Debate on the Address
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). He is always good and robust in arguing the corner for his well-respected constituency. He always makes a passionate case for the north-east, which deserves to be made. However, some of the things that he has said are unfair critiques of a Government who are trying very hard to ensure that we do not just concentrate development in the south-east, where I am an MP, and that we take out the resurrection of manufacturing to all the regions of England and to all parts of the UK.
It is absolutely right that we should ensure that places such as the north-east, which have been heavily and principally dependent on the public sector, continue to see private sector growth and development as well. There have been very good examples in the motor manufacturing industry, and in the chemicals industry in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales).
The hon. Member for Hartlepool made a plea for engineering, and I join him in making that plea, as well as echoing the comments of the proposer of the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff). I have the Brunel museum in my constituency and I have always argued in this place—in your part of the world, Mr Deputy Speaker, people understand this argument very well—that unless we continue to get people in this country to make things of the highest quality, both for our own infrastructure and to sell abroad, we will not pay our way in the world. Engineering has a hugely important part to play in that process.
The contribution of the hon. Member for Hartlepool also highlighted a short but important Bill, which is the mesothelioma Bill. I have been on Committees and I have participated in debates in this House in which we have argued that people who have suffered from that particularly dangerous form of cancer, which is caused by asbestos in the workplace, should be assisted. I hope that there can be consensus across the House that we should legislate in the right way to deal with those who so far have not received the appropriate compensation. Some of them are not with us anymore, which is a tragedy, but a small group of people deserve our support and respect.
Today is the eve of VE day, and I will join others tomorrow at ceremonies in my constituency at the war memorial just beside the Imperial War museum for the annual commemoration of that important event. So it is right that, across the House today, there have also been tributes at the beginning of people’s speeches to our armed services and our armed forces. Since we met last, more people have died on active service.
I have a constituent whose company, F.A. Albin and Sons, has the contract with the Ministry of Defence to do the important but sad and difficult work of bringing home those who have lost their lives on military service around the world. I was with the head of that firm, Barry Albin-Dyer, when the message came through that three more people had lost their lives last week in Afghanistan. On behalf of my party, I want to join in the tribute that has been paid across the House to those who have continued to risk their lives in the name of our country, thank them for their service and send our commiserations, consolations and condolences to their families, comrades and friends.
There is one other group of people to whom I hope we will send our support and condolences, but also our promise of support. I have a significant Bangladeshi community in my constituency. Since we last met, there has been a terrible event in Bangladesh that has seen hundreds of people killed, thousands injured, many still missing and thousands of families affected. I hope that our country’s strong ties with Bangladesh will mean that we continue to give them all the support they need in Dhaka and beyond. I also hope that we will learn the lessons of what appear to be exploitative practices, not only by the builders in that country, but by companies who make their money out of exploiting workers in that country to sell clothes to us and other countries worldwide. I hope that we shall put the tragedy in Dhaka in the last couple of weeks to good use.
Three years ago today, on the second Wednesday of May, the coalition Government was formed. On behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Parliament, I am clear that we made the right decision to enter a coalition Government on that day and in those circumstances. We are determined, in this third Session of this fixed-term Parliament, to make the right decisions over the next year, as we have tried to make the right decisions over the first two Sessions.
It is a tribute to my colleagues, and to our coalition partners, that two parties that contest elections against each other regularly and have never regarded themselves as close mates decided, in the national interest, to work together; and with only one exception over the three years, we have both honoured the coalition agreement that we entered into and held to the terms of the agreement. I believe that is good for politics and has been good for the country. Despite all the economic and political difficulties, the coalition has held firm.
I was reminded why it was the right decision last Friday night, when I went across the river to a production in the National Theatre of “Our House”, which, for those who have not yet been—I gather some colleagues are there tonight—is a play about the Governments of the 1970s, and specifically the working of the Labour and Conservative Whips Offices during those times, with the character of my predecessor Bob Mellish, then Labour Chief Whip, playing a starring role. Anybody who has forgotten the history of how difficult it is to run a Government with a small majority or no majority should see the play before it finishes its run.
The alternative, in 2010, was either a coalition with Labour, had they been willing to make one, which would not have had a majority; a coalition with Labour and others, which still probably would not have had a majority; or a minority Conservative Government, which by definition would not have had a majority. Given the dire economic circumstances that Britain faced—the worst since the second world war—I am clear that we needed a Government with a clear majority, in order to see out a full term to seek to implement a set of policies to try to give us growth and rescue us from the dire economic situation we were in.
The 1970s were dire economically and “Our House” reminded me, and everyone else in the audience, of them. They were equally difficult in 2010, and very slowly and gradually, but surely and in the right direction, we are moving ahead. I absolutely understand and share, as a south-east London MP, the views of people such as the hon. Member for Hartlepool that the test of the Government’s success, fundamentally, is the economy and whether we get jobs and growth going in a sustained and committed way. I and my colleagues are committed to delivering that, and to delivering it over five years.
Over the past year, many of the things that matter to people like me, in an old working docks constituency, and my colleagues, have been delivered. Jobs are up. I looked at the Library’s figures as the hon. Member for Hartlepool was speaking. There are 29.7 million people aged 16 or over in employment in the last quarter for which we have figures—about the same as in the previous quarter, and up 488,000 on the previous year. That is nearly half a million. The employment rate for people aged 16 to 64 is now 71.4%—not far off the pre-recession level of 73% in March to May 2008.
Although public sector employment fell by 20,000 in the three months to December last year, to 5.72 million, or 19.2% of total employment, the number of people working in the private sector was 24 million, up 151,000 on the previous quarter—81% of total employment. We knew that there would be a contraction in public sector employment, but from the beginning the Government said we were determined to have net growth in jobs and the economy. There has been such growth; the jobs are predominantly in the private sector. That will lead the way out of the recession, and we must continue to do things such as reducing national insurance on small businesses—a measure in the Queen’s Speech to ensure that business grows and takes more people into work.
Simon Hughes
There are all sorts of reasons. The hon. Gentleman must know that the last quarter has just been on the right side of zero. Growth has been small but positive. We avoided the triple-dip recession that people were saying was likely, given the terrible winter and the dreadful weather we had. The answer is that there has been a combination of failure.
The banks failed the economy at the end of the last Labour Administration. They were not sufficiently dealt with or regulated by that Administration, and they still have not got into a position where they are lending our constituents and small businesses in the right places the money to enable them to invest. Every single colleague around the House tells tales, rightly, of how difficult it is; people come to see us and tell us that they do not get the investment.
