House of Lords Reform Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brady]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The case is compelling. Ministers really cannot have it both ways.

Much of what has been said about the Bill, however, concerns not party commitments but calculations of party advantage. We spend too much time here pursuing party advantage. To do so in changing our constitution would be not just wrong but contemptible.

Let me turn to the other parts of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case—the points of principle on which I hope the House will judge any proposal to effect a massive change in our constitutional arrangements. These are whether reform is needed and the argument that there is an absolute principle that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. There has been an effort to paint opposition to the Bill as reactionary opposition to any change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Few on either side of this House or in the other House would dispute the need for reform. The Lords is too big and it needs a route to retirement. It also needs a means of removing those found guilty of serious crimes. All this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, could be enacted with little dissent here or in the other place. However, desirable as reforming the Lords may be, I would contend that reforming the Lords without reforming this House would be to miss the point.

The public are not stupid: they know where power is located in our Parliament. They know that it is in this House and not the other. People certainly dislike politicians who break promises or who seem interested more in seeking or holding on to office than in serving the public good, but this is seen as a failing in the House of Commons far more than in the House of Lords. People notice that this House is poor at holding the Government to account. They see that we make only a desultory effort at scrutinising legislation—although I trust that this Bill will be an exception. People see the damaging effects of patronage—against which Lord Ashdown railed in the weekend press—but they know that patronage is a greater impediment to the freedom of this House than it is to that of the Lords. We are agreed that the House of Lords needs reforming, but reforming the Lords while flunking the far more important task of strengthening the Commons would be profoundly mistaken.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the coalition agreement is clear that we need to work to reform the effectiveness of this place, but is he clear that he appears to be proposing that we should end up with a second legislative Chamber that is slightly altered, but all of whose Members are appointed? Is that really justifiable in 2012?

[Mr Brady]

The right hon. Gentleman should be patient.

Let me turn to the most important pillar of the Deputy Prime Minister’s case: that those who legislate for the people should be chosen by the people. Many of the opponents of the Bill, on both sides of the House, reject that. They rightly point to the expertise of the upper House. They highlight the obvious truth that an elected or part-elected upper House would be more inclined to challenge the primacy of the House of Commons. I accept both assertions, but unlike many of my hon. Friends, I would support an elected upper House in spite of them. However, that is not what the Bill delivers. We do not have time today to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the United States constitution. There can certainly be gridlock between the Houses in the United States, but the legislation it produces is at least as effective as ours, and Congress is certainly far better able to hold the Executive to account than we are. However, is the Bill before us today one that would excite Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Paine? Is it a great clarion call for government of the people, by the people? It is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Heald]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about that.

The Joint Committee took evidence from Australian senators. The Australian system is similar to that proposed in the Bill. Senator Ursula Stephens from the governing Labour party told us:

“I am allocated a number of seats that are not held by the Government in the lower House in my state. I look after those constituents who do not have a government representative. Those people might come to me about issues and legislation.”

Senator Lee Rhiannon from the Australian Greens said:

“we have nine Senators and only one Member in the House of Representatives. The issue of working with constituents is very important for us and it takes up quite a bit of time.”

Senator Michael Ronaldson of the Opposition Liberal Party said:

“I do not think that you can make the assumption that you will not be engaged in constituency-type work, particularly if the elected Lords in an area—as Senator Stephens said—come from the other party. If you are a Member of the non-ruling party, the Lords might find that they have more people knocking on their doors than they might otherwise have anticipated.”

When the Clerk of the House gave evidence, he spoke of the danger of “constituency case tourism”. We must try to avoid such constituency conflicts.

[Simon Hughes]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern. That is a real issue, and I think it will have to be addressed if we proceed with the Bill. There are ways in which it could be dealt with: for example, it could be agreed that Ministers would deal only with Members of the House of Commons when it came to constituency casework.

[Oliver Heald]

That issue is not addressed in the Bill.

