Preparing for an Ageing Society (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Friday 4th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Preparing for an Ageing Society (2nd Report, HL Paper 236, Session 2024–26).

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start, I want to make a short statement. As set out on Today’s Lists, speeches in all three debates should be limited to three minutes, with the exception of those of the movers, winders and Ministers. I know from experience that if everyone goes over by just a few seconds, those seconds mount up. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if Members could stick to the advisory speaking time to ensure that the Ministers have adequate time to respond to the points raised in each of the debates today.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege and pleasure to introduce this report on behalf of the Economic Affairs Select Committee of the House in place of our former chair, my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield. He has, as the Salvationists would say in the 19th century on the death of one of their senior members, been promoted to glory, which in his case is ministerial office as one of Ed Miliband’s Foreign Office Ministers.

I have known Stewart for more than two decades. He demonstrated a very high level of intellect by his appointment as a fellow of Magdalen at a young age. When I was in No. 10, he was a member of Gordon Brown’s council of economic advisers. Although we did not agree on every aspect of government policy, we were both committed European social democrats and were fascinated by the lessons for Britain of post-war Germany. He has been a great chair of our Select Committee to work under, and we owe him a lot.

No report is ever produced without the contribution of the clerks, the expert advisers, our technical and administrative support, and our witnesses. This whole operation was brilliantly orchestrated by our committee clerk, Matthew Manning, to whom I also pay tribute.

We learned a lot from many excellent witnesses. To pick on one is unfair, but I will take the liberty of breaching that rule by paying tribute to Charles Goodhart, the former Bank of England economist. His brother William was a distinguished Member of this House, whose contribution at the age of 89 lost nothing in its clarity and pungency. He is a great exemplar of why we should not be pessimistic about the possibilities of an ageing society. I also pay tribute to other members of the committee, including those rotated off before this debate.

The UK is a rapidly ageing society. The numbers are striking. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projections say that the old age dependency ratio—that is, the number of people above the state pension age relative to the number of working people—will rise from approximately 31% now to 38% in 2050 and 47% in 2074. Indeed, in the years of the Conservative Governments from 2010 to 2024, the population aged over 65 rose from something like 16.5% to 19%.

The decline in fertility rates is even more striking. In 1964, a peak fertility rate of 2.93 children per woman was achieved. This has fallen precipitously. In 2023, it had reached a new low of 1.44 in England and Wales and 1.25 in Scotland. The long-term replacement rate is 2.08, so we can see the basis of the demographic crisis.

We heard from our witnesses that the prospects for raising the fertility rate are dim and that policy attempts elsewhere to do this have failed. That was a great disappointment to me, because when I worked for the President of the European Commission two decades ago, we had confidence that the adoption of Nordic-style family-friendly policies—subsidised childcare, gender equality and more equally shared responsibility for bringing up children between men and women—would help sustain an adequate fertility rate. Sadly, that has not proved to be the case.

Immigration is likewise not the panacea that in some quarters it is made out to be. It might help if immigration were circular—that is, immigrants returning home as their countries become more prosperous, which to some extent has happened with eastern European immigration. The problem with the immigration from further afield that Britain has experienced since 2019 is that families are more likely to settle here permanently, adding in the short term to public spending costs but not adding to demographic sustainability in the longer term, as second-generation birth rates tend to adjust to UK norms.

Among our witnesses, people were optimistic that the change in profile of the population is manageable. However, the rate at which it is occurring could pose substantial challenges, though it is worth highlighting that some of that is the result of a great success story. Rising life expectancy is something to be celebrated—for girls born today, life expectancy is 90, while for boys it is 86.7—but there is a worrying gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Healthy life expectancy has actually fallen in the last couple of years. There is already a huge north-south gap emerging; for instance, the gap in healthy life expectancy between London and the north-east is seven years. These are very worrying trends.

The fiscal picture is also stark. In its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability 2025 report, the Office for Budget Responsibility—for which I have great regard, unlike some other people—says that by the early 2070s, on current policy settings, borrowing will be pushed up to a clearly unsustainable 20% a year, and debt will rise to over 270%, which again is clearly unsustainable.

We are not alone in facing this challenge, but that is no source of comfort. The fact that others will be grappling with the same issues could increase competition between nations over a dwindling workforce, at the same time as our economy will be struggling.

This is about more than just the current elderly. The current young population will become the older generation of the future; indeed, thanks to the increases in life expectancy, they will be older for longer.

Yet demography is not destiny. One key conclusion we reached is that the Government need to focus on the older economically inactive who are below state pension age, and I think these facts are not particularly well known. Discussion of raising the state pension age to deal with this problem is, in our view, misplaced. Those still working at the point of state pension age are entitled to claim it but are in fact highly likely to continue working beyond it. The focus has to be on those who exit the workforce before reaching the state pension age.

