All 4 Debates between Lord Grocott and Lord McFall of Alcluith

House of Lords: Size

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McFall of Alcluith
Tuesday 23rd June 2020

(4 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord McFall of Alcluith Portrait The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That is a very perceptive point on this issue, and it feeds into the point I made about the limits on the House and the Procedure Committee. The Appointments Commission has done an excellent job on that issue, and I am sure that any further suggestions or initiatives it produces will be looked at seriously.

Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, since 23 March, when the House resolved to suspend any by-elections for hereditary Peers until 8 September, three further vacancies have arisen. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that we cannot be serious about reducing the size of the House if we are to have a clutch of by-elections for new hereditary Peers in the autumn? Will he ask the Procedure Committee to recommend at least postponing these wretched elections or, better still, getting rid of them altogether?

Procedure Committee

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McFall of Alcluith
Tuesday 21st May 2019

(5 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord McFall of Alcluith Portrait The Senior Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In case noble Lords did not get that, I repeat: the new clocks will flash when speaking time limits, both formal and advisory, are reached.

The fourth section of the report recommends that the trial of attaching explanatory statements to amendments should be rolled out to all Bills from the start of the next Session. We hope this will be welcome news to the many Members and others who gave positive feedback about the trial.

The fifth section relates to dinner and lunch break business. The current rules do not allow the flexibility for dinner or lunch break business to be taken around the time intended every day. These recommendations allow the House to take the business at the time expected notwithstanding the progress of other business.

The sixth section relates to Oral Question tabling time on days when the House sits in the morning, and recommends that the deadline for tabling Oral Questions on such days should be moved from 2 pm to 10.30 am. Priority will continue to be given to those who attend in person, as on other days.

The final section of our report relates to procedural changes resulting from the extended parliamentary Session. Now that the Session looks likely to extend beyond two years, we recommend that the limits per Member on the number of Oral Questions, balloted topical Oral Questions, balloted debates and topical Questions for Short Debate should be reset on 1 June, and that the usual arrangements for Thursday debates should run from the first sitting Thursday in June to the end of the current Session. I beg to move.

Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am one of those who strongly welcome what has been said on the powers of the Lord Speaker. It is two years since we had a debate on precisely this subject; 12 people spoke in that debate and 10, in one way or another, said that it was important to enhance the role of the Lord Speaker in the operation of the procedures in this Chamber. As the Senior Deputy Speaker has already said, the main reason most people advanced this was that it is bizarre to anyone sitting in the Gallery to see a stately procession with presumably quite an important figure walking into the Chamber each day, arriving on the Woolsack and then—unless someone has died or left the House—proceeding to do absolutely nothing other than look decorative. Added to this, there is the situation, which seems absurd to me, in which in a Chamber of 800 Members, the only Member not allowed to speak during Question Time is the Speaker.

Procedure Committee

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McFall of Alcluith
Wednesday 11th July 2018

(6 years, 5 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott
- Hansard - -

Even if he did not move it—

Lord McFall of Alcluith Portrait The Senior Deputy Speaker
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

This may confuse things even more, but I am informed by bush telegraph that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did not move his amendment.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Grocott and Lord McFall of Alcluith
Monday 6th December 2010

(14 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott
- Hansard - -

But why on earth, if the noble Lord’s argument does not apply in Europe—and empirically I can show him that it does not apply—why would it suddenly start applying in Westminster elections? I just cannot understand the point.

Lord McFall of Alcluith Portrait Lord McFall of Alcluith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Maybe this will help the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Since devolution took place in Scotland, in 1998, the turnout for Westminster elections under first past the post has been the greatest of all; followed by the Scottish Parliament with proportional representation, which has been less; followed by the European elections, which has been even less. Can the noble Lord tell us why that is?

Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott
- Hansard - -

I will even try and trump my noble friend on my knowledge of Scottish elections. I agree entirely with what he said and the implication of what he said. However, is it not also true to say that in what was described as the laboratory of a Scottish election for the Scottish Parliament—where people have two votes, one for PR and one for first past the post; and that is as near a laboratory as you will ever get in an electoral system—in election after election, more people turn out for the first past the post option than they do for the PR option. With this kind of debate, the whole of the discussion takes place as if nothing has happened, A lot has happened. A lot of electoral systems have been tried. Those who were suggesting, insisting on, demanding reform—for there was a huge public demand for a change in the electoral system—have been proved conclusively and unarguably wrong in terms of the benefits they told us would accrue if their proposals were accepted.