Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Lord Rooker and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I just do not know where we think we are going on this. Surely the only thing that matters is the commitments that this Government have made. They have now been in power for six months, and the commitments that they make are the things that matter. What the previous Government did has been rejected by the electorate, and we must now to look at things again. I do not think that we should be held by anything that happened in previous Governments, because the electorate made it quite clear that they did not want to have anything to do with it.

What matters now is the commitments made by the Labour Government. If they think that they are going to reduce our energy bills by £300 in real terms, that should go down in legislation as a commitment from them. It is a figure that they have come up with; we did not dream of it. It was even in the Labour manifesto at the election, was it not? Therefore, we should see this commitment put down in statute so that something is done to keep to it.

I cannot quite understand the attitude of the Liberal Democrats, because they are keener than anybody on ensuring that we do not produce our own oil and gas from the North Sea. The Labour Government have cancelled the exploration licences for there, which means that we will be dependent on foreign supplies whatever happens. How the noble Earl can say that is a terrible problem when he supports not developing our own resources in the North Sea I cannot imagine.

This amendment is certainly something that we should vote for. The Government should be more than happy to be pinned down on this commitment, since they have made it quite clear that they believe in it. If they believe in it, why do they do not put it down in the Bill?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can I press the noble Lord before he sits down? How is this amendment consistent with the conventions of the UK Parliament? It seems to me that it is not, and I would like an explanation, please.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord probably knows more about the consistency of the UK Parliament than I do, but this seems to me to be infinitely sensible. I did not ask the Labour Government to commit themselves to lowering energy bills by £300, but they have done so. Therefore, they should be happy to see it in the Bill. I do not what the problem is, really.

Procedure Committee

Debate between Lord Rooker and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, to come back on the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I hope we have learned a few lessons from the other place. It is possible to hear much too much from the Speaker, as well as too little.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I reinforce the second point made by my noble friend Lord Grocott. On 4 April, the Government Front Bench in this House went on strike, in so far as it abandoned the so-called light-touch control at Question Time and during debates—quite deliberately. The body language of the Whips was such that they disappeared completely. The Front Bench allowed Members to speak beyond the time limits and go way beyond the subjects that we were debating. It was on the day of Yvette Cooper’s Bill. I formally complained to the Procedure Committee because nominally I was the Member in charge of the Bill. All I said was that, on days when the Government decide to abdicate their responsibility to keep good order, they should indicate as such so that the Chair can carry out those responsibilities.

I had that responsibility for two years, when my noble friend Lady Amos was Leader of the House. Upstairs, I have a copy of every single day’s Order Paper. I monitored how the speeches and questions were going around the House, to see fair play operating. Sometimes I upset people, because I had to intervene. These days, nobody intervenes; we might go a fortnight before anybody from the Front Bench intervenes. This allows chaos and allows the bullies in this place to dominate Question Time. That needs to be attended to but it is not attended to in this report. We still have a situation in which 80%, or whatever it is, of the Questions are asked by 50% of the Members, simply because of the bullying. Giving the role of seeing fair play to the Speaker, or someone in the Chair, will encourage a greater diversity of Members to intervene at Question Time. Sadly, that is what is missing. However, this report is a very good thin end of the wedge; it is a wedge I intend to hit very hard.