Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill [HL]
Earl of Erroll ExcerptsFriday 7th February 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I also rise to say a couple of words in the gap. I declare an interest: we farm some land and also rent out several old cottages. The Bill makes a lot of sense, especially for new housing, but I would like to make an appeal for some of these charming country cottages. We have discovered that we can do the basics easily—loft insulation, better heating insulation, et cetera—and get them to an F rating that way. To get them further up, I have found that you have to get them on to mains gas, which is much more expensive and more difficult. It depends on whether there is any nearby—and then we hear that this may be banned by 2025, I believe, so what good is that? We have been doing it anyway.
You can draft-proof, but you have to be careful, because you must maintain ventilation. It is very easy, if you hermetically seal these old buildings, to start getting that nasty black mould. It builds up and then people say, “Oh, gosh, we have terrible damp.” Actually, all they have done is keep the windows closed. There is a real problem, because then you get into the health issues. How you get over that in an old building, I am not very sure. Many people who live in older houses accept this: you have windows open occasionally and you wear a jersey in winter; your house is heated to 17 or 18 degrees, not 20 degrees—you do not pretend you are in the south of Spain. I, as a Scot, am certainly one of those people: it does save quite a lot of money. Equally, there are limits to all these things.
What I wanted to say is that if you do not allow exceptions, you are going to lose a lot of lovely cottages in lovely settings and that would be a great shame. It will not improve the housing stock for rental, either.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Earl of Erroll Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I can remember the debate: I took part in it quite extensively. The agreement or promise was not made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne; it was a commitment made from the Front Bench by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I remember his words. He said that his promise would be binding in honour on all the Privy Council. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, all Privy Counsellors present, including the noble Lord, Lord Steel, should be bound by the oath and promise given from the Front Bench.
The agreement was that a group of hereditaries would be left—which many people did not want—until there was further democratic reform of the House of Lords. The word “democratic” was used quite often. I know that that is not acceptable to some people, but that was what was decided. Therefore, until the other place sorts out democratic reform, it is not our place to pre-empt it and hope to slip it in through the back door.
I take to task the noble Lord, Lord Elton. He seems to think that if we were elected, the whole thing would be a disaster. There are many parliamentary democracies that elect both Houses, under different systems. There are mechanisms by which one can make sure that it is not a complete disaster. The challenge is that if this House ceases to have a sufficiently large elected element, the next time we have a row that is taken as far as the Parliament Act, the other place will say, “You do not have democratic legitimacy any longer. You do not have the authority to change laws because you are not elected in a democracy”. They will remove the residual powers of the House of Lords to alter legislation. That will happen at some time in the next 10 to 20 years; it depends how big the clash is and how frightened we are of pushing things almost to the Parliament Act limit, with the ping-pong going on too long.
Once that authority has been lost, we will become like—I think—the Norwegian Parliament: a talking shop. There will be no point to us; we will become a club for people of great honour. When that happens, it will be a sad day for democracy. What worries me—I know that it worries other noble Lords—is that there are 170 people in the current parliamentary party in the House of Commons who have an appointment in the Executive. Which way round is it? Is Parliament setting the rules for the Executive, or is the Executive tail wagging the dog? Until we sort out proper checks and balances, we cannot afford to go non-elected in this House.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, as secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary British-Norwegian Group, I must correct what the noble Earl said. The Norwegian Parliament is not a talking shop; it is a single-chamber assembly that has a great deal of authority and status, and a great deal of history. For the noble Earl to describe it in the way he did was most unfortunate.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I apologise for my remarks. I know that there is one such Parliament; I should not have mentioned a name. No offence was intended.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I will briefly raise a few points. I am very proud to be a Privy Counsellor. However, Clause 10 is not about the abolition of hereditary Peers today, tomorrow or whenever the Bill may be accepted. We are talking about a very gradual diminution in the number of hereditary Peers. Therefore, as a Privy Counsellor, I do not feel that I have any conflict of interest in voting for Clause 10.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I was a very proud member of my Government, but I was not a member of the Government at that time. As to hereditary Peers, I accept what the noble Lord says, but I believe that we are part of an evolutionary process. Today is the anniversary of the introduction of the first four life Peers in 1958. Since that time, the House has evolved, and our debate today is part of that evolution. I see absolutely no conflict between discussion of these issues today and discussion of the Bill before the Joint Committee.