We have not been selling enough around the world, which is one of the avenues by which we must earn our way. That is why the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and others have been out and about, going not just to our traditional trading partners but to the large, developing partners—Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, India, China—to develop our trade. That is why we are working very hard to get an EU-USA free trade agreement, to deliver growth.
The answer to the question is that the economy has been faulty as a result of a combination of historic and more recent factors, but the Government are seeking to do as many things as they can. Last year, the green investment bank was another initiative to get growth going in an economy in which the Energy Bill this year is likely to assist in the creation of up to 250,000 new jobs in green energy. That is really valuable and important. The hon. Member for Hartlepool called for a Bill to set up another form of investment bank. The Government have, as he knows, a plan for further investment lending to companies as well as the green investment bank, and that is welcome.
So jobs are up; apprenticeships are hugely up. The state pension is significantly up—higher than at any stage since Lloyd George introduced it. The income tax threshold is significantly up, from £6,500 more or less when we started, to nearly £9,500 this year, and next year to £10,000 before anyone pays any tax. Inflation is still low. Interest rates are very low, and that is hugely important for people with mortgages and businesses borrowing. Crime is at its lowest level for many years. Those are significant achievements, and I think we should be proud of that. It shows that many of the things that the Government have done over three years are working.
Mr Iain Wright
Given what the right hon. Gentleman has said about those “significant achievements”, do people in his constituency think they are better off now than three years ago? Does he think that living standards are rising?
Simon Hughes
No; many people’s living standards are not better than they were three years ago, but we have been dealing with what my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary calls the greatest economic heart attack we have had in his lifetime and mine. My constituents have seen, over several months, unemployment come down—not consistently, but there have been months when it has come down and youth unemployment has come down. They have seen an economy that is picking up. The construction industry in my patch is powering ahead; although I appreciate that it is not the same around the country.
But what my constituents have not yet seen, and what the Government are trying to deal with, is the inequitable opportunity and an inequitable distribution of the available wealth. One thing that the Liberal Democrats need to continue to argue for in the coalition, and which I hope the coalition will buy, is that we need to deal with the inequity in Britain whereby there are still people a mile and half from this building, in the City, and in Canary Wharf a bit further away, who have bonuses that are completely without justification, while there are many people on the minimum wage and struggling to get work. We need a redistribution of wealth—I am not ashamed to call for that—and a redistribution of the profits, and we need the banking industry to understand that it has to pay itself reasonable wages. The European Union has the right idea, in my view—not a view shared by the Chancellor—in seeking to make sure that we limit the bonuses given to people across the financial sector so that they do not, in effect, take far more than they deserve.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about his passion for redistribution. It is one that I share, but can he explain why, in that case, he voted to abolish the 50p rate of tax for those who are paid £1 million and more? At the same time he voted for welfare reform and changes that are taking money from those on the very lowest incomes and from communities such as those that I represent, which are being utterly hammered, with millions of pounds being taken out of our local economy as a result. Does he consider that to be fair redistribution?
Simon Hughes
I voted for the income tax changes as a package that took many people on low and medium incomes out of tax altogether as a result of the raising of the tax threshold, and only when I was satisfied that people on very high earnings would pay more net. Yes, they had a reduction last month in their top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p in the pound, but with all the other changes that affect them they will make a bigger total contribution to the economy in tax. The hon. Lady knows what I am going to say next. I was here for all the time of the Labour Government, when for every single month apart from the last few weeks the top rate of tax was 40%—not 50%, not 45%, but 40%. The great socialist regime of Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) did not deliver the great socialist nirvana, and that was the time when people in the banks were earning obscene amounts, the likes of which had never been earned before, and they were not dealt with.
On the welfare cuts, the Liberal Democrats argued strongly in the coalition that benefits should not be cut, but that with some inflation-lined exceptions there should be a limited increase this year of 1%. That is what the Government have tried to do. There are exemptions. Changes to housing benefit should not apply to any pensioner householder in the country. Some rates of increase of benefit for people with disabilities are higher than 1% to try to achieve equity. These are all attempts to deal with a welfare bill that is extremely high. It is not pleasant and I do not pretend that it is easy. We would all like to be able to give much more to people who are struggling, and I am very concerned that the bottom 20% should be the priority of this Government in their remaining two years. From the hon. Lady’s Front-Bench colleagues I have heard no answers as to how we pay our bills, deal with the fact that we are paying 120 million quid a day in interest on our debts, sustain the welfare state and encourage people back into work.
Bill Esterson
The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that the lowest 20% of income groups are being hammered by the Government’s various changes. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify disabled people being hit, as they have been, by a combination of the bedroom tax, the council tax localisation scheme, work capability assessments followed by their appeal, and having their benefit cut during that lengthy process?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We are now on 17 minutes. I was working on speeches lasting no longer than 16 minutes per Member.
Simon Hughes
I was conscious that I was giving way too much so I will answer that intervention very quickly and move on. Many people with disabilities have had their benefits protected. For everybody there is now a scheme that will make sure they are reassessed—fairly, we hope. The so-called bedroom tax does not apply to people who need a live-in carer and other categories have now been exempted, not least because of internal discussions in the coalition which delivered that outcome. But I am very conscious that we need to do better for the people in the bottom 20% of income. I have argued that within my own party and in the coalition and will go on arguing it. We need to end up with a much fairer society than the Conservative Government or the Labour Government left us. We are trying to make that fairer society, which for us is a priority.
The priority is to make sure that we have a strong economy and a fairer society and that everybody has the opportunity to get on as they wish. To do that, the priorities are very much the ones that the Government have enunciated. Further priorities are social and affordable housing. For many the cost of getting their own home is prohibitive and homes to rent are unavailable. We need to carry on dealing with tax avoidance and the inequalities of wealth at home, but we should not think that the solution to all our problems is to become little Englanders or little Britishers and not to see our future as being within the continent of which we are a part, where we can trade, work, gain and make progress, and within the world of which we are also part.
It is good that the Queen’s Speech makes it clear not only that we will defend people who have been loyal to us, such as Gibraltarians and Falklanders, but that at the G8 next month we will argue for a fairer world, transparency and accountability, conflict prevention and bigger efforts to bring peace to those parts of the world such as the middle east, which have suffered for too long. Abraham Lincoln said:
“Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any other”.
The coalition is resolved to help Britain succeed and become a strong economy again, and Liberal Democrats will play their part in making sure we do that as well as possible.
