House of Lords: Number of Members

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Grocott]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for an upper limit on the number of members of the House of Lords.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the size of the House of Lords needs addressing, but given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the House fresh. This will ensure that the House continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation, while respecting the primacy of the Commons.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, when the Minister checks Hansard, he will see that that was not an Answer to the Question that I put. Is he aware of the concern right across the House that, at a time when we are voluntarily reducing our numbers, the Government seem to be going in exactly the opposite direction? Have the Johnson Government abandoned the May Government’s support for reducing our size, and do they believe that there should be any limit whatever on how much larger the House should become?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the preceding Prime Minister did not accept the Burns committee’s recommendation that the Prime Minister should commit to a specific cap on numbers, and that is the position of the Government.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th September 2020 Grand Committee

Finally, we have four separate commissions dealing with this matter, looking at the situation in each of the countries. That accepts the fact that the situation is different in each country. It is a de facto acceptance of that. Agreeing that the number of seats in Wales and Scotland should be specified gives clear direction to those separate Boundary Commissions. So I hope that, as well as the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Hain, the one that I have put forward will be accepted by the Minister, if not today then at least at some time in the future.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is my pleasure to give my strong support to both these amendments from my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Foulkes. It is an oversight on my part that I have not actually signed the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. As this is a virtual Parliament, perhaps he can now accept my virtual signature. The amendments are quite similar. They establish minimum numbers of MPs who should represent these two countries.

If it is not too presumptuous to say so, I thought it was quite important that an English voice from an English constituency should take part in this short debate. As I shall argue, these two amendments have significance for the whole United Kingdom. However, in my case, it does break the habit of a lifetime in politics—in fact an iron rule of it—of avoiding making political interventions in either Scotland or Wales. It is a cause of some nervousness, but not in this case. It is a question of the representation not just specifically in those two countries but in the United Kingdom as a whole.

Looking at some of the thankfully now-aborted, deeply flawed boundary proposals based on the 600 constituencies, I, like everyone else—like every other former MP—was focusing almost entirely on the effect on my own constituency, perhaps to the neglect of other parts of the country. I can still remember the absolute shock when I was told by friends representing Welsh constituencies that the number of seats in Wales was to be reduced by a quarter. To me, that was absolutely staggering. It was crass. It could only have been the result of some calculating machine operating somewhere—as we know it was—on a very tight formula for electorates of constituencies and with total disregard for pretty much everything else.

I will not go into any more detail as it has already been dealt with thoroughly by my noble friends. In addition to the point that has already been made about the huge significance to the constitution of the country as a whole, a Boundary Commission would be disregarding all that, including geography, history and culture—it is invidious to mention anywhere in particular, but let us say from the valleys of south Wales to the Highlands of Scotland and everything in between—and the massive contribution that MPs from constituencies in those countries have made to the Westminster Parliament. I will not begin to tot up the number of Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and heaven knows who else who have come from there. It really was constitution-making on the hoof, but with regard to only one rule.

I have no hesitation whatever in saying that more factors need to come into play in drawing the electoral boundaries of the United Kingdom than a simple arithmetic rule. The proposals from my noble friends for a minimum number of MPs from both countries seem to be a very sensible structure. If that were to be adhered to, it would be to the benefit of representation and a voice from them. It would benefit the United Kingdom, and it would benefit the variety of opinion, the depth of experience and the representation of unique communities that the House of Commons should rightly pride itself on. I support the two amendments with enthusiasm.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for tabling Amendment 14 and for presenting us with the opportunity to debate the impact of this Bill on the number of parliamentary constituencies in Wales and for his excellent introduction to this amendment. As we know, Wales has 40 MPs. If the recommendations in the Bill come into being and constituencies of near equal numbers of voters are created, it is estimated that this would result in the number being reduced to somewhere around 32—or, as the leading north Wales newspaper’s headline proclaimed:

“Proposed boundary shakeup ‘could see Wales lose a quarter of its MPs’.”

