Social Homes for Rent

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for raising that issue. Of course, we went through an era of liberalisation around change of use from office to residential, and that is a factor that local authorities should look at as they develop their local plans: to get the right balance between economic development and providing housing for their communities.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the Select Committee’s unanimous report Meeting Housing Demand, which said:

“Those living in the private rented sector are more likely to live in poor quality, overcrowded conditions than owner-occupiers, and often have limited forms of redress”?


Does the Minister agree and, if he does, what is he doing to assist people to move out of very highly priced and often poor private rented accommodation into more affordable housing?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The Government do recognise the issue that the noble Lord describes. That is why in this Session we are bringing forward a private renters’ Bill and applying the decent homes standard to the private rented sector so we can raise the quality of the stock. However, we also recognise that we need to bring in more affordable housing, including more social housing.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Cornwall is incredibly important—with its own language, even—and we want to make sure that we level up within regions and all parts of the country. We recognise the need to deal with some of the real rural deprivation that exists in Cornwall.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that Staffordshire and Shropshire are also important?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Staffordshire and Shropshire are in the plan as well—I can confirm that to noble Lords.

Inclusive Society

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome this debate, not least because although it talks specifically about the post-pandemic world, in truth the issues it raises would apply to almost any time in our lifetime. The Motion refers to “building an inclusive society” and a more inclusive society means a more equal society. We know that there are large inequalities in so many parts of our national life—referred to by many previous speakers—in housing, education and health. However, in the short time available I will focus on one area where we need to build more equality and that is in respect of our political system, in access to power, to government and to politics.

2021 marks the 300th anniversary of the office of Prime Minister. During that time, we have had 55 Prime Ministers. Of these, 20—yes, 20—went to one expensive public school: Eton. What is more, seven more went to Harrow, so just two public schools have provided 27 out of Britain’s 55 Prime Ministers. That is almost exactly half. To put it into context, there are 3,500 secondary schools in England alone. What a colossal waste of talent this represents: to recruit to the top job in politics from such a tiny, unrepresentative source. That is just one example of gross inequality in access to power.

Greater equality is needed right across the political system—in the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Achieving greater inclusivity in the operation of our democracy is not just right in itself—it is an essential building block towards achieving greater inclusivity in society as a whole.

In the post-war House of Commons in the second half of the 20th century, a rich variety of occupations was represented—most obviously the miners, but also steelworkers, people in manufacturing and people directly from the shop floor. Now, of course, there are no pits and no miners, but where are the 21st-century equivalents in our legislature?

In a piece of research after the 2010 election, the Smith Institute said that

“our Parliament is becoming less representative in terms of education and occupation, and continues to attract similar types of people from a rather narrow professional base.”

Political parties should do far more to remove the barriers that exist to people from lower incomes, for example, to meet the cost of running for a seat in Parliament. As for this House, in the Lords we should do more to make our membership more representative, in terms of both occupation and social class. Whether it is the law, education, the police, the Civil Service, retailing, the Church or the military, we tend to have people who have reached the top of their various professions. They make a huge and valuable contribution, but would we not be enriched and more inclusive if there were more people currently working on the front line, in our schools, police forces, public services and factories—from the coal face, if you like?

If our society is to be more inclusive, we must avoid a situation where the people who attain positions of political power are disproportionately those who are already in powerful positions. I do not intend to reopen old divisions, but if the Commons and the Lords had been more socially representative, perhaps there would not have been such a mismatch between the balance of opinion in the country and the balance of opinion in Parliament in our interminable debates on the European Union.

There are huge inequalities in access to power in our country, and a consequent huge waste of talent. If power were distributed more equitably, other inequalities —in health, education and housing—would surely be much more likely to be addressed, as more and more people with direct, current living experience would be able to speak to them. That would be for the benefit of us all.