Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this grouping is extremely important. The intentions behind my Amendment 9 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, are broadly similar. The Bill says, in the subsection that I seek to delete:

“It is the duty of the lead enforcement authority to issue guidance to enforcement authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Act”.


This is not sufficient. The problem is that if we have only guidance, the likely result will be that too many people will decide not to implement it. In Amendment 9, I seek to change “guidance” to,

“guidance, in the form of regulations made by statutory instrument”.

Proposed new subsection (2C) makes clear that there should be:

“A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section … subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament”.


In other words, it gives power to Parliament to ensure that the regulations are strong enough. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said a while ago that there are people who do not obey the law. He is right, but I would add that there are even more people who do not obey guidance. In this situation, we need to stiffen up our legislation. I fear that, if we end up passing the Bill, the Act will be difficult to implement because too many people will decide that this is enforced only by guidance that is not strong enough. I am very keen to hear from the Minister what the problem is in converting what is currently proposed guidance into formal regulation giving Parliament the power to agree, or not, with what is proposed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that question, which to me is very important. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

If Amendment 9 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 10 because of pre-emption.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as we have heard from him, seeks to put the guidance issued by the enforcement authority on a statutory footing. That is a very good idea. It gives clarity and certainty, which is missing from what is proposed by the Government at present: guidance not backed up by anything at all. It is proposed to make this guidance statutory via the negative resolution procedure, which I think is right in these circumstances.

Amendment 10 in my name proposes to do exactly the same thing in slightly different wording. As I said on a previous group, I was pleased to receive the guidance on Friday, before Committee stage. I am aware that the Government have consulted various stakeholders over the past few months. It would be good to understand, when the Minister responds to this debate, what the status of the guidance we already have is. Does he expect it to change much more when it is finally agreed, or does he think it is just about there? Is further consultation expected? I very much share the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Making draft guidance available is good, but that is insufficient to remove the need for guidance to be made subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure. It is important that both Houses look at this stuff in detail and are able to discuss it and say what they believe is right and wrong. We have come back to the guidance a number of times—we will keep coming back to this—and I just do not accept that guidance not backed up by regulation is sufficient. There is always this risk that it has no legal status. It can just be ignored, as well as adhered to. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this.

Anti-Semitism

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I had an opportunity to discuss this Motion with my rabbi, and we both agreed that the law is pretty robust. So where does all this anti-Semitism come from? It comes from long-established prejudices and the modern polarisation of identity.

Yes, there are religious prejudices, as the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, told us, but people still believe there is a vast Jewish conspiracy against working people and the establishment. Yes, I too find it difficult to believe, but occasional incidents remind me from time to time that it still exists.

The identity prejudice is due to mixed loyalties, because some people look upon Israel as a sanctuary from persecution. The harnessing of emotion, prejudice and identity for political purposes, particularly by the extreme left and the extreme right, has a long history, but not only as regards anti-Semitism, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, told us. It has become more so as our politics have become more polarised.

In these circumstances, the Government’s responsibility is not to pass laws but to create a positive atmosphere in which citizens will feel confident enough not to need to pick on minorities, to go to extremes or to feel that their prejudices have been confirmed. The cross-government working group on tackling anti-Semitism helps to create this atmosphere, but they must be more robust in condemning prejudice and anti-Semitism.

We also need to review the all-party inquiry into anti-Semitism. Many of its recommendations have been implemented, but some have not. There are also recommendations from the Antisemitism Policy Trust, particularly relating to cyberhate, and these are important. The issue of anti-Semitism on campuses has been frequently raised in your Lordships’ House. The Community Security Trust does excellent work, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, told us, but this needs to be continually acknowledged and supported by the Home Office.

However, we can all play our part in creating a more positive atmosphere and environment by speaking up against anti-Semitism and prejudice whenever we come across it.

Homelessness

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to find multi-agency solutions to homelessness.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I respectfully ask all the people contributing to today’s debate to comply with the time allocated. I know it is difficult, but your co-operation will be much appreciated.

Nuclear Reactors

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the question. I reiterate that I think it would be premature to talk about specific technologies because that is part of the process under scrutiny now. Those projects that are eligible will enter into a dialogue with officials in the department. There are many technologies that qualify but, as I said, we are keen to do what we can in the national interest. I remind noble Lords that there is £250 million in the innovation budget for the nuclear programme at large, of which small modular reactors are an important part.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, EDF has already started training its engineers, with a nuclear engineering academy and some 300 apprentices at Babcock and other engineering firms. If Hinkley Point C does not happen, will the Government continue with this training?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, Hinkley C will happen. We have heard in the past week an expression of intention once again from the President of France that the project will go ahead. I think that we will reach a final investment decision later in the year, but there is every confidence that the project will go ahead.

Global Climate Change

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My noble friend has drawn our attention to climate change on many occasions. He is absolutely right to do so again in anticipation of the summit in Paris. The Paris agreement is intended to make sure that increased warming does not exceed an internationally agreed limit of 2 degrees centigrade. Of course, you cannot force countries to cut their emissions, so, in preparation for the Paris agreement, nations have been submitting voluntary plans to show how they propose to cut their emissions from 2020.