Like my noble friend Lord Howarth, I recognise the grievances expressed by hereditary Peers in the Chamber. Like other noble Lords, I have huge respect and affection for the work of those noble Lords. However, while I respect and very much like the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I have to disagree with her. When people think about this Chamber and its composition, they do not understand why we still have hereditary Peers. I understand about the agreement, and I understand what is happening. I must say to the noble Lady that yesterday I had the privilege of speaking with 20 Chevening scholars from India, the brightest and the best of the Indian subcontinent, and when we talked about the composition of this House, they simply did not understand why we still have hereditary Peers. When we have things such as the Arab spring and we are nurturing the new democracies in the Middle East, to still retain the election of hereditary Peers does not seem logical or proper. For that reason, I certainly wish to support the retention of Clause 10, which I believe to be an important, indeed, essential part of the Bill.
The Earl of Erroll
As a hereditary Peer, I do not have a grievance about anything and if I have to go, I have to go, but my purpose here is to ensure further democratic reform. That is why I was put here. This is not democratic reform. Until that comes, I should stay.
Lord Marlesford
I think of two very simple facts. First, hereditary Peers who are sitting in this House are in no sense discriminated against as a result of Clause 10. Secondly, it is perfectly obvious that the arrangement for by-elections was always intended to be an interim one. The mistake, in a sense, was not to have had it ending at the end of that Parliament or, conceivably, the following Parliament because it was intended to make use of the reservoir of experience which we had, needed and wanted to keep. We have done it extremely successfully. Least there should have been a too rapid decline, there was an arrangement for temporary topping up.
In answer to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, it is so clearly for the reason she gives that the topping-up system is a farce. It is undemocratic, and I suggest that Clause 10 is a means of moving on to democracy, which is the reason why it should stand.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I would like to make two, I hope, perfectly sensible points. In previous discussions, the main reason given for removing hereditary Peers at this point was that the public thought that it was an anachronism, that it looked silly and they did not understand what it was about, and all that sort of stuff. If it is about public image, I recommend that we should change the name of our upper House to senate, which is universally understood globally and is taught in politics lessons. That would be the perfectly logical thing to do to pair with getting rid of hereditary Peers. What amuses me is that those who are very keen to get rid of hereditary Peers because it taints this House are also very keen to hang on to the title. I really do not understand that; it is just not consistent and logical.
The other point that I would make is that in all my points that I am arguing, I am arguing against my continued presence in this House much more effectively than if we put this Bill through, whereby I would roll on until I died, with luck—whereas actually I am trying to force an earlier departure by getting a proper democratic assembly. When we go democratic, it will be easier to understand if it is called a senate. Whatever happens, renaming it as a senate would be much clearer and would give a much better image of the House to the public.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I wish it to be on record that many of us who believe that there should be a change of name in future, at the appropriate stage, be it an all-appointed or all-elected House, cannot support the noble Earl’s amendment because it is inappropriate at this stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said. So casting aspersions about people wanting to hang on to titles is out of place, with that explanation about the reasoning behind our choices.
The Earl of Erroll
Everyone would retain their title, because it is an honour given to them. The change of name affects the place—this House—and I think that it would be much clearer if we started just being a senate.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I listened particularly carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, since your former Permanent Secretary is always somebody you listen to with great care, although one might not always agree with a former Permanent Secretary, or even from time to time with a Permanent Secretary. I tabled this amendment because I wanted to look at the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned when he intervened. He agreed with me that the name needs to change, but do not let us do it now—let us wait for the government Bill. That is my argument about the Steel Bill—let us wait for the government Bill. It is in a Joint Committee.
My noble friend Lord Steel is a very crafty politician, much craftier than me. He has been down the other end and learnt in the real mill of politics. One is just a humble hereditary Peer. But I would use exactly the same argument that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has used against me against his whole Bill. Let us wait for the government Bill. But what happens if we do not get a government Bill? We have taken long enough to get to this stage of reform of the House of Lords. What happens if the hereditary Peers die out and this has not been faced? I wonder how the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, sees that one being tackled.