I mentioned the Clerk of the House a moment ago, and he has appeared on cue!

The power of the people is in this House, not at the other end of the building. That is why, when we are arguing with the Lords about a Bill, they always give way eventually. When I was a Whip, I went down there and had discussions with them, as many other Members will have done. In the end, they say, “You are the elected House; you have your way.” I recall hardly any occasions during my time here when, in the end, they have not caved in, because we are the elected House.

I believe in efficient and effective government. I think that it is something the Conservative party has stood for over the years. We have given this country more than 250 years of good government—or, at least, we have given a lot of it during that period. [Laughter.] I remember the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) saying “It must be healed.” I agree: it must be Heald.

Following the proposed changes, we will struggle to have effective government. The Parliament Acts cannot be used on every occasion. It is a nuclear option. We rely on the Lords’ giving way, but the fact is that without conventions and arrangements between the Houses —some means of ensuring that we always prevail in the end—it will be more difficult to ensure that we have effective government in this country. When a party makes promises in its manifesto, it will not be able to deliver on them. When we experience a crisis, as we have recently, it will be difficult to introduce urgent measures with the necessary speed.

Let me make a suggestion. It is in the Joint Committee report, the alternative report and in my pamphlet, which can be read on the website of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Let us see whether we can avoid regional elections which provide a geographical power base, which would mean the people at the other end of the building representing a group of constituents from an area. Let us consider indirect election. There are various different models. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) mentioned the German model, and the right hon. Member for Neath mentioned the secondary mandate model. There are ways of doing this.

I support reform and I think that we should do it, but I do not agree with the Bill, and I believe that it needs to be looked at again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Blunkett]

That is at the heart of the criticism of this Bill. Once legitimacy is given to elected politicians without the accountability of their having to seek re-election and be re-elected, the very fundamentals of democracy are undermined. That is because, as I am on the record saying on the morning after the election, democracy is not simply about electing people; it is about being able to get rid of them. The admirable speech made at the Magna Carta lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury on 15 June demonstrated that par excellence.

[Simon Hughes]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that nothing in this Bill suggests that Governments would not be formed on the simple principle of needing to command a majority in the House of Commons? That is as it has been and as it is, and there is no proposal that it should not continue in that way. If that is the case, the threat, and the suggestion he makes, that electing people to the other place would change that is entirely unsupported by anything in the Bill.

[Mr Blunkett]

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman read the Bill, because it suggests, for the first time in our history, that Ministers can be appointed outwith the second Chamber but report to it. We have always had to appoint people to that Chamber, who have worked within it and have continued to be a part of it, if they were to be Ministers.

The fundamental rub I foresee is that we will create mistrust in the electorate. We will say that we are going to replace people who are unaccountable and not legitimate, but then we will put up regional party lists—in the case of Yorkshire, the region covers 5 million people—and simply tell electors to tick the box on the list. People will turn on us, because that is a delusion. That is why we should vote against the Bill and against the programme motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

I want to increase democracy where it is effective so that people feel that they are changing things, not being left behind and lost by politicians. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, the idea behind the genesis of the Bill is not the improvement of democracy but the improvement of the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, who are frightened of the prospect of democracy and the electorate at the next general election. What they are trying to secure in the Bill is proportional representation in the other place so that they can be in government for ever, but I do not see my job as coming to this House to put the Lib Dems in government for ever. To achieve that, they obviously have to introduce a system of PR, but just over 12 months ago the electorate said quite clearly that they did not want to move from first past the post, even though it was not PR that was put to them.

I must ask those who say that clause 2 will protect and provide security for the primacy of this House: how? There is only one legal basis for that primacy, and that is the Parliament Act, but we are not going to Parliament Act every Bill that comes through. All the other details such as the Salisbury convention and the convention on statutory instruments are just that—conventions. If I were elected to the other place, I would say, “The Salisbury convention no longer exists, because the basis of it was the fact that some people were elected and some were not.” If people in the other place are elected, they will have the right to say, “My electorate are as important as your electorate, and a great deal bigger, and I have been elected by millions of votes, so I will vote against what you in the House of Commons believe.”