Tributes to Baroness Thatcher
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
It is a privilege to be here today to pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher, both personally and on behalf of party colleagues and the many of my constituents who will wish to pass on their condolences, through the Prime Minister, to her family and extended family and to her close friends and all those in the Conservative party who worked with her.
Two themes have emerged today. The first has been a wish to express our condolences and sympathy. The second has been an expression of admiration and respect from across the House, irrespective of party, for someone who was one of the dominant political figures not only in this country but in the democratic politics of the western world in the last century. She was one of the strongest and most determined leaders that our country has ever known.
Like my late mother, Mrs Thatcher was born in the great and productive county of Lincolnshire. Given that she also had the same birthday as my dad—13 October—it was not surprising that we followed her career with greater than usual interest once she entered the Heath Cabinet. As has already been mentioned, she set many examples to follow. She set an example to young people by first standing for Parliament at the age of 24, and to people who do not succeed the first time, in that it took three goes before she got here. She then became her party’s leader before she was 50. I remember hearing the news of her election as leader, and of Ted Heath’s defeat, when I was standing at the railway station in Bruges during my year as a postgraduate student at the College of Europe. It was clear that that was a significant moment in British political history. It also caused a bit of a dispute in our family. My dad was not keen, but my mum was more admiring.
Through her efforts, Margaret Thatcher changed the place of women in British public life and politics. Let us check the figures. Before she was elected, there had been no general election with more than 200 female candidates, or more than 30 elected women MPs. In the general election of 1992, when she stood down, there were 571 female candidates, and 60 women were elected to this place. The numbers have risen significantly since then. She would not have argued that there was a direct cause and effect, but I am sure that there was one, and thank God for that. It was also significant that, through her election, a scientist became a British party leader and Prime Minister. Her forensic skills and scientific interests were evident, and I am sure that her interest in and worries about climate change stemmed from that.
Margaret Thatcher winning the 1979 election was clearly another defining moment in our history. I hope that colleagues on the Opposition Benches will not try to airbrush the fact that, before that, this country had been through a dire few years economically. It had not been a happy time. We had had to go to the international community for financial rescue, the lights had been going out in the early part of the decade, and we had been working only three days a week. So it was not as though the 1970s were halcyon days. She then delivered three election victories, two of which had majorities of more than 100, always with 13 million or more votes, and always with more than 42% of the electorate supporting her. I noticed—I pay tribute to her successor in Finchley, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—that in her last election she received her highest ever vote, which is a testimony to the way she was respected in her north London constituency.
I first came to this House when she was Prime Minister, in a by-election in 1983. I always believed that all Prime Ministers and Governments do many good things, but do not do everything right—some clearly right, some clearly wrong. I came here as a member of the broader Christian church, as she did, and I realised I would have a difficulty from the beginning. Christians and people of other faiths are called to love everybody, but sometimes loving Mrs T was a bit difficult from the Opposition Benches.
She was clearly right in her attitude towards the Falklands—absolutely right to be determined to recapture the Falklands for Britain. She was clearly courageous beyond expectation in her determination not to be blown off course by the despicable IRA bomb in Brighton in 1984, and she was almost unbelievably successful in her work to bring down the iron curtain.
After she died this week, I worked out that I had engaged with her across the House on 19 occasions between 1983 and her final debate in November 1990. I was able to thank her for supporting work on the Rose theatre, which had been excavated—she did have an interest in culture and the arts. On a few occasions, I had to have a strong go at her with regard to London matters. There was a need to reform London government, but abolishing the Greater London council was absolutely not the way to go. There was a need to mobilise the docklands and urban areas for regeneration, but having no democratic participation was not the way to go. Then there were other issues that were good ideas in part, but often left some things worse off than before. Giving people the right to buy their own council homes was popular and in many ways a good idea, but not giving councils the power to decide whether they wanted to use that power was wrong. Not to make the discounts reflect accurately the length of time someone had been in a home was inappropriate. Not guaranteeing that all the moneys went back to councils was extremely unhelpful, and is one cause of the shortage of social and affordable housing today.
Mrs Thatcher was right to take on the trade unions, which had become over-mighty in the 1970s, but she was wrong to do so in a way that decimated much of manufacturing industry, not just in our coal mines but in other places, such as south Wales. She was right to work, as she did successfully, to bring down the inflation rate from 13% in 1979 to 5% or less in five of the next 10 years. However, presiding over unemployment going up from 4% to more than 9% was not a price worth paying and it had serious, adverse consequences. Although pensioners were better off in terms of the amount of money they had in their retirement, many never forgave her for breaking the link with earnings.
In her very last speech I put it to her that, sadly, she had left the gap between the rich and the poor much wider. I have to say that the gap continued under the Labour Government. She accused me of saying that we would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich. That was never our view. We needed a fairer society and sadly we did not get one.
I referred to Bruges at the beginning of my speech and I want to end with the Bruges speech she made 25 years ago. It bears re-reading, as I am sure the Prime Minister has on more than one occasion. I end with exact quotes from the speech she gave to the college at which I had been privileged to be a student:
“Our destiny is in Europe, as part of the Community. That is not to say that our future lies only in Europe…The Community is not an end in itself…The European Community is a practical means by which Europe can ensure the future prosperity and security of its people in a world in which there are many other powerful nations and groups of nations…Certainly we want to see Europe more united and with a greater sense of common purpose…I want to see us work more closely…Europe is stronger when we do so, whether it be in trade, in defence or in our relations with the rest of the world…But it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions…for these have been the source of Europe’s vitality through the centuries.”
We are proud of her patriotism and give thanks for it. She will be respected throughout the whole of the rest of our political lives.
Royal Charter on Press Conduct
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
This whole debate began because the public felt that some of the press, not all of the press, were far too close to some politicians, not all politicians, and particularly to politicians in government. It began because the public felt that some of the press, not all of the press, were far too close to some police, not all police, in a way that was very corrupting. It also started because people were worried that some of the press would become all-powerful, leaving no pluralism among those looking after news and current affairs, which is a guarantee of real freedom and understanding.
In many years since the war, Parliament and Governments have perfectly properly and reasonably commissioned inquiries into the press. When the most recent scandals broke and the Prime Minister took his brave decision to announce that an inquiry would be carried out by Lord Justice Leveson, with the agreement of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, it seemed to me that Parliament and the parties all agreed that such matters should be reconsidered as things had gone badly wrong. There was consensus; I have never known such strong consensus in this House as there was at the moment when Parliament said that we had to put our house in order.