At a time when it is important that the voice of Wales is heard in Westminster, this reduction in representation is a real disappointment. By making all votes count equally throughout the UK, Wales will lose eight or perhaps even nine MPs to England.

If the Government care about all votes counting equally, could I recommend that they adopt a fair, modern and proportional voting system to represent properly the political views of all voters in the UK? I think that many people in Wales are beginning to view the country’s political future in a different light. We know already that as a small country we are massively outnumbered, as it is, by our larger neighbour. This reduction in the number of Welsh MPs will further unsettle voters.

However, attitudes towards our relationship with England and the union are changing. Devolution and, ironically, Covid-19 are contributing to that. A YouGov poll published on 1 September showed that more than twice as many people trust the Senedd as trust Westminster to look after the interests of Wales. The people of Wales are turning their backs on the union with England in another way. While preparing for this debate, I reread the speech I made in October last year in response to the Queen’s Speech. I spoke about the independence debate in Wales and the growth of what is termed the “indy-curious”—those people in Wales who do not consider themselves to be nationalist but are curious about independence and open to it. At the time I made the speech, I think around 6% of the Welsh population were in favour of independence. By June this year, the figure had risen to 25% and the latest YouGov poll taken in August shows 32%, the highest figure ever recorded in favour of Welsh independence.

For me, maintaining the status quo would be the ideal. We are rather comfortable with the 40 parliamentary constituencies we have now, but I accept that that is probably a non-starter under the Bill. I regretfully accept that there is very little likelihood that the Minister will agree to the proposed number of Welsh MPs being increased, despite the excellent case made by many speakers in Grand Committee today, but I would be delighted if the Minister proved me wrong.

Fortunately for Welsh voters, there is a way to redress the balance. The Senedd has legislated in Wales for more than 20 years, with only 60 Members. It desperately needs more. As the McAllister review concluded in 2017, the National Assembly, as it was then, needs more Members as its powers continue to grow in order effectively to hold the Welsh Government to account and deliver for the people and communities of Wales—now even more so.

As our representation and voice in Westminster look likely to be reduced, it is not only logical but right that our Senedd take the tools they need to do their job. The Welsh people now understand the value of devolution and the Senedd and the challenge is for political parties to be clear with the electorate as we approach the Senedd elections next year and make the case for increased representation in Cardiff in their manifestos. If Welsh voters are to lose out in Westminster, they cannot and must not also lose out in Cardiff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, if we did not know it before, we now know that this will be an important issue, and it might go on for a little while. I do not intend to delay progress with a lengthy speech. I want to make what I think are the essential points about 7.5% replacing 5% tolerance levels in the Bill. Incidentally, we can almost safely ignore the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which is coming later, to reduce the size of tolerance to 2.5% as simply ridiculous. It is never going to happen—but I know it will be debated.

So why 7.5%? It would set variance levels against the normal size of constituencies to allow the Boundary Commissions sufficient latitude to determine where boundaries lay. Incidentally, when the figure of 600 constituencies was proposed, 5% tolerance levels were still part of the proposed legislation that never saw the light of day. That would have given a variance higher than the 7.5% based on 650 constituencies, given that the size will significantly reduce. Therefore, the numbers do matter to the argument. This is important to constituents because it will make it less likely that they will move from one constituency to another, allowing MPs, as we heard on the previous day in Committee, to build bonds and relationships with their constituencies.

The reason why 7.5% seems sufficient comes from evidence taken in the Commons Select Committee from Dr Rossiter, who demonstrated that having tolerance levels of up to 8% has a significant impact on constituencies—and after that it is a diminishing return. I therefore argue that 7.5% is a better level at which to set tolerance than, say, 10%, which will be argued by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, because the amount of benefit between 7.5%, 8.5%, 9.5% and 10% is significantly less than on the way up to 7.5% from a 5% tolerance level.