As for my noble friend Lord Jenkin, he is entitled to his opinion. I do not comment on the amendments that he put forward on other Bills, and if he believes what he believes that is fine by me. The amendment is trying to resolve what undoubtedly many in the House see as a potential problem in future. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that the House should be called a senate and that the sooner that it is fully reformed into an elected Chamber, the better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, today has been disappointing for many reasons, not least because amendments have been withdrawn. I had looked forward to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explaining how he arrived at the magic figure of 15 years. That 15 years is in the government Bill, all the Government White Papers and so on. What is magical about 15 years? No one has explained it. I make the rather acid comment about the possible lifestyle of 15-year senators—or Peers or whatever—appointed: they will have five years to learn the job, five years to do the job and five years to look for a job.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, as we have been debating the problem of reordering the Bill at the last minute, will the Government be able to use this mechanism in considering the health Bill, which will be highly contentious? I can see huge opportunities for managing to mess people up with the order of amendments.
Lord Elton
My Lords, it will be important when we get to Amendment 123 to recall that the other amendments in the group—Amendments 4, 6, 58 and so on—will be highly relevant to that debate because they are consequential on Amendment 123. They will presumably be debated. Your Lordships will need to look at the earlier part of the Bill when considering Amendment 123 —as presumably noble Lords will.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, the House decided earlier today to take amendments in a certain order: that is, Clauses 10 to 19 and then Clauses 1 to 9. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that certain amendments were not to be moved. It seems difficult to move an amendment if it is not there in the first place, but that is the way it will be done. We are proceeding now with Clauses 10 to 19 and they will be followed by Clauses 1 to 9. Matters will be dealt with in order at that time.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, this is abusing procedure in a dangerous way. The noble Lord is saying that, should the Government wish to use the Steel mechanism on something such as the health Bill, they could reorder it in such a way that knocks out subsequent amendments because they are consequential on an earlier amendment to be moved later—and there would not be time to reschedule them. The whole of the amendment list should have been rejigged when this was proposed, in such a way that the consequential amendments were in the right order. This is an abuse of process. I do not like that sort of thing happening in Parliament, and certainly not in the Upper House.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, the House decided earlier this morning the order in which it wanted to discuss a Private Member’s Bill. When it comes to government Bills, noble Lords will recall—as on many days—that we have a commitment Motion and the order in which things are to be debated is listed. Often that is in numerical order but sometimes, for the convenience of the House, it is put in a different order. With government business—this is not government business—that is done some days before the business comes before the House.
Lord Grenfell
When I declared an interest, it did not imply that it was in self-interest that I was making the argument that the House would be deprived of a lot of expertise; I was speaking of a lot of other people. It is worth recalling that, since the noble Viscount spoke of the Chinese People’s Republic, I do not know of any other upper Chamber where there happens to be such a limit. If one is going to go down a different route, perhaps the noble Viscount might consider it a good idea if we limited the number of new creations. That would be one way of getting the size of the House down.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, it is a foolish idea to set an arbitrary age limit. There are some people who are pretty brain-dead by about 40, and there are some people who are highly intelligent in their 90s—I think immediately of the late Lord Renton and Lord Bruce of Donington, who always gave grief to his Front Bench on EU matters, because he knew far more than anyone else about it. The list goes on and on. To deprive the country of the accumulated wisdom of people such as that would be about the most foolish thing that we could do. Let us find some other mechanism. As has quite rightly been said, we are ageing now. An age limit might fall foul of the Equality Act, because we have removed the retirement age elsewhere—we are forcing companies in the corporate world to keep people for as long as those people wish to stay there. Why on earth are we operating in the opposite way? If we are finding it difficult, we should not be doing special legislation for Parliament. Let us keep our wisdom.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, I declare a special interest, at the age of 84, although a number of others no doubt share that antiquity with me. Those who have emphasised the importance of a sensible approach to this question pose their premise on their declared recognition of the wisdom of the House. If we are as wise as some colleagues have already said we are, we would surely be profoundly unwise to take a decision of this importance, which has been brought before us at a few hours’ notice. It certainly deserves more consideration than it is likely to get before the luncheon Adjournment. I oppose the proposition, not just out of self-interest but out of sheer sanity and respect for the reputation of this House.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, my comments apply to all the amendments to this clause and I will not make them again—although the amendments are not grouped. I entirely agree with all the comments about rehabilitation. That is the whole point. What if someone does something very silly when they are young—they get into a big fight and are locked up—but in their 20s they become very sensible people and pillars of the community? Why are we disbarring them for the rest of their lives? There is no rehabilitation provision in this clause, and that is obnoxious in a civilised and democratic society.