This is the scale of the problem: at the age of 50, 80% of the age group are still in work, but at the age of 65 the participation rate has fallen to 25% to 30%. That catastrophic fall in the participation rate is the public policy challenge that we feel needs to be addressed. Simply to raise the state pension age would plunge a significant number of people in that late-60s bracket into poverty, as happened when the pension age was raised from 65.

The Government are beginning to think hard about how to promote workforce participation at the other end of the age spectrum, among young people, with the brilliant Milburn review, which is greatly to be welcomed as an outstanding contribution to public policy. However, we hear nothing, or very little, about the scale of what is required to prepare an ageing workforce for those in their mid-50s to mid-60s. The Government’s response is their mid-life MOT programme and targeted jobcentre support for older job seekers. All that is welcome but it hardly seems an ambitious enough response to this crisis, and that is a crucial conclusion of our report.

There are a number of reasons for people to leave the workforce at older ages, which present policy does little to address. Some are benign. People want to stop working if they have the financial resources to do so. Unfortunately for the Treasury, these are often those who contribute the most in taxes, and the Government need to find ways of incentivising these people to remain in or return to work. However, we also heard about those who want to work but are unable to do so because of caring responsibilities, either to ageing parents or to dependants. We recognise that this is a priority for the Government and we are looking forward to the recommendations of the commission that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, is working on. But you cannot help noting that a number of these grand reviews have been held in the past, with very little action taken. Let us profoundly hope that the Casey review will be the last before concrete policies are announced and enacted.

There has obviously been some focus in discussion on reforming the triple lock. This has proved an expensive driver of real-terms increases in the state pension, due to the recurring volatility of both inflation and earnings, which have led to real-terms increases. Linking pensions to earnings—that is, to the living standards of the working population—is estimated to save some £15.5 billion. That is a significant sum of money. It would take the defence budget up by over 0.5% of GDP. But in our report, rather than focus on that, we have chosen to focus on the much longer-term issue of raising labour force participation among those over 50. The continued yearly focus on the Budget, and the Government’s fiscal headroom and all that, means that there is a danger that we lose sight of the far more serious long-term issues. I am afraid that nothing in what the Government had to say reassured us in this regard.

The Cameron Government, to their credit, made the ageing population one of the subjects of their foresight studies, but this was lost in the aftermath— I would say “chaos”—of Brexit. The present Government, in response to our recommendation that they publish an overarching strategy statement setting out how they plan to address the challenges of an ageing society in a cohesive way, said that an “integrated approach” was

“preferable to a single standalone strategy”.

I do not know quite what that means. They went on to say that they were taking

“a strategic and cross-cutting approach to issues relating to an ageing society”.

Well, without some clear statement of what the strategy that underpins the purported integrated approach is, I find this answer devoid of significant and substantial content.

The lack of any published strategy on ageing is a worrying indication that the Government would prefer not to face up to these challenges as an immediate question, and that the UK is therefore woefully unprepared for the future. This is a harsh conclusion, but the point of having Select Committees is to point out difficult conclusions that our politics is failing to address. On that basis, and with that reason, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has thrown up an enormous range of new ideas and thoughts that various committees of the House might take up. I was going to discuss with our clerk how we can summarise all the issues that might be taken up further. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson on his summing-up. It is very difficult when you are a new Minister to do this, but he did very well, so I thank him.

I feel a little guilty that the report did not directly address the triple lock question. It is obvious that that question must be addressed. My own sympathies are very much with taking the risk of doing it in an appropriate way. We did not do that because we wanted to draw attention to a fundamental problem of this declining participation rate among over-50s. A lot of ideas have come forward on how we could address this question. Therefore, the report and the debate on it have been extremely valuable. I thank everyone most sincerely for the part that they played.

Motion agreed.

King’s Speech

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose brand of Conservative politics I have always personally admired. He raises very important questions about the steel industry. However, I will make just two points. First, I agree that there is a case for a sovereign capability in steel, and we have to work out a strategy as to how best and most efficiently to do that. But, secondly, it has to be part of a European policy. We have to be there because we have integrated supply chains in the steel industry. A lot of our exports—something like two-thirds—go to the European Union, and there is a similar flow in the other direction, so we cannot have an effective policy without it also having a European dimension.