It will be impossible to prevent freely elected people from doing that, particularly when they will never be accountable for anything because they will never go back to the electorate, and I see nothing apart from the Parliament Acts to prevent the other House from challenging the primacy of this House. That takes us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that the proposals will not affect the Government. Ministers may be appointed, but by blocking legislation they could do exactly what the Lib Dems are doing in this debate: blackmail whatever Government are in office so as to get their own way and get posts in the Government.

[Simon Hughes]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman begins his intervention, I counsel him that those who persistently intervene may get dropped down the list. I hope that the House understands what will happen if there are continual interventions from the same Members.

[Simon Hughes]

I hope that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) accepts that, at the moment, at the other end of the building there is clearly no party with an overall majority. Indeed, everybody is in a minority. He is worried about having one period only for election and no need for re-election, but what would his alternative be that would end patronage and heredity in the second Chamber, if it is not something like this Bill?

[Graham Stringer]

That is the easiest question I have ever been asked in this Chamber: I would abolish the other House, for the simple reason that, in the constitutional position that we are in, it is difficult to improve and democratise it without diminishing ourselves or having a written constitution.

Policies and manifestos have been mentioned a number of times. On the day after the general election, it was my view that all the parties had lost. The advantage of our system is that the core parts of manifestos are voted for. If a party becomes the Government, it gets the rest of its manifesto because it put that manifesto before people, but when none of the parties has won and there are three differing commitments on House of Lords reform—incidentally, none of those commitments is embodied in the Bill before us—it is difficult to understand how my Front Benchers or Front Benchers from other parties could say, “This Bill is legitimate to put before people and we have the will of the people behind us.” We simply do not have the will of the people behind us on those manifestos and the only answer—again, the Lib Dems are particularly frightened of the electorate—is to put the proposal to a referendum.

EU Council

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I think that it is, but the argument that I would make is that that was an agreement reached through unanimity. It shows that what is required often in Europe is not institutional structures, but political will to come together and do the right thing. That is what we have done in relation to Syria, Iran and eventually Libya, so I am all for co-operating and often leading the debate with our European partners about foreign policy priorities. That is what we have done about Burma and sanctions, but I do not think that means the endless passage of powers from Britain to Brussels—in fact, quite the opposite.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

May I associate the Prime Minister’s Liberal Democrat colleagues with his expressions of condolence and sympathy following the deaths of our servicemen in Afghanistan? Does the Prime Minister agree that, while it is of course right that at the last election his party had a set of manifesto commitments on Europe, as did the Liberal Democrats, the coalition agreement is clear? There is provision for a referendum if there is a handover of power from the UK to Brussels. There is no provision for any other referendum, and we are agreed that the priority, as evidenced last weekend, is that 27 European countries work together to deal with the imminent, urgent economic crisis across Europe.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair, in terms of coalition policy on Europe, we said clearly that there would be no further passage of power from Britain to Brussels. We have said that we should protect and defend the single market. Let us look at the achievements over the past couple of years. We have got out of that bail-out fund; we have promoted the single market in energy, digital and services; and we have written into conclusions after conclusions safeguards for the single market. That is all to the good, but all party leaders, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, must think of the future— how we evolve policy in a changing Europe, how we maximise the benefit for Britain, and how we take the British people with us. That is exactly what I am doing.