We could also easily fall foul of the EU and the Human Rights Act. There is a big argument at the moment about whether prisoners should be able to vote. Equally, I do not see why ex-prisoners who are rehabilitated should not contribute to the legislative process. They would probably give us insights that we would not otherwise have. Things can go on in certain institutions that we would not otherwise know about. That could be useful experience. I cannot see any reason for being so punitive as to have a lifetime ban. If we do not have an element of rehabilitation, the entire provision should be struck out.
Incidentally, if someone serves a long enough sentence, the term that they serve means that they are resident in the jail, so they will be given permanent leave of absence by reason of failure to attend the House under Clause 12(1). In the light of what we may decide about rehabilitation, that may need to be rewritten for someone who is here already.
Lord Trefgarne
I do not disagree in principle that in certain circumstances noble Lords convicted of an offence should be excluded from your Lordships' House—in serious cases, perhaps even permanently. However, there was a case quite recently when a noble Lord was convicted and sentenced to a rather long sentence which was rapidly reduced on appeal to a much shorter sentence. That noble Lord quickly returned to your Lordships' House. Where sentences change rapidly on appeal, that should act in the favour of the noble Lord concerned. What does my noble friend think about that?
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for one very simple reason: while canvassing at the previous election, I knocked at a door and said, “I very much hope that you’ll vote Conservative at the forthcoming election”. The answer was, “I might. Did you at the last election?”. I was forced to say no, so the lady said, “Well, neither shall I”.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I have often thought about this. It is an anomaly that dates back to when the Lords had the same sort of power as the other place. We can no longer vote on money Bills. This is my point. I seem to remember that they had a tea party in Boston on this very issue, which is that there should be no taxation without representation, or at least the right to vote. We are the only ones excluded, apart from various others. We are not allowed to vote on money Bills here, and nor are we allowed to vote for the very people who are putting them through and deciding upon them in another place. Logically, I think we should. We should either be given some powers over money Bills, which would be one answer or, alternatively, we should be given the right to vote.
Lord Northbrook
I support the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, on this point. First, we should have more powers on money Bills and, secondly, it seems quite ridiculous while we can vote in local elections and European elections. Why on earth should that right not be extended to voting in general elections?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I think my noble friend is correct. I said that I was agnostic about the amendment, but I am actually quite sympathetic to it. I just wonder whether it is right to make such a fundamental change in just a few minutes’ debate. I will take it seriously, and if the noble Lord will be kind enough to withdraw his amendment, I will certainly discuss it, again with the other House authorities and with the Ministry of Justice, with the other things that I am discussing. If there is no objection, I will be happy to bring back the amendment in my own name on Report.
The Earl of Erroll
The noble Lord says that he will go off and discuss it, but it has suddenly occurred to me that there is another solution. As we cannot vote on taxation issues, we should not pay taxes.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I am disappointed that we will not be discussing the appointments commission today, particularly, as was said earlier, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said on the Constitutional Reform Act. My concern is that if the Government’s reform Bill runs into the sand, we would be left in limbo and no statutory appointments commission would be appointed at all.