I want to focus my remarks on the gracious Speech’s commitment to building a much closer partnership with the European Union. I strongly support the Government’s proposed legislation but urge them to make fast progress. As the Prime Minister said, we need to be at the heart of Europe, and it seems to me that that is the only way forward to meet the frightening new geopolitical challenges that Britain now faces. It is also a necessary, but in my view not sufficient, precondition of restoring broad-based economic growth in our country, which has eluded us since the financial crisis, and more particularly since the 2016 referendum.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of the Brexit referendum, we need to ask ourselves what benefits positively have been realised. I am not aware of any respectable economic analysis that demonstrates positive benefits. How much have the so-called Brexit freedoms delivered? Some people here refer to the ability to make our own free trade agreements. My noble friend made an excellent speech this morning and referred to those Brexit freedoms. Let me just point out to the House that the benefits in economic growth to which she referred amount to about 0.5% of GDP per year, when the loss as a result of Brexit is something of the order of 4%, and some economists say far, far higher.

For some people on the other side, none of these questions of fact about the impact matters because what matters to them is that, with Brexit, Britain has regained its sovereignty. In a technical sense in constitutional law, that is correct, but what is worth while about technical, legalistic sovereignty if all that does is impose additional costs and burdens, as in the chemical industry and many other sectors, on whole swathes of our business? This is the challenge that the alignment Bill will address, and I think we should get it through this House as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made a very good speech, even if I did not agree with it. She asked why we should align ourselves with a stagnant European Union. I have two points about that. First, 40% of our trade is with Europe. Most people think that geography is what determines trade, particularly trade in services, which is our great strength. The reality is that Europe is going to be by far our biggest trading partner for decades ahead, and we have to have a better relationship simply in those terms. I agree with what Chancellor Merz says about the need for regulatory reform in Europe and think the Draghi report is excellent. I would like to see some of its lessons applied in the United Kingdom. One of the reasons why we may find support in key member states for our alignment Bill is that I think Chancellor Merz will see Britain as a potential ally in future on the need for pressing for that regulatory reform.

What we are trying to do is difficult. Nothing to do with the European Union is easy, as I have known for a long time, having worked on these issues. First, we have to face the issue of budget contributions. We have to find a formula that can be applied relating to our share of joint GDP and the economic significance of the particular sector we are talking about.

Secondly, we have to have flexibility on freedom of movement. I think the youth experience scheme is an excellent idea. This House has demanded freedom of movement for artists and performers in Europe, one of the key things that we have lost. The same applies to professional services. I would make these movements on freedom of movement in return for closer co-operation in tackling illegal migration. I find it odd, by the way, that people on the other side can criticise freedom of movement. As soon as they got Brexit, what did they do? They implemented the biggest wave of immigration that we have seen in the post-war era. One of the reasons for the rise of Reform today is that the Conservative Party did exactly the opposite of what it promised in the referendum as far as immigration was concerned.

Thirdly, we have to raise our game in Europe and all that means for rebuilding our Brussels capabilities, having strong co-ordination machinery domestically, having the political will to impose solutions from the centre—from No. 10—where departments disagree, and having a Cabinet that takes the Europe relationship seriously and spends time on it. We have a lot of common interests in joint EU-UK co-operation—in defence procurement, in a joint approach to the regulation of artificial intelligence, in trade and in technology, where we have so much to offer. Jean Monnet said Europe was born in crises; we are certainly living through a big crisis now. We have to think boldly, and I would like to see the possibility of a commitment to rejoin the European Union in the next Labour manifesto.

UK-EU Customs Union

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome my new colleagues who are making their maiden speeches today—my noble friends Lady Gill and Lord Docherty, my good friend who is to come later, and my noble friend Lord Doyle, who is a very close friend and from whom we have just heard an excellent maiden speech. I first came across my noble friend 30 years ago, when he had just arrived in Westminster and was working for the newly elected Labour MPs for East Anglia. He was so keen on this job and he was homeless, so he camped out in Charles Clarke’s office while he sorted out his personal affairs. He always had that trademark, and he has kept it: he is the man with the duffel coat. He always reminds me, whenever I see him, of Paddington Bear. In a way, that is appropriate, because he is a man of great culture and a real expert on film, so he will bring great wisdom on cultural questions to this House.

In the past 30 years since I first met my noble friend, he has done a great variety of very interesting things. He has worked intimately with some of the most consequential people on the centre-left of British politics: first for Tony Blair in No. 10 and then in his role as Middle East peace envoy, then for David Miliband—Labour’s lost leader—in his role with the International Rescue Committee, and finally for Keir Starmer. Working for Keir Starmer, he was not one of the fast-rotating group of people who have been in and out of No. 10; he was a crucial aide. I do know how many people know this, but he sustained Keir Starmer at what was the deepest crisis point of his leadership of the Labour Party after the loss of the Hartlepool by-election in 2021. When he worked on the Batley and Spen by-election, he persuaded Kim Leadbeater, Jo Cox’s sister, to be our candidate and we squeezed home by 300 votes. That is probably one of the most consequential acts of his political career. In his three decades of politics, has shown outstanding loyalty to the bosses he has worked for.