There is a difficulty in the redistribution of, say, 16,000 electors to neighbouring constituencies in the event of one ceasing to exist, and the knock-on effect is felt most in neighbouring constituencies. However, it is not just in these that the impact happens; it happens as a ripple effect across county areas, beyond these into other counties and so on. That impacts on the relationship between constituencies and local authority boundaries and therefore makes it more likely that we will have ward splittings and all kinds of other means by which the Boundary Commissions can set constituencies at the 650 level with the 5% tolerance applying within them.

The ripple effect becomes more of a wave. Therefore, by giving tolerance levels the variation that we seek, you reduce the disruption to electors and the impact on the relationship between elected representatives and constituents, and you increase the political stability that is felt and needed in terms of the ongoing relationships that exist between constituents and their representatives.

In giving this presentation, I am also grateful to Greg Cook, who is a long-time researcher of these things. He has conclusively shown that these variations are not the thing upon which outcomes of elections are decided. This is not a partisan plea from the Labour Party to seek greater influence in the outcome of elections. What determines these outcomes are events that take place as a result of Governments’ and Oppositions’ competence in responding to the challenges that they face: the “events”, as Macmillan called them, not the size of the tolerance levels around constituencies. If you broaden the tolerance levels, you give the Boundary Commissions a greater chance of getting constituencies that are right and felt to be so by communities and their elected representatives.

So I ask the Government, before concluding this position, to think carefully about what works best in the interests of the whole nation.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, these various amendments remind us of a fundamental and inherent contradiction in a key aspect of this Bill. That is to say that, on the one hand, we are told repeatedly by the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the whole heart and function of the Bill is to provide as near as possible arithmetic equality in the way in which constituency boundaries are determined, and that that is the thing that matters most. Some quite elaborate language is used to describe “fair votes” and “equal votes”; I stopped jotting down the number of times that these phrases were used by Ministers but, when Hansard is available for this Committee stage, I will make a little note of them all, because this is at the heart of the justification throughout.

That is on the one hand but, on the other hand, of course, we have—as has been mentioned from time to time—the section of the Bill dealing with protected constituencies, where precisely the reverse applies. It says that mathematical accuracy is an irrelevance and that what matters are geographic matters and cultural issues, as well as issues of accessibility, natural boundaries and the rest. For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise that I totally agree with there being constituencies in that category. All I am saying is that some of the common sense that has led to that decision should be applied to the other 645 constituencies in the United Kingdom.

Even if you take barriers and natural boundaries—the sea is one, of course—the best that Ministers could ever say was that they are all islands, but of course some of them are made up of several islands. While the sea is a barrier, so is a mountain range or a river estuary, when it is difficult to get from one side of the estuary to the other. There is nothing in the rules that prevents you having anything other than constituencies that go across river estuaries because you have to keep to the precise mathematical formula.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 1, which is also in the names of my noble friends Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott, simply re-establishes the existing practice whereby once the Boundary Commissions have done their work, Parliament puts it into legislation. Without this amendment, the Bill provides that the Boundary Commissions’ reviews will be implemented automatically by Order in Council, which, as we know, are not subject to parliamentary approval or any procedure.

There are four reasons to support this amendment. First, there has been no indication of any problem that the Bill seeks to solve with this change. There has been no pre-legislative consultation and no pre-legislative scrutiny of it. We have seen nothing of any debate with the commissions; there has been no suggestion of any demand for such a change and there has been no pre-discussion either with parliamentarians or the political parties, unless within the governing party itself.

Secondly, it is surely clear to the Committee that what happened last time was ample demonstration of the importance of parliamentary oversight to issues that might appear to be merely implementary, but in fact are constitutionally important. The coalition Government decided to reduce the size of the House of Commons to 600, with no reason given for that number. At the same time, they were increasing the size of this House with more unelected politicians. No rationale was given for the number 600 and no account was taken of its implication for Scottish and Welsh seats, or for those in rural or geographically challenged areas. Unsurprisingly, it was, in effect, rejected by the House of Commons. Without that ability of Parliament to have the final say, we would today have only 600 MPs, perhaps with 50 former MPs becoming Peers in compensation. It is proof positive of the need to take the elected House with you when a Government are suddenly seized with an unsustainable notion.