I commend Lord Justice Leveson and those who worked with him on his inquiry, to which the three party leaders, I and many others gave evidence. Lord Justice Leveson came up with an extremely balanced report and its credibility is strongest because it is so well balanced. It did not come up with a draconian new regime to deal with the press, but understood the desirability of, the need for and the absolute imperative for a free press in this country while saying that we needed systems in place.
We had a bit of a debate in this place and in the media about what the structures should be and Lord Justice Leveson spent a large part of his time and conclusions on that subject. He was clear about two things, however. He was clear that there should be an independent self-regulatory system, and that that should be underpinned by statute. He made that explicitly clear and today, in a clever but appropriate way, we have ensured that there is a charter at one remove from legislation through which we can guarantee the new system and that is locked in by a legislative safeguard. I commend those who thought of the idea and I think it gets the balance right. There is underpinning in legislation, but the key document is a charter agreed by this Parliament and by all the parties in this place.
Paul Farrelly
Another advantage of today’s agreement is that the Defamation Bill, on which we have worked so hard, will be free to proceed. The amendments made by Lord Puttnam will be dropped, but another important amendment to the Bill raises the bar on the ability of corporations to use the chilling effect of libel law on legitimate investigative journalism and wholly helps the press. Will the right hon. Gentleman commit to supporting the retention of that provision when the Bill returns to the House of Commons?
Simon Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a journalist by training, for his work on the subject. One of the good things about today is that we liberate the Defamation Bill and enable it to become the law of the land. We have a very out-of-date defamation law. It has fallen into disrepute and one of the things that we will have done—I was going to mention it—is make sure that we do not clog up other legislation on which both Houses have worked very hard, and prevent it from becoming law—the Crime and Courts Bill, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill and the Defamation Bill. I hope we can now go on to get the legislation as right as is humanly possible in the remaining weeks of this Session.
There is a suggestion that some parts of our society should be outwith any legal construct. I do not think that has ever been accepted in this country, and when we have not seen adequate self-regulation, Parliament has intervened. We have done it in recent years in respect of doctors, solicitors and ourselves. We have taken complete self-regulation away from this place because we did not think we were doing the job properly, and The Daily Telegraph and others showed that we were not doing our job properly. I commend them for what they did.
We have always followed the adage of the old judge, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”, and that applies to the press too. We have never had a press free from the laws of the land, but—returning to the intervention from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—the libel law, the defamation law, was not available to most of the public. It was available to the rich and famous, and very difficult for ordinary people to pursue. Yes, there is criminal law governing the press, and phone hacking was illegal under criminal law. That did not deal with all the complaints and all the problems that had arisen.
I, like others here, am one of the victims of those illegalities, but I do not think any of us here think that the problem was that we were getting it in the neck or that celebrities were getting it in the neck. We felt moved to act because people who were entirely out of the public eye suddenly found themselves entirely in the public eye, vilified, abused, misrepresented, traduced or publicly humiliated. It is people in the estates in Bermondsey and in the constituencies of all of us whom we are seeking to support, not because they do not need a free press—they do—but because on occasions the press had abused them without adequate remedy.
Mr Bone
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful statement, but is he really arguing that something like the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is being set up? There is a serious point here. We know that IPSA has reduced the effectiveness of Members of Parliament, and if we are setting up a similar body which reduces the power of the press, we have something to worry about.
Simon Hughes
If I tried to defend IPSA now, I think I would be lynched, so I shall not do so. That is not the model that has been followed, and the royal charter is as far away from IPSA as anyone could have contrived.
Let me make two final points. The important thing to come out of today is that we have established a regulator which nobody can veto, a code of conduct which, yes, will be drafted by the press but has to be agreed by somebody independent of the press, the rights of third parties to complain, and probably most important, the right of the regulator, if necessary, to direct both an apology and the method of the apology.
The greatest abuses recently have been the sort of examples that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition gave. Somebody appears on the front page, the subject of a story that is totally untrue. Their career may be ruined, their reputation damaged, their lives, their mental health and their finances decimated, and there is no remedy available. What happens and has always happened is that a very small correction or apology appears later, sometimes. That is the real failure of the system to date and that will now change. All our constituents should have some hope that there may be a fairer system.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that if there is a calumny on the front page of a red top, the apology will also be on the front page? If he is, that is great.
Simon Hughes
That is exactly what I think the public want. That is why it has been a privilege to work with colleagues of all parties and their staff. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and his team, to the Deputy Prime Minister and his team. and to the Leader of the Opposition, his deputy and their team, and to their staff, the civil servants, the special advisers and others who have worked beyond the call of duty, and to the Clerks, including the Clerk of the House. There has been an absolute will to try to solve the problem in time.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Is not the prize here the fact that a free press will still be able to expose wrongdoing, but not at the expense of trashing people’s lives?
Simon Hughes
That is a very good summary. We want the best and freest press in the world, but we do not want a press that is marred and tarred by being seen to cosy up to the Government of the day, and compromised, and parties compromised. We do not want a press that does dubious deals with the police behind closed doors, not in the interests of members of the public. We want people to be able to be supported by the press, not trashed by the press. My hon. Friend is quite right.
Simon Hughes
No, please, many others want to speak.
For 20 or 30 years, colleagues of mine in both Houses have said that we needed an inquiry such as this—Lord McNally, Matthew Taylor and many others—and we have now had one. Whenever people ask me what I stand for, I do not invent my own words; I look at the little card that my party issues, which quotes from the preamble to our constitution. I hope that we have all done what one sentence of that preamble says, and that we have all today taken action
“to build and safeguard a free, fair and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”.
Today is about getting the balance right. I think that we have corrected the balance and it is a tribute to all who got us here.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sadiq Khan
May I adopt the Minister’s arguments in support of our sunset clause, which we will be debating later? He cannot predict the number of cases, which is why we think a sunset clause is appropriate.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean a sunset clause or does he mean a renewal order, which is a different thing?
Sadiq Khan
I mean the latter, and we will discuss that after the votes at 8 pm, when my colleague will be dealing with those things. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the difference between the two measures.
Our conditions are set out in the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). Labour’s position has been consistent on this matter since the publication of the draft Bill. We said that the legislation was drafted in such a way that there were too few safeguards in place on the use of CMPs. Safeguards are crucial because CMPs are alien to our tradition of open and fair justice, where justice is not only done, but is seen to be done. Any proceedings held in secret are a major departure from that. Given the exceptional and aberrant nature of CMPs, their use should be clearly constrained. That has been our position and remains so now: consistent and clear, balanced and proportionate. The Lords delivered a strong and clear verdict on the Bill last November.