My noble friend is a very considerable person. He is a man of faith who has struggled with some of his inner tensions and conflicts and overcome them. He brings to this House much more than the experience of a press officer; he is well informed across a wide range of national and international issues. He is a committed lifelong social democrat and he is going to make a great contribution to this House.

On the subject of the debate, I will not delay the House long, but I will say this. I have great respect for the intellect of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but I have never heard such rubbish on the question of Europe. He referred to his role in the Uruguay round. Let me remind him, it was the European Commission that negotiated the Uruguay round.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

In fact, it was jointly negotiated by member states and the European Commission. I was there for all nine days of the negotiations in the Heysel stadium, so the noble Lord is wrong.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Do you know why we won the Uruguay round? It is because we had the strength of the bloc of the European Union behind us. It was not just something that Britain achieved on its own.

Secondly, the noble Lord talks about the stagnation in our export of goods and completely ignores the vast expansion of our trade in services with the European Union, which is being put at risk by increasing barriers. He neglects the fact that, in 2016, the British public were promised a growth miracle as a result of leaving the EU. Where are the benefits of all that loosening of rules that were supposed to happen? We were promised the end of free movement, and what did the Conservatives do? They went on to create the biggest inward movement of people into this country we have ever seen, so what hypocrisy they have talked on immigration. If we had stayed in the single market and in Europe, the growth we would have seen as a result would have meant that none of the tax rises that we needed to have since the 2024 general election would have been necessary. Those are facts.

The economic situation is getting worse as we lose the strength of the European bloc. We no longer have the competitive pressure of the single market, which is what makes business efficient. As we lose that competitive pressure, we will find that Brexit is not a one-off loss; it will affect our competitive position for years to come.

I said I would not talk for long, but may I just make one point? We should look at the customs union and try to speed up the reset. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: we need independent expert advice on what we would try to achieve and how. This is something of great complexity. We need to look objectively at the consequences of having an independent trade policy. I do not think they are very considerable, but I am willing to be proved wrong in an independent expert inquiry, which I hope Keir Starmer will set up.

UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an admirable report and I agree with virtually all its recommendations. It is a fine swansong for the period of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as chair of the committee. It is wonderful, in a way, that we were able to reach agreement on the report’s important recommendations. It was a great pleasure to work with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on the committee; although I do not agree with everything he said in his speech, I agree with quite a lot.

Now that we are outside the European Union, we should be striving for consensus on how we can improve the relationship. Consensus does not mean that everyone should agree—for example, I do not think we should allow the populist right a veto over how we try to improve our relationship—but it means that when we talk to Brussels, whether through the present Government or an incoming Labour Government, it should feel that there is some kind of political willingness on Britain’s part to have a constructive relationship.

The big gap in our report, and this was done deliberately, is economics. It is a gap, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to, that Keir Starmer was trying to fill when he announced that he was determined to improve the TCA. Obviously there is some scepticism about that, even among the European academic bubble—yesterday I read a report by the UK in a Changing Europe group that was rather sceptical about what it might achieve—but I think change is achievable in the trading relationship.

A big problem that we have had since Brexit is the lack of trust between the EU and the UK. A lot of that is due to the way in which the present Government threatened to breach their treaty obligations on the Northern Ireland protocol. The present Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, deserves praise for negotiating and agreeing the Windsor Framework, but there is still hesitancy about taking the relationship forward. For example, I do not know how the present Home Secretary thinks that threatening a potential British withdrawal from the EHRC is going to help our efforts to control illegal migration. That would mean a crisis in our relations with the EU and a great interruption in police and justice co-operation. The fact is that we would be less able than we are now to work with our partners in tackling the criminal gangs of people smugglers.

We should stop trying to threaten these things, however sotto voce, and try to build a relationship of trust. Labour can do that. Labour can work strongly with our European partners in the defence of democracy, which is fundamentally what is at stake in Ukraine. If we have a change in the presidency of the United States next year, that will be an existential crisis for whether Europe can work together to defeat the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Secondly, there is common agreement on large parts of the climate change agenda, although I am sorry to see the Government backing off it today.

Thirdly, there is a lot of scope for industrial co-operation on the new technologies. In the 1970s we had the great Airbus project. Let us think about how to work together on new technologies so that European efforts can match the challenge of China and the dominance of the US tech giants.

We can build an atmosphere in which change in the trading relationship is possible. We cannot be stuck with David Frost—the noble Lord, Lord Frost—for ever. That, it seems to me, would be fatal to Britain’s economic growth prospects. It is therefore worth working hard at trying to build a more constructive relationship with our partners and friends.

Public Services: Workforce (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, on this excellent report—indeed, on a series of reports that have added a lot to my knowledge of the challenges facing public services. It was an excellent idea of whoever decides these things in this place to set up a Public Services Committee, and I think that it has proved its value. I have learned a lot.