G20 Summit

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the word I am waiting for from him, because he introduced a point of order claiming that I had misled the House, is “sorry”. To be fair to him, he has said sorry to everybody else—you, Mr Speaker, I think, and to the House in general—but the person he accused of doing something wrong he has yet to say “sorry” to. So, until I get that apology, I think I will leave off the answers.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The communiqué was clear that, as a way of agreeing further growth, there should be investment in infrastructure, particularly in housing, which would bring both jobs in general and deal with youth unemployment in particular. Can the Prime Minister say anything about the priority our Government will give to those matters in this country, in order to get youngsters off the dole and houses built for them to live in?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Because we have credibility in financial markets and our interest rates are less than 2%, we are able to use the strength of our balance sheet to help make sure that houses get built, that infrastructure goes ahead and that we help our economy in that way. We are looking at the best way to make this happen.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The two thirds of voters whose details are confirmed automatically will be moved over to the new register once their information has been verified. If they are absent voters, their absent vote will automatically be carried forward as well. [Interruption.] That is what will happen. Absent voters whose details are confirmed and who are moved on to the register will be able to use their absent vote. However, people whose information has not been verified and who do not make an individual application will not be able to have an absent vote. Of course, local authorities know who those people are, and we are working with them and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that everyone with an absent vote is contacted so that they know that if they want to continue having an absent vote they need to register individually. We are confident that local authorities will do that. In a moment, I will set out how we will ensure that local authorities get the funding needed to ensure that that takes place.

The third major change that we have made is removing the opt-out provision from the Bill. The original intention was very simple: to enable EROs to focus their resources on people who wanted to register to vote, rather than having to keep chasing individuals who had no intention of registering. However, we have listened to the arguments made by Members of the House, the Electoral Commission and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. We want the maximum number of eligible people to be registered to vote, so we have decided to remove that provision.

The final major change we have made to our proposals is that we will enable electoral registration officers to issue a civil penalty when an individual who has been required to make an application fails to do so. Over the past few months, there have been discussions about whether an offence should be attached to an individual form. At the moment, it is not an offence not to be registered, which will not change, but there is a criminal offence of not returning the household canvass form. That, too, will remain, because by not doing so somebody can disfranchise other people.

We were faced with the question whether we should create a new criminal offence to be applied to the individual application form. We did not think it appropriate to criminalise people who simply did not register to vote. After careful consideration with key stakeholders, and after listening to Members, we believe it is appropriate to create a civil penalty—akin to a parking fine—for individuals who, after being required to make an application by a certain date, fail to do so.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Minister will know that I am very pleased by that announcement, for which I have lobbied. I am grateful for the Bill and the changes the Government have made to it.

To maximise the number of people registered and get people to understand the penalty if they do not respond, will the Minister ensure that local authorities, social landlords, schools, colleges, sixth forms, the high commissions of Commonwealth countries and the Irish embassy play their full part in getting the system known among those with whom they regularly deal?

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and he has indeed been greatly involved in making points on the matter in the House, for which I am grateful. In his constituency there is significant voter turnover each year, which presents challenges to his local registration officer. We are already working with groups that represent some of the categories that he mentions, but he also mentions a couple that we had not previously considered, such as high commissions. We will certainly bear them in mind, and I will discuss the matter with my officials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David]

It is breakneck speed. This is the first piece of legislation in the Queen’s Speech to be introduced. The Electoral Commission and many others have said that we must first complete the data-matching exercises. The Government have deliberately introduced this legislation as quickly as possible in their legislative programme to circumvent the evidence coming forward that might highlight weaknesses in the process.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman has a problem. He is a good guy and, like me, wants a good Bill. The Government came up with proposals, have hugely improved on them having listened to him, me and many others, including people outside, and they now want to implement a system that his Government never implemented, despite saying that they would—and this Government will do it as quickly as possible, and they are building in the safeguards. On this occasion, then, he ought to accept that the Government have done a good job. Why does he not simply thank the Government for having listened?

[Mr David]

With all due respect, I say to the Liberal Democrats that, yes, concessions have been made, but there is still a long, long way to go. As I hope the Liberal Democrats come to realise before the end of the passage of the Bill, some measures in it might well work against their interests. The advantage will be with the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats might pay a very high price for acquiescing in the policies of their Conservative masters.