Sadiq Khan
That is a curious intervention. I am trying to be nice to the hon. Gentleman because I want his vote, so I will not respond in the way his intervention deserves. Instead, I will remind him and the House of what he said in Committee. In response to what was then Government amendment 55, which undid some of the House of Lords improvements, he said:
“I accept that the Minister’s case will be bolstered significantly if the Joint Committee on Human Rights agrees with what he is saying, but”—
this was his advice to the Minister—
“he should reflect carefully on what he will do if that Committee, having looked at the amendments he is proposing and the state of the Bill when that Committee publishes a report, disagrees with him.”
He went on to say:
“I will, further, support any other amendments that take us in the direction of improved safeguards and towards the direction of the Joint Committee on Human Rights”.––[Official Report, Justice and Security Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2013; c. 195.]
I hope the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will support us and have the courage to vote for our amendments, which reflect the positions taken by Liberal Democrat MPs in Committee and Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords. Any other position would be a tragic betrayal of their liberal instincts.
Simon Hughes
I want to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that my predecessor on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart), and I have worked to make a case to push the Government forward. I will support, on all issues, exactly the position taken by the Joint Committee, which says that the Government have moved forward, made progress and improved the Bill, but that more work is to be done.
Sadiq Khan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarity, which shows the advantages of being nice to Liberal Democrats. In case any of his colleagues have any doubt about the advice given, I have the report with me and will remind them of what the Joint Committee said just last week on the Government’s manoeuvres upstairs in Committee.
Given that in Committee the Minister unpicked the Lords changes to the Bill, amendments 26 to 40 are designed to emulate the same improvements as were made in the other place. Our amendments seek to put in place appropriate checks and balances on the use of CMPs. We do not underestimate the difficulties in reconciling the issues of justice and security as contained in the Bill’s title, but this is difficult and not impossible. By putting appropriate measures in place, we believe that the use of CMPs could be made proportionate to the scale of the problem they are intended to address. As has been said, our position is backed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose most recent report systematically goes through the changes made in Committee by the Government and is consistent with the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and with the views of the House of Lords.
So here we are once again, trying at a late stage in proceedings to bring some balance to the proposals in front of us. Our amendments address four main areas: judicial balancing both outside and inside proceedings, the use of CMPs as a last resort and equality of arms. I shall deal first with judicial balancing.
We have consistently agreed with David Anderson when he said that
“the decision to trigger a CMP must be for the court, not the Government.”
The original bill, as published, included no substantial role for the judge. I accept that this has been moved on since then, but some of the progress made in the other place has now been undone. Despite claims to the contrary, the Bill does not give a judge the proper discretion to decide between whether to hold proceedings in the open or to move proceedings behind closed doors. The Government chose to remove the Lords amendments that put in place a proper judicial balancing of these competing interests—the so-called Wiley balance.
Last week’s report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights is very powerful on this issue. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), for all its hard work on this. In its report—Liberal Democrat colleagues will be keen to hear this—the Committee says that
“there is nothing in the Government’s revised clause 6 which replaces it with anything requiring the court to balance the degree of harm to the interests of national security on the one hand against the public interest in the fair and open administration of justice on the other.”
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Although I am not sure that we agree on everything, I think we do on some things. There have been some interesting discussions between Front and Back Benchers.
I want to focus on some of the amendments. I am pleased to see the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I used to have the pleasure of serving on. I pushed a number of those proposals during the Bill’s Committee stage and we had interesting debates and votes on a range of things. I do not plan to go through every single aspect, because we rehearsed them thoroughly. I am delighted to see that a number of the amendments that I tabled and supported in Committee have come back.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the position on habeas corpus. Indeed, I would be happy to take an intervention from him, because it is a very important issue. I was happy with his clear answer of no. If he can stick to that, it would be fantastic; if not, we should be clear.
I welcome some of the Government’s good amendments. One that has not really been mentioned—it was tabled in the Lords and accepted by the Government—is that which changes “must” to “may”, allowing discretion to the judge, rather than the Minister. That is very welcome and has made a significant improvement. I am pleased that the Government have stuck to it.
I am also pleased that the Government have agreed to amendments on equality of arms to achieve true symmetry. They were recommended by the JCHR and I spoke to them at great length in the Bill Committee. We lost the vote, but I am glad that the Government have now come around to them. Symmetry is important, because one can think of a number of examples where an ex-employee of MI6 may not be able to raise publicly a document that is important to a case that they may wish to bring. In such circumstances, they may wish to have a CMP themselves so that the document can be debated without putting other things at risk. Such cases may be relatively rare, but ensuring pure symmetrical equality is absolutely the right thing to do.
I am also pleased to see reinstated, at least in the text of the Bill, the role of public interest immunity. There is a debate about whether it goes far enough and about what it does, but including it in the Bill is extremely good. I share the view of those who think that PII is not a perfect process. I do not like the secrecy involved, and there is certainly not a great case for it—we have seen, for example, some of the concerns in the Litvinenko case.
There is an issue with regard to last resort. I would like to see closed proceedings as a last resort. I do not think that this is entirely about openness; it is also about fairness and the principle that both sides should have the chance to see the same evidence. I think that it would be accepted everywhere that a CMP can never quite get to that point, because one person is not able to see everything. That is not a great situation.
Simon Hughes
May I reinforce the point that has been made to the Minister without Portfolio by Members from across the House? The Joint Committee on Human Rights did not argue for an exhaustive exploration of PII, but for an assessment by the court of whether PII would be a realistic and sensible option and, if not, for the court to move on and look at other things. The Minister has said that that would be reasonable, so I do not think that there is much between him and those of us who take the position of the Joint Committee. I hope that we can reach agreement on that, even if it does not happen tonight, because the Joint Committee was clear that what we are arguing for is not an extreme position, but a moderate, modest, sensible and pragmatic one.
James Brokenshire
The last debate was about the principles of closed material proceedings; we now turn to a new group of amendments relating to additional reviewing mechanisms for the CMP provisions—in particular, Government new clauses 5 and 6 and associated consequential amendments.
In Committee I said that I was prepared to listen further to concerns expressed about transparency and particularly about ensuring that the new provisions did not make CMP commonplace. I undertook to table amendments on that matter. I have considered the issue carefully and decided to adopt the view of the Constitution Committee. I therefore intend to bring forward annual reporting and a review of the CMP provisions to be conducted five years after Royal Assent.