To help understand what is going on, the Financial Times has produced a handy climate change calculator, which I have been looking at. The calculator shows that the best pledges come from the United States and the European Union, and the worst from India, Russia and, yes, China.

[A noble Lord]

Oh!

[Lord Haskel]

That is what the calculator shows. Only Brazil is pledging to match the efforts of the European Union and the United States, while other countries are somewhere in-between. The calculator also shows that, if all pledges are kept, warming will be restricted to just under 4 degrees—well above the target of 2 degrees. While I welcome the Government’s ambitious pledge to reduce emissions, do they have any thoughts on how we can persuade other nations to be more ambitious and increase their promises to cut emissions?

Calculators of this kind are good at giving a general picture, but the regular curve implies that climate change is a gradual linear shift over the years, which, of course, it is not. As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Stern, explained, the shifts will be sudden and erratic. They will be unpredictable and may not always be in one direction. One region can suffer rising sea levels, causing homelessness, water shortages and inadequate harvests. In another, sudden surges in temperature and drought can lead to a lack of food supplies, and to disease and epidemic. These are changes that will have the practical effect of compounding the problems of poverty, poor health and, in particular, weak government. My noble friend Lady Kennedy explained that these changes would force even more people to migrate across the Mediterranean or through the Balkans. The case for action is not simply humanitarian; it is also economic.

The Government have made a real effort to seal a climate change accord in Paris. They have promised to contribute nearly £6 billion over five years to help the climate change fund and we are doing quite a lot to phase out coal. Why, then, did we go in the opposite direction of cutting support for wind and solar power? If subsidies have to be withdrawn, surely they should be withdrawn from the fossil fuel industry.

To help support the US pledge, President Obama obtained the support of 81 major American corporations. There are many British corporations that take a similar view. Will the Government take steps to acknowledge and work with them? In their recent paper Fixing the Foundations, the Government commit themselves to:

“Reliable and low-carbon energy, at a price we can afford”.

This can only be done jointly with business. How? First, convince people that climate responsibility is not in conflict with economic growth. Why? Because the present path is not sustainable. A low-carbon, cleaner environment is. This is the message from companies that have pledged to support a cut to carbon emissions.

Decarbonising the economy can take many forms and offer many economic possibilities, but individuals can help, too. At home we have virtually stopped using the car and we are the proud owners of electric bicycles.

My noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords are concerned about protecting the urban environment. They are right. Air pollution is already causing a large number of premature deaths and serious illnesses. As my noble friend Lord Prescott reminded us, in places our level of pollution is above EU limits. A Supreme Court judgment earlier this year requires the Government to submit plans to make us compliant. There are now both moral and legal arguments for us to act.

The recent consultation document has a number of welcome elements, such as a national framework of clean air zones, retrofitting and alternative fuels for vehicles, as well as electric cars. I draw the Minister’s attention to the work of the Environmental Industries Commission—I declare an interest as a past president. Member companies are actively engaged in air pollution control. These firms show how cleaner air can be achieved more speedily in practice by using more cost-effective technologies, and which technology is right for which geographical area. Adopting these technologies, instead of buying them in from elsewhere, would help to drive the growth of the UK air pollution industry.

I return to the Paris summit. I have tried to show that we can have rising living standards while taking a responsible attitude towards the management of air pollution and climate change risks. Let us hope that the Paris summit is a start to the world acting together.

Energy Bill [HL]

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 6th and 7th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Clause 65 agreed.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I shall speak also to Amendment 38. I very much agreed with the arguments advanced earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but that is largely because they all supported my amendments rather than the one that he was addressing. Perhaps, given that he has now left the Chamber, he was trying to get his arguments in first in support of my amendments.

My amendments are designed to maintain features of our existing constitutional arrangements while addressing the problem for which the Bill makes no provision: that is, the Government opting to resign without having been defeated on a vote of confidence.

Amendment 35 would maintain the present constitutional convention that if the Government lose a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister resigns or requests that Parliament be dissolved. The precedent was established in 1841 and has been maintained since. As we have heard, in January 1924, the Baldwin Government met the new Parliament, were defeated in two Divisions of confidence and resigned. In October of the same year, the MacDonald Government were defeated in two Divisions deemed matters of confidence and requested that Parliament be dissolved. As we have heard about in some detail, in 1979, the Callaghan Government were defeated on an explicit vote of confidence and requested the Dissolution of Parliament.

The advantage of the current situation is that it allows some flexibility in order to respond to the conditions of the time—the point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. If it is clear that there is no prospect of an alternative Government being formed, there seems little point in waiting. If one takes the situation in March 1979, can one really claim that the Prime Minister should not have requested the Queen to dissolve Parliament and hold an election? There was demonstrably no case for waiting. Under the Bill, there would have been a delay of two weeks before an election was triggered.