I have a few remarks to make, which may be politically sharp but which are none the less deserved. First, we will never solve the problem of the public sector workforce if the Government continue to take the view that they intend to use holding down public sector pay as a battering ram for bringing down inflation. If that is the approach, it will result in a disaster for public services. It is not just a matter of what happens this winter—it is going to be a long-term challenge to get inflation down, but we cannot do it by basically sacrificing public services. At the moment, private sector pay is going up by around 6% while public sector pay is at 2% to 3%: that is not sustainable. The Government must know that; we are losing people from the public services to the private sector, and something must be done about it.

My second point is that the Government must recognise the need for investment if we are going to save money. The willingness to put money into public services that would in fact save money is absolutely vital. The most obvious case of this is social care reform where, clearly, a lot of the problems of the NHS would be a lot less if we had a properly functioning social care system, and we are not going to have that unless we have a comprehensive reform of pay and conditions and how the whole thing is managed.

A similar example of investor-save is in the hugely escalating costs of children in care. I know this as a Cumbria county councillor—I apologise; I should have already declared that interest. The hugely escalating costs of children in care are a real problem. Josh MacAlister’s review points to a way of tackling this. It was debated in the House last week but, unfortunately, I could not be present. It is, again, an example of where you have to put some money up front if you are going to save money in the long run.

Thirdly, we need active labour market policies for the public sector. We are in a situation where workforce participation is in fact declining. This is a very serious situation for the country, and we need a strategy to get it up again. I was talking to some Swedes yesterday at a seminar. The Swedish model has always put high employee participation as a top priority. If you get high employee participation, you get the tax revenues that enable you to improve public services. So we really need a strategy for filling all these jobs—getting older workers, perhaps on a part-time basis, back into services. We need a comprehensive strategy.

My final point is that we must have radical reform. We have to be prepared to upset people—like the professional institutes. If we are going to have an expansion of the apprentice route in public services, that will upset a lot of people who think that only graduates can do the job. We have to be prepared to be tough on that. The old new Labour mantra of “investment and reform” is what public services need today more than anything else, and I would like to know what plans the Government have for both investment and reform.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Fine, I will give way.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

How does the noble Lord explain away the fact that the Government introduced the largest set of tax cuts and the biggest increase in the budget deficit since the time of Anthony Barber in 1972?

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

How does the noble Lord explain away the fact that his Front Bench supported all of it, including the reductions in national insurance and the basic rate of income tax? They did not support the corporation tax cut but that is presumably because they do not recognise the importance of having investment in our country. Where does investment come from? It comes from retained profits after tax; that is how I would explain it. It is actually to the credit of the Opposition that they supported the populist things. But they concentrated on the cut to the top rate of tax, which the Government have since decided not to go ahead with.

Inflation is the enemy. Jim Callaghan, a great Labour Prime Minister, warned us that

“inflation is the father and mother of unemployment”.

That is why the Government are determined to try to get growth, and why we need to recognise that continuing with QE on the present scale will result in inflation and a disaster for both unemployment and our country’s prosperity. The era of free money is over. We need to concentrate on wealth creation, not wealth consumption. We need to save every penny; we could start with our own front door in this place, which is costing £2.5 million. Use the candle ends. Look at programmes and decide on priorities. Personally, I think that increasing universal credit should be a priority. However, if that is to be funded, people must recognise that it will mean cuts elsewhere.

So I say this: all support to the Prime Minister. Stop the personal attacks and look at the reality, because if we get this wrong people’s mortgages and costs will go through the roof—and they will not be able to blame the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I join the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, back to the ministerial Bench. There is much in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, with which I agree. We all want growth, and it is a realistic ambition to try to turn Britain back to the 2.5% growth figure that we enjoyed until the financial crisis. The question is how to do it in a way—I think this is an important point—where the whole of society benefits. The fact is that the growth we have seen since the financial crisis has not trickled down. People on median wages and below have not seen any increase in their standard of living. This is an important thing that future government policy has to address.

As for the details of the plan for growth, there are some things in it with which I agree, but it is limited in its vision. If the Government had paid attention to business, business would have put skills at the top of the list and said that what is needed is more apprenticeships and more people with higher technical qualifications. On pages 19 and 20, which talk about getting more people into work with the right skills, there is not a single mention of that agenda and what the Government are prepared to do about it.

On housing, there is the cut in stamp duty but no clarity on how planning law is to be changed. We know that Conservative MPs in the Commons hate this. There is no mention of any need for social housing.

On infrastructure, there is a sort of half-acknowledgement of guilt that it was the Conservative Back-Benchers, again, who stopped onshore wind—one of the most positive things we could have done to cut energy bills. Let us see whether the objections to onshore wind can now be overcome.