Thirdly, it will be clear from other amendments tabled for today that there is some distrust about the proposed procedure and the ability of the Executive to retain an influence, which under the Bill they will still have, either by the timing of the Order in Council or by the composition of the Boundary Commissions. We might note, therefore, the amendments to be moved by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which we will deal with later.

Furthermore, although our Constitution Committee agrees in principle with the change, it particularly said that the proposed automatic implementation of recommendations of the Boundary Commissions will protect against undue influence only if they are genuinely independent. The committee therefore suggests that the House consider safeguards to ensure the independence and impartiality of the Boundary Commissions and their recommendations. We will come to specific proposals on this later, but the themes underlying this resonate with Amendments 1, 2, 5 to 9, and 12. In other words, both the Constitution Committee and these other amendments are in fact all part of a piece, that the Government—perhaps especially this Government—are capable of a certain flexibility when it comes to decisions that they might seek to influence. Their appointment of their friends—Tony Abbott or others whom I will mention in another group later—or the removal of those whose advice they do not like, and here I cite a swathe of Permanent Secretaries, in addition to the sad loss today of the head of the legal service, indicate a willingness to use subtle pressure to get what they want, or less than subtle pressure, as we witnessed over the attempted Prorogation, the threat to judicial review, and basically the attempt to sideline any whose advice or decisions get in their way. We do, therefore, have a concern that without absolute, very solid safeguards, the ability remains with the Government and not with Parliament.

Fourthly and lastly, there is a vital issue about the role of Parliament vis-à-vis that of a quango. I hear what our Constitution Committee says on that matter, and about the exclusion of Parliament. However, this is about the Executive vis-à-vis Parliament. It is about the Government removing a democratic backstop to an issue where decisions are not black and white but involve judgments, and—vitally—affect communities, devolution and regionalism. These are choices which Parliament cannot shrug off to unaccountable appointees, who may, as the Constitution Committee suggests, be looking to their reappointment.

In brief, we do not need this change. It was not requested; it has not been discussed; and it removes an important backstop role from Parliament. I beg to move.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, well done to those who have been involved in setting up this hybrid Grand Committee. It is an innovation and my mind boggles at how it is done. But, despite its wondrous characteristics, the sooner we get back to normal the better. As a very early speaker in this Committee, I want to make one constitutional point. There is one very unusual thing about today’s proceedings, which I accept because of the circumstances we are in. To my knowledge, there has never been a major constitutional Bill—which this is—held in Grand Committee. Such Bills are always held on the Floor of the House. One cannot imagine anything more fundamental to our constitution than the way MPs are elected and the areas that they represent. So I hope that this Committee may be the last of its kind and we can get back to the more usual practice of debating these Bills on the Floor of the House.

I have put my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter in the full knowledge that she would explain them lucidly and leave me little to do. I am sure she has been comprehensive enough even for Lord Tyler who, I am sure, will be listening and will have heard what she said. I will add, with some strength of feeling, to a couple of the points that my noble friend made. The first relates to the huge importance of Parliament having an ultimate say in the Boundary Commission’s recommendations and their implementation. The Government will deal with this later, but it is also relevant to this clause. The Government will argue that they are taking power from Parliament and the Government and giving it to an Order in Council which is absolutely neutral. I am afraid that that is not very accurate language. When the commission’s report is finally sent to the Order in Council is a matter for a government Minister. So, if the Bill goes through unamended, it will, effectively, transfer the final word from Parliament to Government. We can argue about that, but let us at least argue as if we were on a level playing field and understand what is actually being done.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 24 calls for the Government to lay before Parliament a report on accuracy and completeness. That is exactly what we need. This is a serious amendment that should be taken seriously by the Government. That report should pay special regard to electoral problems in the inner cities. It should set aside misplaced concerns over political correctness. There are lessons from the pandemic, in the early days of which a clear effort was made to avoid levels of high media exposure to the incidence of the virus in ethnic minority communities. The lesson is clear: mistaken political correctness undermines confidence in administration and decision-taking. Amendment 24 could help identify and target the real problems that confront us.

[Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Committee has heard three excellent speeches. I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments. I am acutely aware of the expertise of these speakers and the efforts they have put in over many years to try to deal with this fundamental weakness of our democratic structure. I cannot claim to have that level of expertise, but it is obvious to me that, however wonderful the Bill comes to be in its final form, it is still, to a worrying degree, a castle built on sand.

The basis of our representative democracy is, of course, the right of people to vote. It is assumed that everyone of an age is able to exercise that right. If, as has been amply demonstrated—there is no need for me to repeat it—it becomes more and more apparent that these figures are seriously inaccurate, and that the numbers on which we determine constituency boundaries do not reflect the number of people living in an area, it is a castle built on sand. It is a bit like an architect saying, “Here is a terrific design for your new house. I like everything about it. The bricks are really dodgy, but you can still go ahead.” The bricks are dodgy; that is the problem.

It is not just a question of numbers; it is also to do with the integrity of our democracy. We hear so many arguments about the size of electorates; for example, pointing out that some inner-city seat has only 50,000 electors, so “My word, it must be a bit of a cakewalk being an MP for that area, with only 50,000 electors.” Of course, it may be true that there are only 50,000 electors, but you can bet your boots, if it is a city-centre constituency, that there will be a lot more people than those 50,000 who live in the constituency and have the right—which they undoubtedly have—to come to you for help. I doubt whether any former MP speaking on this group of amendments, when faced with a long queue of people coming to see them at their surgery, checked before they agreed to help them whether they were on the electoral roll—I certainly never did. There may be MPs who are more effectively bureaucratic than I was who make sure they find that out even if it does not affect their performance, but one’s obligation is clearly to those people. To say that constituency A in an inner city with 50,000 is unfairly overrepresented compared with the rich suburb with 90,000 misses that fundamental point that the bricks out of which the building is constructed are flawed. There is no simple answer, but we have already heard from the previous three speakers that numerous practical things could be done to deal with this fundamental weakness of our democracy—I am not given to hyperbole, but, clearly, if electoral registration is not accurate, people are not able to vote who in our democracy ought to be able to.

I shall say no more and leave it to the experts, but I am so glad that this matter is being debated and with so many really informative contributions.

[Lord Wills (Lab) [V]]

I want to say a few words on Amendment 24, to which I have put my name in support of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, on whose committee I had the pleasure to serve, but, first, I hope that your Lordships will accept my apologies for my inability to be present at Second Reading.

The Conservative Party manifesto commits the Government to

“making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.”

While there are several ways to interpret how exactly every vote counts the same, what I think informs the phrase is a proposition with which I hope everyone can agree, which is that the vote gives every citizen the ability to help choose their Government and to hold those in power to account. That is the cornerstone of democracy and political order. As we have heard, that is true only if every citizen who is eligible to vote is able to vote. They are able to vote only if they are registered to vote. The Government’s aim of equalisation can be achieved only if everyone eligible to vote is registered to vote.

However, as we have heard, there are millions of people who are eligible to vote but who are not on the electoral register and so cannot do so. In this country, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, the register is only 85% complete, which is not a figure with which the Government should be content. In Canada, as the noble Lord pointed out, the register is 96% complete. In normal times, this level of completeness in our electoral register would be a concern, but these are not normal times. Across the Atlantic, in the world’s most powerful country, which has always prided itself on its democracy, there is now unprecedented questioning of the process for electing the next President. Politicians and commentators across the political spectrum are questioning the integrity of that forthcoming election. At the heart of much of that questioning lie well-documented techniques of voter suppression: techniques for stopping voters registering and voting. Such techniques benefit one party, the Republicans, at the expense of the other, the Democrats. Some of those voter suppression techniques are identical to those to which this Government seem attracted, and they use the same justifications as those used by the Republicans in the United States.