I see no grounds for not allowing the Prime Minister to recommend an election if the Government have been defeated on a vote of confidence. Stipulating the 14-day gap serves no obvious purpose. It does not provide a disincentive for the Government of the day to manipulate a vote of no confidence. If the Government are able for their own purposes to persuade their supporters to vote for a Motion of no confidence, they can presumably also use them to ensure that no alternative Government can muster a majority for a vote of confidence. That just delays matters by 14 days.

My other amendment provides that if the Government opt to resign and no alternative Government are formed and achieve a vote of confidence, an election will be triggered after the passage of a set period. In my amendment, it is 28 days. That is in line with what is in the devolution legislation. That may appear too generous. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, stipulates 14 days. It may be that 14 days is preferable to 28; it may be that the period should be shorter. As I mentioned earlier, we are unusual in the United Kingdom in having a rapid transition from one Government to another. However, whatever the period, we need at least to stipulate a clear time limit, however unlikely it is to be utilised.

A Prime Minister is not expected to resign unless it appears that an alternative Government can be formed. Only in the event of the implosion of the Government is such a provision likely to be necessary, although in those circumstances it may be that the Opposition could muster sufficient support to pass a Motion of no confidence. However, my amendment covers the highly unlikely, but not impossible, situation of a Prime Minister resigning; the House failing to pass a Motion of no confidence or to mobilise the 400 votes out of 600 necessary for a Dissolution Motion; and the Leader of the Opposition, or some other figure, being unable to form a Government. Under the Bill, there could be stalemate until the election at the end of the five-year period. As we have heard, Belgium is presently setting the record for the length of time for which no Government has been formed. I am not suggesting that we will ever be in that situation. My amendment ensures that such a situation will not arise.

In essence, my amendments seek to maintain the benefits of the present arrangements within the context of fixed-term Parliaments. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel)]

I have to inform your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 36 or 37, because of pre-emption.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 39, which fits into this group covering various contingencies in relation to the resignation of the Prime Minister. My amendment would provide for an early general election if the Prime Minister resigned and, after 14 days, there had been no vote of confidence in any Government of Her Majesty.

This issue was raised by my noble friend Lady Jay during the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Constitution. She asked the Minister, Mr Harper, whether, if a Government resigned without losing a vote of confidence, that would trigger the 14-day provision. Mr Harper replied:

“If the government resigned and we were without a government, you would then have to have a process of government formation. I believe that we think that would be the case”.

That is not quite pellucid and it hardly inspires confidence that Ministers had thought rigorously about this legislation.

Mr Harper then wrote again to the Select Committee, stating that:

“There is nothing in the Bill that prevents a government resigning; the Bill is about the length of a Parliament. If a government decided to resign when the Speaker had indicated that he was not minded to issue such a certificate, then the 14 day period would not be triggered although, as I said to the Committee, a period of government formation would obviously follow. It would just not be time-limited”.

Your Lordships may consider that it should be time-limited and that we should not allow ourselves to get into the Belgian or Iraqi situation whereby a Government cannot be formed for very long periods.

Amendment 38 of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, specifies 28 days. As he anticipated, I think that 28 days is too long. His Amendment 35 does not specify any time limit, but just removes the 14-day provision altogether. It will be no surprise to your Lordships, following a previous debate, if I confide in you that that is a much more attractive provision. However, supposing we accept that time should not be unlimited in such circumstances. If we provided for 14 days before an early general election takes place, following the resignation of the Prime Minister, it would integrate provision for the contingency of the Prime Minister’s resignation with the provisions in the Bill for other early departures of a Government.

It may be wise to provide a clear remedy, given that we have the Bill. The Bill would abolish the royal prerogative of Dissolution. Currently, with the prerogative—as the noble Lord reminded us—if the Prime Minister resigns, the Queen takes soundings to see whether another party leader can form a Government. If he cannot do so, she dissolves Parliament. That remedy is removed by the Bill. The Bill allows resolution of the impasse only if two-thirds of MPs vote to dissolve Parliament. However, that is not a sure remedy, because the Opposition might prefer not to take their chances at an immediate general election—they might not co-operate to secure that two-thirds vote.

It is worth considering what might have happened in historical situations that some of us can at least dimly remember. In the Government of Mr Attlee in 1951, he chose to go to the country. Aneurin Bevan and Harold Wilson had resigned from the Cabinet, having disagreed with the Government’s budget. The Labour Party had a majority of five, and Mr Attlee judged that he could not carry on. Under this Bill, Mr Attlee could not have gone to the country. Under this Bill, Mr Heath could not have gone to the country in February 1974. Of course, Mr Attlee or Mr Heath might have appealed to the other leaders and secured a two-thirds vote of the House of Commons for Parliament to be dissolved and for there to be a general election. However, what might have happened in October 1974, when Harold Wilson chose to go to the country? Would the Conservatives, at that stage, have been ready to agree to a general election? We shall never know, but the answer is uncertain.

It may be as well to provide a clear remedy, although I anticipate that the Minister will point out that it would drive a coach and horses through the central purpose of the Bill, which is to prevent a Prime Minister from seeking an early general election. However, in such situations as I have sketched, it may be desirable and in the public interest for there to be an early general election. The fact that we have to debate these amendments once again shows the unwisdom of seeking to legislate for fixed-term Parliaments.