationship between government and the provision of opportunity by others. Any new technology has to compete in a world where there are enormous advantages for old technologies, because of the investment they had in the past and a whole range of subsidies that happen throughout the world. That is certainly true of the fossil fuel industries.

I point next to the fact that one of the reasons why the cost has risen is that these technologies are actually more efficient than we ever thought they were going to be. When the Committee on Climate Change proposed that it would cost us some £7.6 billion to ensure that we were on track to decarbonise our electricity supply, and therefore on track for meeting our statutory requirement to reduce our emissions by 80% by the year 2050, the then coalition Government accepted that amount. It is actually costing more than that, partly because of the fall in the gas price. The gas price affects this because of course a contract for difference takes place, so when the price of gas falls the additional cost comes back. However, it is also partly because offshore wind is immensely more efficient than we thought it would be. It is putting more energy into the grid, which costs us more because that is the deal we have done. So the background to these amendments is one of success, not failure. We are not having to do this because it has cost us more by being a failure; it is because it has been a success.

The amendments seem to go a very long way towards meeting the one legitimate argument that needs to be faced: the reasonable expectation on the part of business that if it invests, it will get certain advantages from the Government. The Committee on Climate Change is primarily concerned not with means but with ends. We are concerned with delivering the budgets to which the Government and Parliament are committed. Frankly, Governments have every right to make changes if they want to, as long as the changes end up in such a place that we are able to meet the requirements of the carbon budgets laid down by Parliament as a result of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change. So I am very leery of being led into a position of saying that this or that mechanism is the right one. However, I have to say that it is very important that business should not get the impression that promises made are broken.

That does not mean to say that if you subsidise people now, you will always be subsidising them. That is not true. Sometimes, when I listen to some of the green organisations, you would have thought that the moment you promise to do something, you are then going to do it for ever, and that somehow you are letting people down if you do not. That is also not so. All I am saying here is that there are two different issues. On the one hand is the right and ability of the Government to alter, extend or restrict the subsidy that they offer in the light of changed circumstances and, on the other, the duty of the Government to ensure that they meet fully the obligations into which they have entered.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I do not want to upset the usual eloquence of my noble friend but he did refer to me. Given that he believes these burdens are necessary, ought he not explain a bit more clearly how this really does lead, in this country, to fighting climate change? He says we must be careful with figures—that applies as much to some of his figures as to others that are bandied around—but it appears that the pace of CO₂ growth generated by mankind is so large in other parts of the world that our only contribution can be by example. I would love to hear from him a rather more persuasive message as to why we should bear the pain we are bearing at the pace we are bearing it, although the destination is right, in the contribution we are making to controlling climate change and violence in the future, which I accept is very likely and is a great danger. But has he got the pace right?

[Lord Deben]

I can see the Whip looking at me with some care so I will be very quick. First, we have a moral duty because much of the climate change that is happening at the moment has actually been caused by us because we were the first in the Industrial Revolution. Secondly, if we want other, much less well-off people to follow, we have to set an example. Thirdly, 11% of the emissions in the world are made by organisations that are headquartered or sold on the London Stock Exchange, so we must realise how big our reach is.

Fourthly, because we have led the world—although we do not now—other countries are now doing significantly more than we are. The President of South Korea is here on a visit today. She comes from a country that has a programme of very considerable remit which will end up with it being carbon-neutral by 2050. China is moving from a carbon-intensity target towards a carbon-reduction target for the mid-2020s. It has already been shown that by leading the world, the world is changing. But if we stand aside and say, “After you, Claude”, nothing will actually happen. That is why we have to do it. We do it for the poor. To use the poor as an argument against doing things on climate change seems close—although I am not saying this about my noble friend—to reprehensible.

Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend has missed the point. The danger of targets such as the one proposed now is that they distort investment decisions. It is not that they prevent all kinds of investment but that they distort investment decisions through their urgency and through their aim at a particular target, in ways that lead to counterproductive results. The results now before us are a growing hostility among the public to the higher prices that they have to pay, a feeling that there is redistribution from the poor to the rich, which is not at all welcome, and difficulties about deciding what strike price to give for our replacement fleet of nuclear power stations.