Given the often lengthy nature of litigation, we believe that the frequency set out in the amendments allows for regular but meaningful reporting and for a review to be informed by enough cases to provide for substantiated conclusions and reasoned recommendations where necessary. We believe that an annual report is the most proportionate approach, as it is anticipated that CMPs will be used infrequently.
The consequence is that there is likely to be little to report on a basis more regular than once a year. Annual reports will not, however, be the only way in which facts relating to cases involving CMPs will be made public during the reporting period. The Government have made an amendment in the Lords to ensure that when an application is made under clause 6(1), that must be reported to the other parties in the proceedings. There are already mechanisms through which the courts publish their open judgments.
The reports will focus on court procedures, as CMPs are a procedural option for the courts and not related to the use of Executive powers. The new clauses list the matters of key concern to be included in the annual reports such as the number of CMP applications and who they are made by; how many CMPs are granted and how many revoked; and how many judgments, both open and closed, are published with respect to the determination of section 6 proceedings. That would include judgments made on the substantive trial and regarding the outcome of the application for a CMP declaration. The new clauses would also cover proceedings deemed to be section 6 proceedings, such as the application process for a declaration and the review of Norwich Pharmacal certification.
In addition to an annual reporting requirement, the Government seek to introduce a provision for a comprehensive review after five years. In line with other legislation, such as the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, it requires the appointment of a reviewer and does not specify the remit of the review except to indicate that it covers the operation of closed material proceedings. That type of review of CMPs would be different from other reviews, in that it would concern not the operation of the Secretary of State’s powers but rather the operation of court processes. That means that the reviewer will have to take care not to review judicial decisions regarding the operation of court processes or the fair running of individual cases.
Simon Hughes
I am grateful for the fact that the Government have been responsive to the arguments made on these issues. However, I also support the proposal that there should be a renewal mechanism—a better process than a sunset clause. When the Minister addresses that point, will he reflect on the fact that we have given ourselves the chance in the past of having an annual report and annual confirmation or otherwise of terrorist legislation in Northern Ireland and other legislation in respect of which there are ongoing cases that last a long time?
James Brokenshire
I am pleased to engage in that debate. I will come to it when I address the amendments tabled by the Opposition. At this early stage, I should say that in essence it is a question of the assurance provided to external partners as well as the operation of the courts themselves. I hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I hope he accepts that the proposal for an annual review or, in effect, an annual sunset clause in the first instance and then an annual renewal thereafter, does not leave a great deal of time for litigation, which is likely to span several years because of its nature and complexity. I am sure that we will hear more from the Opposition about why they have sought to advance this time period over anything else. There is a principle at stake as regards the assurance that we are seeking to provide through this mechanism. We have gone for the option of five-yearly reporting, with a proper examination of the operation of the Bill, to enable Parliament to be properly informed. It will then be for Parliament to consider what further steps may or may not be appropriate at that point.
We would expect such a review to take into account the views of special advocates, among others. We want to ensure that it will involve a proper examination of the operation of CMPs to consider efficiency, trends and types of cases, analysing the numbers provided in the annual reports to reflect on how CMPs are being used.
James Brokenshire
A five-yearly review with, in essence, each Parliament having the opportunity to examine the operation of CMPs is appropriate. As my hon. Friend will know from our previous debates on, for example, the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act, my view has been that that time period or cycle gives sufficient time to enable a proper consideration of the operation of the process. The right period is five years—in essence, once a Parliament so that each Parliament can consider what may or may not be appropriate at that point.
New clause 4 provides that the new CMP provisions would expire only a year after Royal Assent unless a statutory instrument extending the provisions for a further year was laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House. The Government believe that the new clause would largely negate the benefit of the provisions in part 2 and that it is disproportionate. The negative impact of what would amount in the first year to a sunset clause could be very serious. As I have said, we know that litigation can be lengthy, lasting a number of months and usually more than a year, while document-heavy cases can last for several years. Creating the possibility that CMPs would cease to be available halfway through the progression of a case where the judge had already decided that a CMP was in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the proceedings would, in our view, undermine the judge’s discretion.
I think that the House is in basic agreement that CMPs should be available as a tool to the judge and that the judge should have discretion on whether to use one or not. In exercising that discretion, the judge will consider whether or not he agrees with the Secretary of State’s assessment of damage to national security and how the case should be fairly run. Even once a judge has decided that a CMP should form part of the procedures in the case, each piece of material will be assessed to decide whether it should go into the CMP, be withheld entirely or be redacted, summarised or disclosed. The judge can also decide at any point to revoke a CMP and, indeed, must consider doing so after the disclosure exercise if he feels it is no longer in the interests of the fair and effective administration of justice in the case. Parliament has already decided to provide four CMPs in at least 14 settings, so we do not believe that we are introducing an entirely new concept.
I understand the origin of the new clause. In essence, it is about the provision for annual renewal of control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act repealed and replaced. The 2005 Act was passed under a greatly accelerated parliamentary timetable, with only limited opportunity for debate. By contrast, the Green Paper provided a full consultation and it is fair to say that the Bill has been through parliamentary scrutiny in the other place and this House. It is also worth underlining that the Bill’s provisions relate to the procedures of the court, rather than the exercise of controls by the Executive. I note that in the preceding debate the right hon. Member for Tooting said that we are in a “very different context”.
The circumstances in which CMPs could be used are limited to national security-sensitive cases and for hearings in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Court of Session and Supreme Court. As I have said, the judge has the discretion to determine whether a CMP is appropriate.
This problem is not likely to go away. Claimants should have the continued ability to bring claims against the Government and matters should be scrutinised by the courts, as opposed to a return to the current system, where in some circumstances justice is simply not possible. We will continue to be faced with the unpalatable dilemma of either damaging national security or potentially paying out significant sums of money.
I should also make clear that, although the Opposition’s proposed new clause applies to clauses 6 to 12, it would also affect the reviews of certificates issued by the Secretary of State under the Norwich Pharmacal clauses. Such proceedings are deemed to be section 6 proceedings because the case needs to be heard in CMP in order to ensure that its outcome is not prejudiced by having already publicly disclosed the very information with which the proceedings are concerned. Therefore, the effect of the proposed new clauses would be also to disrupt the Norwich Pharmacal clauses, which are intended to bring clarity and reassurance to intelligence-sharing partners.