I do not want to go into those now. But in these circumstances I hope that the Government would want to take every opportunity to reassure Parliament, and the country, that their motives in pursuing electoral reforms are noble and non-partisan. This simple, straightforward amendment seeks to help them in that endeavour: it gives them an opportunity to share with Parliament their proposals for improving the electoral register until it is as close to being 100% accurate and 100% complete as possible, and it would allow the elected representatives of the people, and your Lordships’ House, to assess the merits of these proposals. It is an amendment that embodies a commitment to democratic transparency and scrutiny, and as such I see no good reason why the Government should not support it. I very much hope that the Minister will now commit the Government to embedding it in the Bill.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Grocott Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a special reason for welcoming this Bill. It puts the final nail in the coffin of the unlamented Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which was passed by the coalition Government. It was the most fiercely opposed Bill in the House of Lords for the past decade, including at least one all-night sitting. It contained two distinct and unrelated measures. One provided for a referendum on the voting system and the other provided for a reduction of MPs from 650 to 600. The Conservatives wanted to reduce the number of MPs but did not want the referendum; the Lib Dems wanted the referendum but did not want to reduce the number of MPs. The history lesson is this: coalition deals affecting our constitution, made behind closed doors with no effective consultation, are castles built on sand, which deserve to collapse—as, thankfully, the 2011 Act now has.

I welcome the fact that the Bill maintains the size of the Commons at 650. That is particularly important at a time when there are huge and increasing demands on MPs from their constituents. If we reduce the number of MPs, we automatically increase the size of constituencies, which in turn increases the workload of MPs—not the workload of noble Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, seemed to think; he omitted the obvious point that Members of the Commons have constituents to represent. Also, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, if we reduced the number of MPs without reducing the number of Ministers, there would be proportionately fewer Back-Benchers to hold the Government to account.

I also welcome another part of the Bill, which is another rejection of the 2011 Act. Clause 1(3) changes the frequency of reviews from every five years to every eight years. The five-year review was always ridiculous, coupled as it was with another failed piece of coalition Government constitutional meddling—namely, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which decreed that general elections should take place every five years. That meant that there would be brand-new constituency boundaries at every general election: neither MPs nor their constituents would know who represented them from one general election to the next. Eight years seems to me a sensible compromise, ensuring that constituency electorates are kept reasonably up to date, and in normal times would operate for at least two general elections.

That brings me to a problem with the size of constituencies. There is an inherent contradiction in the Bill, which provides for five protected constituencies. I support that: inflexible, rigidly defined rules on population size do not make sense. Yet in the same Bill we are told that in no circumstances whatever must the remaining 645 constituencies deviate from the diktat of plus or minus 5%—leading to all the problems that various contributors to the debate have mentioned. I hope that the Minister—he knows a bit about fighting elections, and I am sure he would not like such changes to affect local government elections—will consider the 5% and increase it to at least 7.5%; I would prefer 10%.

These are all issues that we will deal with in Committee. My overall feeling is one of absolute relief that we are back to 650 MPs, and that the dreadful Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 is now dead and buried. If only the coalition Government of the time had listened to the arguments of those in opposition, so much time, money and energy would have been saved.

EU: Negotiations

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, announcements about emergency legislation will be made in due course.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I doubt anyone would disagree that the absolute priority—a term we sometimes use loosely—of the Government at present must be to deal with the virus. However, in the way that different countries have reacted, is it not at least worthy of reflection—I put this in as neutral a way as I can—that when individual citizens of individual countries face a real crisis, they look not to supranational bodies to resolve it, although of course they want countries to co-operate with each other, but to their own Government? In many cases, that leads to them closing their own frontiers. Does that not give some pause for thought about the continuing expectation of the populations of individual nation states to look to their own Government in times of crisis?