My experience in the 1970s and 1980s was that the investment decisions were all askew. They were not clear at all. The long-term determination, backed by the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, to support an entire nuclear replacement fleet was undermined by all kinds of alternative views and distortions. The same distortions will result from this target. That is all I am saying.

[Lord Deben]

I find that very difficult to follow. This is not a prescription for the means by which we will meet the requirement of a carbon-intensity target. It is an assurance that we are going to stick to that target so that everybody can use whatever mechanisms they have. This is a non-prescriptive concept, of which I approve. It does not say that we have to use this, that or the other. It is a portfolio approach. I still think that the parallel is very clear. If we had been able to stick to our proposition, we would be in a better place today and we would not have to do many of the things that we seek to do today. To ask us to repeat that mistake seems to me a great sadness.

I come back to my first point. The reason we believe that there should be an interim carbon-intensity target is that it is necessary if we are to reach our statutory requirement in 2050. It is necessary for the United Kingdom plc because it gives certainty to people about the parameters within which they will work. If we do not do it, all the noise around what the Government are doing, and the determination to put off to beyond the next election the carbon-intensity target that is now admitted by the Bill, will do a great deal of harm. It will mean that the supply chain that could come to this country will not come and that the jobs and prosperity that should come from our far-sighted decisions will not be gained and earned. We will do very much better to take the advice that will lead to a serious system in Britain that will make us competitive with the rest of the world.

Falkland Islands

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is extremely well informed on this and has followed it very closely. Of course, leaving aside sovereignty and the wishes of the islanders to remain a self-governing territory of the United Kingdom—very clearly expressed, and I am sure they will be again—a whole range of things have been offered to Argentina. There is much talk, of course, about the hydrocarbons explorations around the island. Thirty years ago, when I was involved in some administration of this country on energy matters, one of the files on my desk was concerned with exploration of the hydrocarbons around the Falklands—and that was right at the start of this, in 1980. All along, and increasingly and very specifically in the 1990s, offers were made to the Argentinean people to co-operate very closely and to share the benefits of anything that emerged. That was just one example; the noble Lord gave many others. There is a whole range of areas where there could be extreme benefit to the people of Argentina, but they must not include—and in fact must exclude—the consideration of the sovereignty and the self-determination of the people of the Falkland Islands.

[Lord Deben]

Is my noble friend aware that the Argentine Government have been arguing against the referendum on the basis that those taking part will be settlers, or the children of settlers, on the Falkland Islands? Will it be possible for him to bring to the attention of the Argentine ambassador the fact that she is a settler and the child of settlers, that there is no voter for the President of the Argentine who is not himself or herself a settler, and that if we are talking about settlers we are all in it together?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend makes a very acute historical point that many of the inhabitants of almost every country on earth are settlers; one thinks, not least, of the United States. I believe that the ancestors of many here were also settlers. Indeed, I often hear divisions between the arriviste Norman settlers who came in in 1066 and those who were here already, so my noble friend makes a very good point. However, I do not intend to pursue it with the Argentine ambassador. I have had the opportunity to meet her and I believe that the view that we should express in this country is not one of tit for tat but a dignified intention that the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands people must be preserved, that we wish Argentina well, and that we would like an end to this distracting quarrel and the restoration of the co-operation and links which we once had with the Argentine.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Educational Allowances

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Howell of Guildford

Monday 1st November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is true that state boarding-school places are excellent, but unfortunately it is not true that they are available. Diplomats with children who need to be educated when they go abroad to places where they cannot take their children—I have a list of 48 countries to which children are not allowed to be taken—need to find places quickly. However, they find that they are not at the top of the queue for the 5,000 boarding places available in state schools in this country. I appreciate very much the point that the noble Lord makes but it does not add up if you are trying to find a place for your child.

[Lord Deben]

Does my noble friend agree that it is a very important part of keeping the best people in the Foreign Service that we provide this service for their young children, as without it we would not have the quality people whom we expect? It is about time that people stopped sniping at the Foreign Service on this issue.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that support. He is absolutely right but I shall correct him on one thing, if I may. It involves not only senior staff as 75 per cent of the children helped are of parents with quite junior salaries. The Foreign Office sends junior people to very difficult posts and they may have young children who need to be educated.