Things such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, which we have been talking about for a decade or more, are on the list of things that the Government might do, but what credibility is there that they will actually do them? Investment zones are an interesting idea, but I have read the academic evidence and it is not very positive on whether they produce results.

There is a point that I think is original. A lot of the Johnson levelling-up agenda was about how we reinvigorated our town centres. Lots of government money is being funnelled into that. These investment zones will be on brownfield sites outside town centres; this seems to be a fundamental contradiction. If I were to encourage investment in my home town of Carlisle, I would want to see it in the centre and on the fringes of the centre, not on some site outside.

The fundamental thing about this Government’s policy is that they have lost the reputation for macroeconomic stability that is fundamental to encouraging business to invest. It was the most irresponsible and reckless Budget since Barber’s in 1972. It caused turmoil in the markets, which threatened the future of people’s pensions. It will lead to spiralling mortgage costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, pointed out, there are risks here of a contradiction with monetary policy.

On the fiscal plan that the Government are committed to coming up with, I do not believe the numbers can be made to add up by public spending cuts, which would be both counterproductive in their impact on growth and politically undeliverable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, that some of the announced tax cuts should be cancelled.

This is not a plan for growth. It is an economic disaster.

Elections Bill

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I should confess to having been a supporter of electoral reform for many years—since the 1970s, when I was working for the Labour Government. The reason I became a supporter of electoral reform was that I felt our society was becoming very dysfunctional, our way of government was very dysfunction, and the Labour party was essentially two parties forced together into one and was not really working in the best interests of the country.

The essay question I would love to debate with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and that has to be addressed, is this: in the post-war period, particularly given the troubles we have been through in the last 10 years, has Britain had a more satisfactory system of governance than Germany? Germany has been so successful, with its proportional representation and federal system—a system, incidentally, in which British advisers and British politicians played a very important part in ensuring in the democratic part of Germany after 1945. For me, that is the big essay question. I know what I think about it, but it would be worthy of debate.

However, we are not debating that general question this evening; we are debating the specifics of whether the supplementary vote system should be changed. I have been sitting for an hour and 43 minutes through this debate, and I should think that less than a third of it has addressed that specific point, and so I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I accept all the arguments that have been made about the undesirability of this proposal emerging at a very late stage in this Bill. I do not think changes in electoral systems should be introduced in an arbitrary way, or as my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, as Tony Crosland would have said, in a frivolous way; they ought to be seriously considered.

It is possible to have different electoral systems for different purposes; we do not have to have the same electoral system for everything. We now have a great variety of electoral systems. I am quite interested to know why the noble Lord, Lord True, thinks it is desirable to go back to first past the post for the Mayor of London elections but to retain the proportionally elected London Assembly. It seems to me that if, as a result of that action, the mayor’s political base is significantly lower than it is under the present system, then there is the possibility of real dysfunctional government when agreeing budgets and other questions where the London Assembly has a say. That is a very serious point.

I think that devolution has been a success, certainly in Scotland and Wales. I even think that what the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, said about Northern Ireland was very interesting. The success of devolution has depended on a proportional system, and on the additional member system in Scotland and Wales. Look at how support for devolution has grown, particularly in Wales, since it came about in the late 1990s. It would be difficult for the Government—even this Government—to try to abolish Welsh and Scottish devolution. One of the reasons it has such strong support is because it is seen to be very representative across the community. There is an understanding between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party in Wales. Similarly, despite disliking the thought of an SNP Government, they do show that a proportional system enables change to happen. Labour showed great foresight in devolution, in agreeing to a proportional system. For that purpose, it has been very successful.

On the question of the supplementary vote, particularly for mayors, one of the arguments—as I remember it from when I was in No. 10—for introducing this arrangement was that we wanted to encourage the possibility of diverse and independent candidates coming forward who might challenge the established parties. That is quite a good argument.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend did not say that at the time.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

It was said in the councils of which I was part that it would be a good idea to shake up conventional politics at the local level. That was the argument.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I do not normally draw attention to this but my noble friend and I were both working in No. 10 at the same time. I would say two things: first, if that was ever discussed, I never heard it; and, secondly, if I had heard it, I would have been ferociously opposed to it.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I have no doubt about that; that is why we would not have mentioned it to my noble friend. I am trying to make the point that there is an argument for something that opens up politics a bit more.

In the case of mayors, it is not like voting for an MP, where you are basically voting for who you want to be Prime Minister or which political party you support. It is very much about who you want to govern your local area, and they should have the widest possible base of support.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure always to follow my noble friend Lord Liddle, even though I would not agree with an awful lot of what he said; it is a great pleasure to follow him, nevertheless.