[Lord True]

The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. Of course, it does not in any way resile from the views of those countries about their membership of the European Union. It is not for us to comment on the policy of other countries, but he is certainly right that different approaches are being made by different countries. Each one will adopt policies, as we are, in the interests of securing the livelihoods and lives of its citizens.

EU: Future Relationship

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I do not answer for Vote Leave; I was not a member of Vote Leave. I was trying to lead a local authority at the time. Business in this House is a matter for the usual channels. The direct answer to her question is no; the Government intend to procure a successful negotiation and successful outcome, and we hope very much that that view will be shared by our friends and allies in Europe. We will continue the negotiations with a view to a successful free trade agreement and agreement on the other matters covered in the Statement before December.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Like the Minister, who I welcome to his post, I do not want an academic debate about sovereignty, but I do think that, in having a sensible discussion, it is fundamental to recognise the difference between having relationships with other countries via treaties or any other mechanism and a relationship between sovereign states. To have the kind of organisation that exists in the European Union, of which we are thankfully no longer a member—whereby the multi- national organisation can legislate, trumping domestic law, and that can be interpreted by courts outside the control of the nation state and its legislators cannot be removed by the people of the nation state—is a difference in kind. It is not a gradation. It is time that people recognised that and put that particular argument to one side.

[Lord True]

My Lords, I profoundly agree with what the noble Lord said. I thank him for what he personally said and reciprocate with my respect for him and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and their strong voices through the past two or three years against the overwhelming view on the other side. I agree with their analysis; I do not agree with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.

G20 Summit

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, on the face of it, meetings of the G20 represent quite an unlikely and unusual event. When you strip them to their bare bones, it is a meeting of 20 Presidents and Prime Ministers, in this case, although the rank of the people attending varies. They have two days talking among themselves about a huge range of issues ranging from healthcare to migration to international trade. I should say that this is two days for 20 Presidents; even if it were the other way around—two Presidents over 20 days —they would still be hard-pressed to come to any useful conclusions on such a range of issues. When we held our short inquiry into the upcoming G20, as it then was, we had three excellent witnesses, Alan Wheatley of Chatham House, Dr Linda Yueh of the University of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, of this House, who is in his place and will be speaking later.

I shall address not this specific G20 especially but the structure, scope and effectiveness of these meetings. First, what are the comments worthy of note under the heading of “structure”? One is the negative endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who said that at least it was an improvement on the G7, which he described as,

“serving little other purpose than to keep its member states’ civil servants busy”,

and,

“an artefact of a bygone era”.

Twenty is better than seven and I suppose the G20 has the credential of representing 80% of the world’s GDP but, maybe negatively, it also represents 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Its membership consists of five from Europe, four from western Europe, four from Asia, five from the Americas and one from Africa. On any reasonable observation of that membership, that is pretty unbalanced. I wonder whether there would be a more sensible observation on the world’s economy if one or two more countries were included, perhaps developing countries or countries facing the sort of challenges that one finds particularly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

So much for the structure, what about the scope of the G20? Our letter, drafted by our chairman, said that,

“while the initial focus of the G20 was international economics and finance”,

the scope,

“has broadened in recent years, with the forthcoming Summit including issues from healthcare to environmental sustainability, protectionist tendencies, migration movements, energy vulnerabilities and other factors affecting the health of world commerce”.

They had to do that in two days. I know there were Sherpas, but that is still pushing it, I would have thought.

The communiqué published after the summit—I feel sorry for the people who have to write these—again sums up the absurd breadth of scope of these summits. It said that,

“we will strive to create a virtuous cycle of growth by addressing inequalities and realize a society where all individuals can make use of their full potential. We are resolved to build a society capable of seizing opportunities, and tackling economic, social and environmental challenges”.

Who is not? That does not advance human knowledge and understanding very much. These observations about scope perhaps explain the most important difficulty for the G20, which is implementation and how it delivers on the decisions it makes. One of our witnesses—I forget who—said that the summit is,

“like going to a Cabinet meeting with no Prime Minister”.

