Democratic Institutions: Threats

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my former politics lecturer at Hull University; I hope that I do not let him down too much with what I am about to say. Like a few others, I wish to move away from external factors and talk about our own faith in our democracy. Now is the time, especially with a new Government incoming, to ask ourselves some seriously hard questions.

For background, I come from a working-class family. I was brought up in a terraced house in east Lancashire in one of the most deprived constituencies in the land. My first proper job, back in 2004, was a couple of years in a credit union up there. The aim was to tackle loan sharks and financial exclusion, as well as provide a service to the community. While there, I saw people really struggling. I distinctly remember a conversation I had with one lady. She did not complain at all, but made it very clear that she was working as much as she possibly could, even though, fundamentally, she would have been financially better off not working. She chose to work for the sheer principle of it. So, long before Brexit—before anyone makes that claim—people were feeling left behind and that London and the south-east are an entirely separate part of the country.

I read two interesting pieces on the recent Makerfield by-election. The first was in the Times, where Quentin Letts commented that when he visited the patch and sought to speak to 20 voters, seven did not know there was an election. More starkly, in the New Statesman, Will Lloyd wrote:

“I was tired of writing and speaking about the country like it was a ‘normal’ place full of happy ‘normal’ communities and cheeky ‘normal’ Brits. Nothing I saw or heard seemed ‘normal’. Everything was changing”.


I may not agree with everything he then goes on to say, but I hope that in those comments, we recognise that there is a deeper point being made: Westminster is not at the top of everyone’s mind and there is a growing unease.

There has been some commentary, I think, about the Electoral Commission and its public attitudes survey. There is another part that has not been noted, which I have referenced before, which is that in last year’s survey, most people believed that we need a strong leader willing to break the rules, with almost 40% of Labour supporters agreeing. There has also been recent analysis from UCL Policy Lab and More In Common that shows that just over half of Brits say that hard work does not pay, and only 19% think the Government respect people like them. But it is not just about communications. I speak personally but we need to remember that most people do not comprehend what billions of pounds being spent here and there means when they are worried about holding down their own job. I have been there when people who should know better lambaste “buy one, get one free” deals and advocate for meat-free days and eating healthily. Of course, but people just try their best to feed their family in what little time and with what little money they have.

Fundamentally, though, for me this is about leadership, delivery and showing clearly that we are on their side. Whether or not the system is broken, surely we can all agree that we are not at our best. We need more reliable energy and want to reduce energy bills, yet Hinkley Point C is the most expensive nuclear power plant and has been delayed by years. The country that invented the railway cannot make it work when the weather is hot, or even expand it with HS2, with that being delayed by over a decade, at a cost of over £100 billion. Whether there is two-tier policing or not, there is a feeling that the state is sometimes harsher on some cases, yet too lenient on others. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the Minister will know all too well and remember fondly how we debated the so-called devolution Bill, yet days later, Parliament and this House cheerfully passed a Bill to increase the number of paid Ministers. When we combine that with the growing size of Whitehall, which is it—centralisation or devolution?

I read last night that the King of the North is suggesting that he will shove bits of No. 10 into the north. Our Conservative Government tried to move bits of Whitehall around as well, but—as a northerner, I can say this—it is tokenistic. It says nothing about more powers to local councils or more money. In the end, people just want things fixed, not more politicians pontificating. We say we are going to smash the gangs, yet on Monday last week, 700 illegal migrants arrived. We say that children cannot be trusted to watch YouTube, but we are perfectly fine allowing them to consent to irreversible medical procedures from the age of 11. Whether or not those—now infamous—ponies on Dartmoor are to be culled, it speaks volumes about a broader issue about who is in charge on what is a simple issue. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, answered questions on that.

We cannot have a Prime Minister complain to Parliament that whenever he pulls levers, he is hit by the state. To paraphrase Louis XIV, he is the state, or he certainly was up until recently. Unless we really revolutionise the state to focus on delivery, make it leaner and more effective, use AI, sort out our laws, streamline them and make our systems deliver, we will keep hitting the same roadblocks. As my noble friend Lady Stowell was saying earlier, we cannot keep asking the electorate whether they want change, only to not step up to the task.

As America marks its 250th anniversary as an incredible nation, a new nation born out of what was incredible nerve, I remind the House of what one of its founding fathers and its second President, John Adams, said:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long … There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide”.


That may be stark, but the warning is real. We cannot blame others for our own failings. Of course, this has not happened overnight or under this Government, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, when he talked about a convenient mixing and muddling between hostile states and the commercially driven US tech companies. But we need to heed those growing voices that feel ignored and recognise that we need to step up to the task, because the warnings are real. We need to trust the people more, give them the credit they deserve, focus on them and deliver for them. This is not impossible. We perhaps need to invoke some of the revolutionary zeal that we left on the shores of America. We can do it, and I hope we will do it.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

The Government have accepted that the LGPS has fiduciary-like duties. The source of reference for that is their response to the Law Commission, which said that that was the case; their view on the Financial Markets Law Committee; and the fact that their own statutory guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme on ESG and stewardship more or less mirrors what you would put to a trustee with fiduciary duties. We are in the ballpark where there is broad acceptance, even though it is a statutory-based scheme, that the standards under which it operates are fiduciary-like. That is the point: if they are fiduciary-like, the trustees have to exercise a certain discretion or consideration in relation to the decisions that they have to make. I am arguing that those who would be involved in decision-making need the security of knowing that there is no ambiguity around financial risk and impact being considered—

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to be brief.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I will say my last sentence.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The rules say “normally brief” but I think the Committee would like to hear from my noble friend on this important issue.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

With respect, I am not stopping the noble Baroness; I am just asking her to be brief.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I will accept the constraint.

Finally, I take the point about lawyers having been involved in drafting this. I do not mean to be rude but in the area of investment and pension decisions, the road is littered with government-cleared legislation and regulation that has ended up being problematic or challenged in the courts and having to be revisited. I do not think we can rely wholly on that argument.

I think my amendment is being overblown. It is very clear that there is a problem, and that those engaged in this decision-making feel that there is a problem. The Government are opening up areas of legal uncertainty. We can nail it with a couple of words. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.