The Earl of Erroll
I rise to speak to the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, was here at the start when I made a statement about one of the dangers of this. I have heard it said that these are just transitional provisions many times before. It is exactly what was said in 1998 about the 1999 Act, in 1911 and so on. This may not end up being transitional. This could in the end be a long-term Act that stays in place for a long time. The end result of this, over the next decade or two, would be a fully appointed House, which is not the wish expressed by a democratic vote of the other place. Therefore, through the backdoor, we have not done what was expected. The hereditary Peers, who were left here to ensure that further democratic reform took place—as was decided in the debates back in 1998—will be got rid of without getting what was desired, which is democratic reform. The problem with that is, if there is no further movement, we will end up with an appointments commission which is not fit for purpose for the future.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am sorry, but is not that hypothesis incorrect? The noble Earl makes a big statement, which he is going to develop further, on the hypothesis that the House of Commons has no further say in this matter.
The Earl of Erroll
If this Bill gets to the House of Commons, it might get through. We cannot tell what is going to happen and in what circumstances. We might, through the vagaries of the parliamentary process, end up with this measure being in place for much longer than we expect, in which case it has to have the “i”s dotted and the “t”s crossed. This is very good as a transitional measure at the moment as regards the independent appointments commission, but it has to be improved and tidied up if it is going to stand the test of time over a couple of decades. We need to sort that out. We should not just push this through and say that we are doing a brief tidying-up exercise. That is a sloppy way to legislate. Certainly, if I were a director of a company and behaved like this as regards company governance, I would be fired.
Lord Cormack
If we took the advice of my noble friend Lord Shutt and deferred everything remaining until Report, that would be the other way to do it. The least satisfactory way is to end untidily today, not having completed Committee and therefore having Report at some indeterminate time in the future, with another Committee day having to intervene. Either we go through with automatic not moving, as it were, or, if that is not considered appropriate by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne—I would fully understand it if that were his view—can we not do what was done with the Localism Bill: defer the other issues to Report, when at least it will all be done tidily?
The Earl of Erroll
Can I just alert your Lordships to a danger? If we say that all the amendments are withdrawn and that we should leave them until Report, there are two issues. First, if Amendment 163 is then voted through, none of the amendments will qualify for Report. Part 1 will not be there any more. If it has been removed from the Long Title, I do not think that Part 1 can exist. Therefore, as none of the amendments can be debated on Report, it is a cunning way of getting rid of them by the back door. Secondly, there will be a very lengthy Report stage.
Lord Tyler
Of course, Amendment 163 does not have to be pressed to a Division either.
The Earl of Erroll
I bet it will be because you have made sure that there are enough people on your side to get it through. It is a very cunning way of getting this through without the whole House being aware that we are trying to reform the House of Lords and not looking at how people will get here. A half measure is being put in place, which is very dangerous for the future. How people get here is just as important as trying to get rid of people.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, that is not what has been proposed. If the Report stage solution is adopted, Amendment 163 will come at Report. We will not be rubberstamping something today and in so doing, preclude debate on issues that the noble Earl feels should be debated. It is very simple. We will have a Report stage that will be slightly longer, as with the Localism Bill. We are dealing with it in a tidy and seemly manner. We are anticipating nothing; we are pre-empting nothing. If we end untidily this afternoon, all we will do is reflect discredit on our proceedings today. As we have made such good progress in a reasonable and constructive spirit of consensus, surely the noble Earl can see the wisdom of the suggestion that has been made by my noble friend.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I intervene because I have had experience of this: it happened during wash-up. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does not understand that some of our procedures here, although they look the same, are slightly different from those in the other place. The rules for Committee and Report and what you can do at Third Reading matter. If you introduce an amendment for the first time on Report, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, you can speak to it only once. That does not cause too much trouble: you can get round it with clever interventions. The problem comes if there is something of fairly major consequence that you wish to approach in a different way, because you may not be able to introduce your amendment at Third Reading. There are rules about the similarity of amendments at Report stage. It is far more flexible in Committee and on Report. Our procedures are designed that way. Third Reading is supposed to be only a tidying up operation to address a few little drafting mistakes, although the Government have tended to extend the definition for their own purposes in the past. For us, certainly on a Private Member's Bill, I am quite sure that that latitude would not be permitted by the procedures of the House, so it is very dangerous to postpone to Report stage.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, it is my understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved without debate Amendment 2. Surely we could move to that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, as I understand it, it would not be in the Bill and therefore would not be discussed on Report.