International partners have expressed concerns about the Government’s ability to defend themselves and protect national security in cases where claimants make allegations against the state and its defence rests on national security material. We risk undermining the confidence of partners who share such information with us if they feel that we do not have in place secure processes to protect their material while defending Government actions.
Simon Hughes
I understand the Minister’s arguments. May I make two other points? I do not seek to defend the exact wording of new clause 4, but the argument that one cannot change something suddenly in the middle of a long court case could be dealt with by negotiating when any change would come into operation. I also remind him that it was the considered view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the significance of the change in the Bill merits our being very careful about the length of time for which we introduce the procedure.
James Brokenshire
We have all said in a number of ways in Committee and on the Floor of the House that we accept that this is not a perfect solution. We are not in the territory of perfect solutions when we talk about these issues.
I would make a number of points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, one purpose of the Bill is to provide assurance to our external partners on the sharing of intelligence material. Although I recognise the parallel that he draws with other court processes, that assurance is an important additional factor. If a time period was introduced, whether through a form of renewal or sunset, as one got towards the end of that period, there would be significant anxiety about what the future may hold. That would not satisfy the policy objective of giving that assurance to our external partners.
It is interesting that the Constitution Committee did not recommend a sunset clause. Its report said that the House may wish to consider the Bill being independently reviewed—not renewed—five years after it comes into force. The Government have accepted its recommendation in our new clauses.
New clause 9, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) may wish to speak to shortly, seeks to provide for the collection of information. We believe that that matter is addressed in a different way by our new clauses, under which the Ministry of Justice will collect and publish data on the number of declarations granted, the number of revocations and the number of final closed judgments.
Regular reporting and a full review of the operation of closed material proceedings will provide an insight into how the provisions are working in practice and a clear mechanism to provide reassurance on their operation. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support that approach and the Government’s new clauses.
Dr Francis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the work of my Joint Committee. I am very attracted to the idea he has proposed. It is not the first time I have heard it, because we had this discussion recently, but I am pleased that he has proposed it on the Floor of the House.
European Council
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I am afraid it is this attitude—a little bit of billions here and a little bit of billions there does not really matter very much—that has got us into so much trouble. Yes, it is 1%, for the first time, of Europe’s GNI, but the fact is that it is many billions of pounds that we pay into the European Union, and it is very important that we keep the budget under control.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the outcome of the deal and tell him that my colleagues here and our MEPs are supportive of the deal agreed in terms of the size of the budget? Given that the deal achieved with like-minded partners protected niche areas such as police co-operation, will he join me in saying to people such as the leader of the UK Independence party that they cannot, on the one hand, make arguments that we should not have Bulgarians, Romanians and others flooding our shores, and on the other hand not have the European arrest warrant and arrangements like it, which provide European police co-operation?
The Prime Minister
I very much welcome the commitment by the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament to support this budget. That is two down—the Conservatives are up for it and the Liberals are up for it—so what about Labour? What are you going to do when all those other socialists in Europe tell you that this is a terrible deal and that we should not be cutting spending? When are we going to see some leadership from the Labour party?
On the issue of Bulgaria, the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the European arrest warrant. I would also make the point that it is important that we do have structural and cohesion funds that help countries recovering from decades of communism to raise their living standards. We should be proud of the fact that we do support a European Union in that way.
Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of, and affection for, the NHS, and I, too, am a fan of Ara Darzi and think he has a huge amount to offer. He had a big hand in giving priority to quality at the end of the last Government’s term. Francis is saying that there needs to be a culture change in respect of quality, but we must also look at what we are currently measuring. If hospital managers are measured on financial metrics and target metrics, rather than on quality of care—that is what we see flowing through the report—all the words we say and laws we pass on quality of care will not have sufficient impact. We need to look at that.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I welcome the report and the Prime Minister’s response, including on the hospital inspectorate proposal. Will he ensure that the Government’s full response includes giving special consideration to trying to change the culture of calling for the lawyers, which is what often currently happens when there are complaints? Instead, everybody should know in advance who is responsible for the ward, who is responsible for the clinical care and who is responsible for the management, and that they will be held to account. We must also ensure that the best practice in clinical care—which we often see in our wards—is used to judge what works and we are very tough on those who have failed.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes two points. First, I agree that we need clear lines of accountability so we can see who is responsible for standards of care on the ward and in the hospital, and they must be held to account for that. Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy with the point that sometimes people making a compliant are not seeking financial redress, and I think all constituency MPs would agree with that, too. They just want to be taken seriously. They want to be listened to; they want an acknowledgement. They will not go off and hire lawyers. They want an acknowledgement that their elderly relative was not treated properly, and they want it soon. I hope this report launches a debate in the NHS about how we can deliver that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
3. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on ensuring that companies in receipt of Government contracts do not engage in tax avoidance schemes.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
In the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Cabinet Office and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would examine how the procurement process can be used to deter tax avoidance and evasion. I expect an announcement to be made on this matter shortly with a view to new arrangements coming into effect from 1 April.
Simon Hughes
That is very welcome news, and I hope that friends of the Cabinet Office will be able to make sure that the Chancellor announces in the Budget that we will end once and for all the possibility of taxpayers’ money funding people to avoid paying their corporate taxes. That has to end at both national level and local government contract level.
Mr Maude
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Our primary concern in public procurement is value for the taxpayer, but it is entirely legitimate to be concerned about ensuring that companies that are—rightly—profiting from Government contracts should be paying the proper amount of tax.
Voting Age
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Williams
We have heard four similar interventions from coalition colleagues, and I have the same answer. I do not believe there is an absolute age at which every single right and responsibility accrues. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, I agree that there are very good health grounds for tobacco control and for making 18 the responsible age for consuming a product that is harmful to health. I would say exactly the same about alcohol.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
May I say, through my hon. Friend, to our more doubtful colleagues, that the overwhelming reason is that youngsters at school are, in my experience, educated to be citizens and to play a full part? If we separate the date when they have the education and the interest is aroused from the date when they can register and do something, we lose them—bluntly—potentially for five, 10 or 15 years, or for ever.
Stephen Williams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was the first Member to attempt to make this change—in, I believe, 1999, when he was crushed by 400 votes to 36. I hope we will have a markedly different result today. He is right that this generation of young people have had all the educational opportunities to understand the democratic system, yet we continue to withhold from them the opportunity to put that knowledge into practice. We should not continue to withhold the vote from the best-educated generation of young people.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. and good Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) for introducing the debate, and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. It is absolutely right that we should debate the subject. Like the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), I, too, was a beneficiary of the change in the voting age from 21 to 18. When I was 18, I could not vote, but by the time I was 21 I had got the vote, because the law had changed, and I cast my first vote in the 1970 election. It was an exciting moment. I went with my dad back to where we had moved from, and I felt the importance of being able to play my small part in that general election.
