GDP per Capita

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord has been a tireless campaigner for 45 years, in the other place and now here, for reducing the inequalities between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. He cited income; the figures I gave were for gross value added. If you look at gross disposable household income, which is slightly different, the gap is slightly narrower but still there. Since 2010, Welsh gross value added per capita has grown by 24%, faster than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. To address his question, he is quite right that when the EU structural funds expire as we leave the EU, the shared prosperity fund will take their place. The size of the shared prosperity fund is a matter to be resolved in the current spending review. There will then be consultation on how it is allocated. However, I have received a very strong message from the noble Lord and from the Welsh Government that they want the replacement to be at least the same size as the structural funds and allocated primarily on the basis of need, and they want the devolved Assemblies and local partners to be involved in that decision. While I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee, I have given one with green tinges round the edge.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true—perhaps the Minister could confirm this—that the England figure hides the most enormous disparity between London and the south-east and the rest of the country? That gap in GVA, GDP and productivity can be met only by a proposal put forward by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, equivalent to the kind of investment and programme put in place by West Germany when it combined with East Germany. That would overcome not only the disparity described this afternoon but the deep alienation and division that exists in our country.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a powerful case for a generous shared prosperity fund. The Government have tried to do what they can to reduce the disparity; extra funds were allocated to Wales in the 2018 Budget, giving the Welsh Government a £550 million boost. The GVA figures for London are slightly distorted by including people who commute into London but do not live in London. None the less, there is a regional imbalance. Public expenditure per capita is much larger in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than it is for England. That is one of the ways that the Government seek to redress the imbalance the noble Lord just referred to.

Political Parties: Donation Rules

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree. Political parties are an essential part of our democratic system. They give people choice at election time; they incubate and nurture the politicians who will run the country; and they provide a forum for political discussion and policy development. If they were not going to be funded by volunteers, they would be funded by the taxpayer, which would be a deeply unpopular suggestion. I applaud all those who, out of their post-tax income, subscribe to the political party that most accurately reflects their values. They should be applauded rather than denigrated. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for the generosity that he has shown to my party.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s consensual approach, and there is universal applause for the way he handles himself. Would he consider putting himself forward for the leadership of the Tory party?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am deeply flattered by what the noble Lord has just said but I think it would be better if the leader of my party came from the other place.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for having been unable to take part in Second Reading and the first day of Committee. I declare an interest as a hereditary Peer.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that important constitutional legislation should be brought forward by the Government rather than by a Private Member’s Bill. In June 1999, my noble friend Lord Denham asked the following Question of the Lord Chancellor:

“Just suppose that that House goes on for a very long time and the party opposite get fed up with it. If it wanted to get rid of those 92 before stage two came, and it hit on the idea of getting rid of them by giving them all life peerages … I believe that it would be a breach of the Weatherill agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord agree?”


The Labour Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in reply that,

“I say quite clearly that … the position of the excepted Peers shall be addressed in phase two reform legislation”.—[Official Report, 22/6/1999; cols. 798-800.]

Nothing could be clearer than that. That is why I believe that this Bill indeed breaches the Weatherill agreement and the House of Lords Act 1999.

I remind the Committee of the importance of the Labour Lord Chancellor’s words in March 1999, when he said:

“The amendment reflects a compromise … between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent”.—[Official Report, 30/3/1999; col. 207.]


As the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was Tony Blair’s Parliamentary Private Secretary at the time, he must have been well aware of this. To the hereditary peerage, it was a vital part of the 1999 Act and a condition for letting it have satisfactory progress through the House.

I cannot understand why this area of the House needs reform when the by-elections have produced such capable replacements for the 90 such as the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley, the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, all of whom are or have been on the Front Bench of their respective parties. It would seem more urgent to reform the life Peers system, which the Burns report proposes. The hereditary Peers are a strong link with the past, a thread that goes back to the 14th century. Until relatively recently, in House of Lords terms, the House was entirely hereditary. By-elections provide a way into this House that is not dependent on prime ministerial patronage.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, to address the issue that has been put before us and to avoid prevarication, there is a new phase 2: it is Burns. There may be a phase 3—who knows? If a Jeremy Corbyn-led Government were elected, there would a phase 3 which might disturb the Benches opposite slightly more than not having by-elections for hereditary Peers. Burns is a phase 2, and it has consequences. Unless the issue of hereditary Peers and by-elections is addressed in the way that my noble friend Lord Grocott proposes, it is not my party or the broader opposition who will find themselves in difficulty, it will be the Conservative Benches. I would like them to reflect on what would happen if we implemented Burns and this House were decanted in six years’ time, with the two things coming together, and the Conservatives were faced with hanging on to their hereditary Peers while losing their life Peers.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I am a great admirer of our hereditaries. Man for man, pace my noble friend Lady Mar, they are at least a match for those like me who have been appointed here. They are a match in their commitment, their contributions to the House, their expertise and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, pointed out at Second Reading, their independence of mind and spirit.