I absolutely think that there is no case at the moment for changing the electoral system for police commissioners. We have no directly elected mayors in Wales but we have police commissioners. There is a very strong case for trying to increase the turnout and the interest in elections for police commissioners. I am reminded of the fact that, in the very first election for police commissioners in Gwent, my own county, there was one notorious ward in the city of Newport where not a single person turned up to vote—no one at all. We are deluded if we think that changing the electoral system will improve interest. We look forward with great interest to the Minister telling us why we need to change the system.

I refer now to Amendment 136, and the very interesting debate we have had on first past the post versus proportional representation. This is not a wide debate—it would take days, weeks and months to do that—but rather one on the nature of the amendment we have been asked to consider. The amendment says that the House of Commons should be elected by PR, full stop. My noble friend Lord Grocott, in a fine speech, referred to the fact that these things cannot be changed unless there is a referendum on them. It is a rather unusual argument to suggest that because we had one in 2011 it is no longer relevant. Of course it is relevant, in the sense that we should have another referendum if that is required and should not change things unless the people are asked.

In my political lifetime, I have fought 11 elections. I served as an elected representative for 49 years, 28 of them in the other place. The great advantage of our system is that there is a marvellous link between the elected representative and the people whom he or she represents. It is unique. I was always referred to as “my MP” or “our MP” in the possessive case because they thought that. The contrast, for example, with the change that took place when we altered our electoral system for the European Parliament was immense.

Of course, the constituencies for Europe were very large—grotesquely large in some senses—but I bet your bottom dollar that people knew who their Member of the European Parliament was. I bet your bottom dollar, too, that they did not when the new system came in. I did not know who mine was, and I was an MP for the area towards the end of that system. We completely lost that link between the elected representatives and the people whom they represented. That is the greatest aspect of our system, which we must not do away with.

Of course, we have different systems in different parts of the United Kingdom. I was partly instrumental in bringing about the system in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, was right. He was very advanced and forward-looking when he made that change all those years ago. The only way that the partisanship in Northern Ireland could be destroyed was to have that system changed. It is very different there from the rest of the United Kingdom. It is not the same as Wales or Scotland or England because, by voting the way they do in Northern Ireland, they express a very different view from that expressed by the rest of the United Kingdom. That was a very significant change indeed. The Assembly is elected by STV; local government is elected by STV, but, of course, the MPs in the United Kingdom Parliament are elected by first past the post.

Scotland and Wales are different. They have top- up systems, known as AMSs. They are entirely incomprehensible to the voter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moore, that if the voter cannot understand what they are voting for, it is a very poor system. Indeed, in Wales, a commission has been set up to investigate changing to a different system, although I do not think they will change completely to first past the post. There is some merit in having different systems in different parts of the country—in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for their own assemblies—but they have to be comprehensible to the voters who use them. At the moment, that is not the case.

The biggest flaw, of course, in this amendment is that it does not seek proper legitimacy for the change. It is not just the 2011 referendum, but in every case—in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—referendums were held for the new systems of government, and that included the way those Governments and Assemblies were elected in every single case. In Wales, of course, when they wanted extra powers some years ago, they went for another referendum to get that legitimacy which lies behind every change. So, for me, the great weakness of this amendment is not just that I do not agree with PR, but rather my belief that the way in which the change would be introduced has to be done by asking the people. If you ask the people, you must also say to them: “Do you understand what it is you are voting for?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord says let us have a look at 2016. The noble Lord also said not to pay any attention to the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto which is explicit on this point before the Committee. He wants to go back to 2016 for one thing and not back to 2017 for another. I think the noble Lord is rather picking and choosing his arguments. I wish to make progress—

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The Minister made an important point in his argument about the 2011 referendum. That was on first past the post for Westminster elections. Is the Government’s contention that they want to see first past the post for all elections in the UK, including the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the London Assembly? If that is so, why have they not introduced that in this Bill? Why pick on this particular electoral choice?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking to what is before the Committee at the moment. As far as the Scottish and Welsh elections are concerned, the noble Lord knows very well that there is devolution, which this Government respect.

I will respond to what the noble Lord said about the London Assembly. It involves rather more complex issues in terms of the Assembly’s potential make-up. We will be considering further how these principles could be applied to the London Assembly and perhaps promoting the use of first past the post, but we are open to representations on how that could be implemented. For the moment, the proposition is on these specific elections, against the background I have described: the Government committed to first past the post, the Elections Bill and the evidence of problems in 2021.

I turn to the broader amendments—which I must because they are before the Committee—from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is always the less popular parties which clamour for PR. They want to introduce a new clause abolishing the use of first past the post at parliamentary general elections held more than six months after the passage of the Bill. For the reasons I have already discussed, we cannot accept that. First past the post ensures a clear link between elected representatives and constituents in a manner that other voting systems do not. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was compelling on that point.