Ever since then, I have been persuaded that we need to keep asking ourselves whether young people are properly engaged in politics. I chair the governing body of a primary school, and of course there are bright and engaged youngsters in that school, but as some hon. Friends have said, nobody seriously thinks that they are yet sufficiently engaged and interested to be able to vote. I am the trustee of a secondary school; the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and others spoke about going to secondary schools and meeting youngsters, most of whom are really engaged, interested, informed and active. A couple of evenings ago, I was with some friends in my constituency. Their under-18 son was at the dinner table, and nobody could argue that he, doing his A-levels, was not as competent to cast a vote as many other people.
Hugh Bayley
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the habit of voting is usually learned young, and that the chance of getting a 30-year-old who has never voted into a polling station is small? If we had voting at 16, large numbers of 16, 17, and 18-year-olds at school or in higher education would feel peer pressure to vote, and might acquire the habit for life.
Simon Hughes
That, in a way, is my central argument, and I will come back to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West was kind enough to remind the House that I was the first person to introduce this proposition. I have checked; it was in Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill on 15 December 1999. Mike O’Brien, whom we all remember with affection, was the Under-Secretary of State, and he opposed the proposition on behalf of the Labour Government, although we reported that Paul Waugh of The Independent had written an article on the previous new year’s eve saying that the Labour Government were thinking about whether they should propose changing the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West was right to say that we did not get the measure through; the votes were 36 in favour and 434 against.
One of the then Minister’s strongest arguments was that a person could not stand for election until they were 21. That has changed; people can now stand in local elections when they are 18, and they do—and get elected. The discrepancy has narrowed. My key point is this: if we educate young people to understand the issues, as the House’s education department does, and as we do when we go into schools; if, when children are still at home, parents educate them on the issues; if, as colleagues in all parts of the House have said, we are keen for people to be more competent to make financial decisions when they leave school; if we want to make sure that young people understand how to apply for work, and look for training, a university or college, apprenticeships and so on, and have the information that they need; we should logically link that with the ability to see what the options are in life, and who makes those decisions.
Who decides whether a person can be housed locally? The local council, and therefore it matters who the local councillor is and whether they are likely to be responsive. Who makes the decisions in London about policing? The Mayor of London. A young person might have very strong views on the subject, and might want to do something to influence the decision of who becomes the Mayor. Who makes the decisions about licensing laws and ages, and about drugs? Parliament, and young people might want to influence it if they have very strong views on those issues.
The crucial point is the one that the hon. Member for York Central and I made. If we educate young people—we do it increasingly well with an increasingly bright cohort—and there is a gap of up to five years before they can apply what they have learned, what happens? First, when they can vote, they may not be at home; they may be struggling to find somewhere to live, and be moving around. Relationships are often all over the place. There are uncertainties to do with study, training and work. People then generally do not find that voting is a priority, because they do not have the stability that they had at school, college or home.
In the past, people voted much more often in the way that their family did Now, if young people are at home, it does not necessarily mean that they will vote the way their parents do, but they are much more likely to be encouraged to go to vote with their parents, and to be shown what to do. Some people do not vote because they do not know what to do, and they are terrified that they will be embarrassed when they go.
Fabian Hamilton
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those of us who are parents, whether in the House or outside, have a crucial role in ensuring, well before our children are 16, that they will have the understanding and ability to vote at 16, and that we can therefore play a part in making sure that votes at 16 work?
Simon Hughes
That is right, and I say to those Conservative colleagues who are nervous about the idea that of course we have different ages for different things; we will never get to a situation in this country where every right comes at 16, 17 or 18; that is unrealistic. However, it is often young people who are the most idealistic in the world—who want to change the world, and live out what they believe. If we start saying, “No, you can’t get involved at this age. I’m sorry, you’ll have to wait. You can’t do anything about it till you’re 19, 20 or 21,” by then the idealism may have gone and we will have dampened their enthusiasm.
We want more people to stand in political elections. All political parties, including the Tories, allow people to join and to vote at well under 18. At 15, I think, one can be a voting member of the Tory party, choosing the party leader. For heaven’s sake, let us realise that although not all the world has yet arrived at this conclusion, we must go on opening up opportunities to young people, not making them do anything, but giving them the opportunity to become the full citizens that they will be if they can exercise the vote in this country.
Algeria
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. One of the problems in north Africa is that the al-Qaeda franchises have been fed by money from hostage-taking and sometimes very large ransom payments have been made. One thing we will consider at the G8 is whether we can do more to cut off that sort of finance. That is vital in Somalia and in north Africa, too.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
Given that Algeria, like many countries in Africa, has many neighbours—six, in this case—and long and difficult to defend borders, which mean that people, not just from Africa, can cross without being spotted or detected, would not one option for NATO and the EU be not to offer troops on the ground but to build up our capacity to offer technical and surveillance support, so that we can monitor the activities of those who cross and who wish nobody any good?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, border security is extremely difficult in these countries, but there is more that we can do to help them with technical abilities and also with training. That is particularly the case with the Libyans.
Algeria
Simon Hughes Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The consulate is involved. We have staff deployed in Algiers who want to travel further south to be closer to the events that have taken place and to help, in all ways necessary, the people caught up in this crisis. We are working very closely with BP, which will be doing the same thing, and with Statoil—I spoke to the Norwegian Prime Minister last night—which will be sending an aeroplane down there to help retrieve people as well.
Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I associate my colleagues with his condolences and solidarity. Many of my constituents originate from north Africa, including Algeria, and are very hard-working members of our communities here. Will he look again, with our NATO allies, at how we might build on the direction he has set on the Mediterranean dialogue that exists for linking our countries with north Africa? Also, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office hold itself available to inform our people around the world and people resident in the UK, for example those who are from Algeria, who may be more worried than everybody else about what is happening to their country?
The Prime Minister
First, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should keep the travel advice and information updated, and we do. He is also right to say that Algerians living and working in this country make an important contribution. His general point about working with NATO partners to see how we can further improve links and relationships with countries—Libya, Algeria, Mali and other countries in the region—should be a real focus in the months ahead. As I said, it is about diplomatic and political engagement, but military-to-military co-operation and understanding can be a real benefit too.