Like many others here, I would welcome wider improvements in our appointments system, with a larger role not least for the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and his excellent Lords Appointments Commission. In the meantime, I strongly support this Bill, which would go some considerable distance to enhancing the reputation and image of this House.

Therefore, far from supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I see positive merit in this reform being achieved by way of a Private Member’s Bill rather than by government. It demonstrates our own desire and commitment to achieving reforms for ourselves. Consistently with that goes the report of my noble friend Lord Burns, which again is our own attempt to modernise and reform this House. I cannot resist harking back to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, in closing the Second Reading debate. He asked why hereditaries should,

“have an assisted places scheme to get into the House of Lords?”—[Official Report, 8/9/17; col. 2186.]

There has been much criticism throughout these debates of hereditaries being, virtually without exception, male and white. As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, put it at Second Reading, the existing system is, “gender and racially biased”. Surely altogether more fundamentally objectionable even than those criticisms is the fact that this system favours a very tiny, and—I suppose I had better put this in quotes—“well born” number within a wider population of millions. A number of those millions may have even more to contribute to our House than the hereditaries—the few future hereditaries who, if the Bill passes, will not join us. In short, why should they have assisted places? Should we not modernise and reform?

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Friday 23rd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendment. The word “idiosyncrasies”, which was just used, springs to mind rather powerfully. Earlier this week, we paid tribute rightly to the late Lord Ivor Richard, who I knew as a member of the Cabinet in 1997. The compromise that was reached in 1999 has been referred to, the Wetherill amendment included. It was intended to ensure that progress could be made on a modest way of modernising this second Chamber. Today, we are trying to take a very modest step in that direction as well.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Grocott. When I heard him speak at Second Reading, I thought it was a masterpiece in forensic analysis and humour—humour, because the situation he was addressing sadly leads to us believing that we have to put aside something that, outside this House, is seen as a complete anachronism. I have heard many forensic speeches in my time from my own side—from John Smith and Robin Cook included, who I counted as friends—and I think they would have been proud to have heard my noble friend’s speech and the case that he has made.

I want to be timorous today, in an unusual fashion. I would like to persuade the Conservative Benches and the Government that it is in their best interest to take this very modest step. We have the Burns recommendations and the restoration and renewal of the House, leading to the decanting of both Houses of Parliament, both Houses having voted for it. A combination of these measures requires us to take steps now which will then lead to a logical and rational balancing of the political and non-political interests in this House.

It is not just about those who are nominated by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Liberal Democrat party; it is also about the balance with the Cross Benches and the Bishops’ Benches. Unless we get it right on the anomaly of having by-elections for hereditary Peers, and unless we move now—I am opposing the amendment so that we can make progress—it will make it extraordinarily difficult to maintain that balance as we move towards implementing the Burns committee recommendations, which I hope we will rapidly do, combined with the prospect of decanting. When this House decants, there will be Members who logically choose that moment to retire, and there will be people who choose to leave in advance of it. In the lead up to the decant, if not handled very carefully, that will completely distort the balance of the different parties and Cross-Bench Peers in the House.

To continue the by-elections in that run-up period, and during the implementation of Burns, we would distort the balance between the nominated, those who go through the commission and those who are elected by this bizarre medieval process, which retains only one section—those who are here because their grandfathers or great-grandfathers or great-great-grandfathers were in favour with the monarch or managed to get their hands on sufficient property and land.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My noble friend omitted one category: those who paid Lloyd George and Maundy Gregory for a certain favour.

[Lord Blunkett]

I had better not go into the payment of favours in your Lordships’ House—it might be a difficult road to travel.

It is odd for a Labour Member to say this, but if noble Lords think it through, they will appreciate it. The historic mission of the Conservative Benches and the Government has been to be sufficiently willing to bend and move with the times, which has been of historic benefit to them. Therefore, I am surprised to hear that the mover of the amendment is in favour of very radical change: namely, a wholly elected House or a substantially elected House. It is odd to advocate a substantially elected House but to want to retain by-elections or inherited peerages. If you had this debate anywhere in the United Kingdom in any forum—from traditional media to social media, in colleges or schools, where many Members of this House attend and make a positive contribution in explaining how our democracy works—people would think that you had lost your marbles if you argued not for the immediate abolition of the hereditary Peers but to continue to have by-elections to fulfil those vacancies.

In doing so, whatever else happens around us, whatever we do with Burns and the lead up to decanting, whatever happens in terms of the natural processes of noble Lords leaving this House either under the 2014 Act or by death, the hereditary Peers would retain their numbers. That is illogical, irrational and would cause extreme difficulties as we move over the next seven years to decanting to other premises with noble Lords rationally looking to reduce the numbers in this House. That is why we should wholeheartedly back my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I too oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and add to the points already made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. This is in danger of creating yet another myth about the way in which your Lordships’ House could and should be improved. His amendment is upside down and inside out and contrary to common sense.