The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is not clear even on what sort of electoral system he wants to introduce—that is the most bizarre thing about the amendment that he is asking your Lordships to agree with. He wants to get rid of the present system within two years, but he does not say what would happen if an election came along before that or in the period where there was uncertainty because a new system would require further primary legislation to enact it. There is a real risk, if we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, that we might not have an established legal method as to how Members of the other place were elected. To be confronted with this question mark of an amendment when the Government are charged with being frivolous—I think the proponents of this amendment are frivolous. All we know from the noble Lord’s amendment is that he wants a system that would have had, over the past five parliamentary general elections, a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10—that will get them jumping around in the pubs in Saltaire and Moulsecoomb, I am sure.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on introducing this debate and on the way that she shows originality and independence, as she does in her FT column. We are very grateful to her.

I have been on a steep learning curve on these issues, having spent a lot of my life in the shadows, as an adviser to senior politicians and Ministers. Recently, in the last 10 years, I have learned quite a bit about the importance of Parliament, which I had not quite appreciated before. I had the luck briefly to be a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Under the tutelage of its excellent clerk, her advisers and its excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, as well as other distinguished members, such as the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, I learned an awful lot. Like the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Janvrin, I have come to the view that it is time that we showed a bit of muscle on these questions.

There is a way through this that does not, as it were, throw the whole question of secondary legislation up in the air. It is there in the reports that have been the background to this debate. First, we need a process for the certification of skeleton Bills. One suggestion that struck me as a good one was that this would be done by the Speakers of this House and of the Commons, rather like the way that money Bills are certified. So skeleton Bills would undergo a process of certification, and, when a Bill or part of it was so certified, we as a House would take additional powers over the statutory instruments that flowed from the use of those skeleton Bills.

We should look at the power to make references back from the SLSC to the department on draft SIs before us. We should be able to propose amendments. Ultimately, the whole House, in extremis, should have the power to reject the statutory instruments that we regard as an abuse of delegated powers. I think this would lead, albeit in a small set of cases, to a transformation of departmental practice and the change in culture on the part of the Executive that a lot of us are looking for.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot believe that I have really baffled the noble Lord, with his deep knowledge of EU affairs that is much greater than mine. The Government will set out the basis on which we would use Article 16 if and when that eventuality arises. We hope that it will not, but obviously we will be clear when and if we reach that point. Of course, it is well understood that the court has a role as the final arbiter of EU law. We do not seek to change or challenge that. What is not working is the role of the court as the arbiter of disputes between the two parties, which is unusual.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I am trying to follow the Minister’s answers as well, and with some difficulty. In answer to the question on the Northern Ireland protocol, he spoke about changing the arrangements. Does this mean that he is no longer arguing for removal of the court of justice’s jurisdiction over the European single market, which, if we are to keep no border in Ireland, must still apply in Northern Ireland? If we keep the border open, does he agree that he must accept some role for the court of justice?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot add very much to what I said earlier, which is that the EU defines the court of justice as the final arbiter of what EU law means. We do not challenge that and cannot do anything about it. For as long as EU laws apply in Northern Ireland, no doubt the court will continue to assert that right, but that is not the same as saying that it is reasonable for disputes to be settled in the court or for infraction processes to be launched by the Commission, as they already have been in this context. It is the settlement of disputes that is the difficulty.

EU Relations

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that I said that I was planning to present my own figures in this respect, merely that I was sceptical about the many judgments that had been made officially about the state of the economy in 2030—which I think is the 4% judgment—which is a long way out, and many things can happen, including policy changes that we will make to ensure that that situation does not develop. That is the way that I look at this problem.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are not here debating Brexit; we are debating his threat to detonate the Northern Ireland protocol in an agreement that he negotiated and signed? This has nothing to do—as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, claims—with Brexit itself. Does he also recognise that while unionist sensibilities of course have to be recognised, we are dealing here with the long and painful history of the Irish question? There was not a single mention in his Statement of relations with the Irish Republic and how many people in the Irish Republic believe that this is a threat to the Irish Republic’s place in the single market and an attempt to force it out of it. What is his reaction to that? I urge him to stop posturing and get on with negotiating. The EU has moved a long way; how much has he moved?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his advice; I am certainly taking it, in that we should carry on negotiating—that is what we are trying to do, including this week and, I hope, beyond it. I repeat that Article 16 is a legitimate provision within the protocol. It has already been exercised once, and we cannot be in a position where it is not possible to exercise a legitimate provision in the protocol. That is simply not a reasonable position to take.

On the question of Ireland, we have made clear—I have said in this House on a number of occasions—that we do not wish in any way to threaten Ireland’s place in the single market. Nothing that we have proposed would do that. We have proposed measures that would protect the single market while allowing trade to flow freely throughout the United Kingdom. We have no wish to do that and nothing in what we have proposed can be interpreted as such; I want to be absolutely clear on that point.