I will not comment on current circumstances, but that does not seem a very promising start to an international meeting. To quote the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, with whom I agree entirely, again:

“They put something on the agenda, and as long as there are a couple of nice statements about what is on the agenda, they think they have delivered”.


I shall give an example, taken from the leaders’ declaration published at the conclusion of the last summit. There were two or three paragraphs in the communiqué on displacement and migration, which I would have thought was quite a big subject, the main one saying:

“Large movements of refugees are a global concern with humanitarian, political, social and economic consequences. We emphasize the importance of shared actions to address the root causes of displacement and to respond to growing humanitarian needs”.


Presumably they then say to the Sherpas, “Get on with that, mate”. How on earth you deliver on anything as general as that is beyond me.

In our letter, we say that,

“there is no effective mechanism to follow up the implementation of agreements reached at G20 summits”,

which take place in a different location every year with a different chair. Alan Wheatley, another of our expert witnesses, said:

“The G20 has no permanent secretariat. Seen through that prism, there is no permanent officialdom to act as a counterweight to any whims or fancies that the current chairman of the G20 may have”.


We need some objective assessment of these gatherings, which I am sure are hugely expensive and which I suggest have limited value. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, may give us a hint in this quote, which I very much agree with—perhaps more than he intended. He said,

“I think the UK, if handled correctly post-Brexit … should want to be more on the front foot about suggesting better ways of having a more effective global system. I think that it is really important that we do it”.

I certainly agree with that and I hope the Minister does too.

Councils: Funding

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, given the Government’s advocacy and indeed imposition in many parts of the country of directly elected mayoral systems, and given the enormous pressure on local government finance, will the Minister tell us whether these new systems represent good value for money in comparison with more traditional methods of local government administration? If he does not have precise figures to hand, is it not worth at least examining the comparative costs of the two systems of local government?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government have not imposed mayors on parts of the country; they have elected to have mayors. There has been no imposition. In all the cases involving combined authorities and local mayors, local government has come to the Government and asked that these powers be given to them. I think the noble Lord will find that he is misinformed that we have imposed this structure on local government.

House of Lords: Gender Equality

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has had more time than any other Private Member’s Bill this Session, and many of us have spent enjoyable Fridays making progress on it. It is open to the noble Lord, if his appetite is unquenched, to ask my noble friend the Chief Whip for yet more time to progress with his Bill. I know that the current chair of HOLAC, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, takes this matter seriously. Since 2012, HOLAC has appointed seven women and five men.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, yesterday I read the recently published UK Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit 2018, which made the point that the noble Baroness has just made. The number of applications that HOLAC receives from men far exceeds the number from women. I agree that there is a role for all of us in driving up the number of applications from women. Perhaps I could write to her on her question about the percentage of senior appointments.

[Lord Grocott]

I am greatly encouraged by the Minister’s suggestion that I ask the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for more time. I therefore ask him for more time.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I may be in some trouble with my noble friend but that was actually in my brief.

European Parliament Elections: Non-UK EU Citizens

Lord Grocott Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

At the beginning of his questions, my noble friend generously suggested that I might write to him. It is an offer which I accept with alacrity.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister resist any temptation to spend too much time, energy and public money on dealing with all these questions? Of course, the simple way to avoid all the difficulties that Members have identified with these elections would have been to observe the decision of the British people in 2016 to hold no more of them. Can he help the House, at least in one respect, to avoid any further waste of money? There was a reference in his Statement to the fact that full funding was provided to returning officers for all their needs; I am sure that is the case. Can he tell us precisely what the cost to the taxpayer has been for holding these totally unnecessary elections; or, if he does not have the information available now, can he put it in the Library?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord that, had the other place agreed the withdrawal agreement that was put before it, we could have avoided these elections. It so happens that I have in front of me some information relating to his question. The cost of the last European elections was £109 million, but that was shared with local elections. The amount of money set aside this time, when they did not coincide with local elections, was £159 million.