I can best illustrate that with a practical example. I apologise in advance if this seems somewhat personal or even morbid, but it is the best way in which I can demonstrate the reality of the situation facing your Lordships’ House. Suppose that suddenly and truly sadly both the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, were—heaven forbid—to be called to higher and greater things. There would then of course be two hereditary by-elections. Incidentally, I think that heaven would do well to forbid. The addition to the heavenly host of those particular noble Lords would be a problem for St Peter.

Whatever the nature and size of the electorate in the consequent hereditary by-elections, one factor is certain. Under the present arrangements two new hereditary Peers would be elected from the list of eligible hereditaries. However, they would of course be chosen within the vagaries and vicissitudes of the current system already referred to by noble Lords. The leadership of the Conservative Party—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Young, will be able to elucidate this—and No. 10 could have no guarantee that the additions to the Government Benches were as useful or supportive as the Members that they were replacing. Indeed, they could not even be sure that they would be loyal Brexiteers.

That brings us to the amendment and to the report of the Burns committee. Throughout our debate on 19 December—throughout the House on all sides—there was a general recognition that the unique key to progress would be the active and complete co-operation of the Prime Minister and her successors. Without that, we would not make progress. The Prime Minister is clearly numerate. We already know from her letter to the Lord Speaker on 20 February that she had perfectly understandable concerns about the proposals of the Burns committee. In that letter she makes no direct reference to the central and crucial Burns recommendation of two out for one in. But given what I have already explained in terms of the inevitable consequences of continuing hereditary by-elections under the system that we have—which is so devotedly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—she would be entitled to be extremely cautious in supporting those colleagues on this issue. Just follow the arithmetic implications of the solemn departure of those two noble Lords. No fewer than four life Peers would have to disappear from the Conservative Benches, by whatever means, before the Prime Minister could have just one new recruit of her own choice. Two would already be wiped out by the second departing hereditary before a further two could justify just one new recruit.

I hope that the Minister, in responding to the discussion today, will be able to indicate to us that the Burns report, far from giving an alibi to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for yet more delay, actually gives us a very strong reason to move forward. If not, frankly, the arithmetic will be nonsense—nonsense in the terms described by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but specifically in terms of the nonsense to the Conservative Benches.

Budget: North East of England

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. She will know that the industrial strategy, which was launched at the same time as the Budget, promised, among other things, to make the UK a more connected country, with high-speed fixed-to-mobile access available in all areas including rural ones. It also aimed to make decisions on infrastructure more geographically balanced. That is at the heart of the industrial strategy. My noble friend will have an opportunity to develop her arguments after Christmas, when there will be a whole day’s debate on the industrial strategy.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister may not have a handle on the tribal conflicts in the north-east, but I have a slightly better handle on the tribal conflicts in Yorkshire. There is a real worry that the whole of the east Pennines is losing out in relation to resources which would otherwise be available if the plans for elected mayors in the city regions there had actually been carried through. If they do occur in the months ahead, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the resources earmarked for authorities with elected mayors will be available, and backdated, for combined authorities that move forward with an elected mayor in the way he has described?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord will know that there is a Sheffield regional city devolution deal with an elected mayor. That is being set up, with an election scheduled I think for May next year. If other parts of Yorkshire want to approach the Government and offer a similar devolution deal, of course we would listen. When it comes to backdating resources, my colleagues in the Treasury might just pause before signing up to that one. But what we do not want to do is have an all-Yorkshire deal which then unwinds the deal that is already going ahead with the Sheffield City Region. The Government would listen very warmly to any work the noble Lord can do to encourage more authorities to come forward with devolution deals and elected mayors.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the last point, I see from the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto that they committed themselves to cutting the number of MPs by 150, so I am not sure why the noble Lord is so squeamish about reducing the number by 50. There are a record 46.8 million people on the register, and what he has proposed is yet another Liberal Democrat delay to the Boundary Commission proposals. The dates for the current boundary review were approved by an amendment—to which the noble Lord put his name—to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill back in 2013. The amendment made it clear that the electoral register as at 1 December 2015 would be used in this review. That was an amendment to which the noble Lord put his name.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I put my name to none of this. I simply say to the Minister, who is a very reasonable person, that if there are 46.8 million people on the register but a substantial number of them are not counted in the reconfiguration of boundaries, that would be unacceptable to any political party.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The date for the boundary review is inevitably a snapshot. During the period of all boundary reviews, people are added to the register. As I said, the date of 1 December 2015 was approved by this House when the relevant legislation went through, and any interference with the current review would mean that the next election would be fought on boundaries dating from the year 2000. That cannot be in the interests of democracy.