What is the significance of 1 December 2015? It is when the next parliamentary boundary review takes place. As we should all be aware, under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, if, for whatever reasons, there is a decline in the number of electors in certain constituencies, the parliamentary boundaries must be redrawn. It would be most unfortunate for the Government to give the impression that they were seeking political advantage by introducing IER at the end of the transitional period, when the size of the electorate could be temporarily diminished. It could be that the new data-matching pilots will indicate that December 2015 is precisely the time when electoral numbers are likely to be at their lowest.

G8 and NATO Summits

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say that I would not put it like that. We need to work very closely with our American allies, within our special relationship, to try to deal with the terrorism that has come out of Afghanistan and is still coming out of parts of Pakistan. It is in our national interest to do that, but I always urge all international friends and partners to show patience and understanding with Pakistan because it is the biggest victim of terror of all. It has complex politics, and it needs to be given the space to resolve some of those issues. It also needs to know that its friends, such as Britain, will not leave it after the Afghan conflict is over, and that we are there for long-term partnership, friendship and support.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Of course I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to our serving forces, particularly in Afghanistan, and to those who have given their lives. On the global economy, will the Prime Minister continue to make it clear that, although we are not in the eurozone and should not wish to join the eurozone, it is in our interests that we support the other countries in Europe that are in it—including, as the Father of the House said, by supporting their structural reform? Does he also agree that an increase in the internal market across Europe is in their interest and ours, and that construction at home is the best way of creating the growth that we need in this country as an immediate priority?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is in Britain’s interests that the problems in the eurozone are dealt with. We have consistently made a whole series of suggestions about firewalls, about strengthening banks and about consistent and strong contingency plans. The point that I was making at the weekend is that it has become ever more urgent to make those contingency plans because, frankly, it is not in our power to determine whether Greece decides to stay in the eurozone. We have to prepare for every eventuality, however difficult that might be.

Debate on the Address

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), and it is a privilege to be the first Liberal Democrat to speak in this Session of Parliament. [Interruption.] Apart, that is, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), to whom I am about to pay tribute. Let me start, however, by paying tribute to the soldiers whom we remembered at the beginning of the Session—and all who serve in places of danger in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and to our colleagues who died during the last Session.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) for his speech, and for his reminder of how diverse a country we are and how we benefit from that. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, whom I ignored only accidentally and briefly, for his speech. He has served in this place continuously for nearly 29 years, and has been the most loyal and steadfast friend and colleague for all that time. He has been a wonderful representative of Aberdeen, of Aberdeenshire, of his constituency and of his country. He has served this Parliament with great distinction, not least today. We are very grateful for his public service, and I think we would all like to put that on the record. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He is a very valued colleague.

On the second Wednesday in May two years ago, the coalition agreement was signed—within five days of the last election result being declared and within 24 hours of the new Prime Minister taking over at the request of the Queen, the deal was done. Two years later, I say on behalf of all my colleagues that I am perfectly clear that that was the right decision at the time. It was the right decision at the time for us to enter the coalition, in the national interest; and it was the right decision to continue for the past two years in the coalition, in the national interest; and it will continue to be the right decision to remain in the coalition, in the national interest, for the remaining three years of this Parliament. When we joined together, we did so knowing it would be a five-year programme, and knowing we were committed to seeing it through, and it absolutely is in the national interest that we do so.

It was obvious from the beginning that returning Britain to economic stability would not be achieved in one year or in two years, and that instead a full five-year Parliament would be needed. That was the truth then and that is the truth now. We were therefore right to legislate to make the constitutional reform necessary to have a fixed-term Parliament, in order to give the certainty that the county needed. If anyone does not believe that political certainty is a good thing, they should look at what is happening on the other side of this continent at this very moment. In five days, we were able to bring certainty to our country, despite an indecisive election result.

May I remind the House what the election achieved? The Conservatives won 306 seats, and got the support of just over a third of those who voted.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Are we talking about the council elections?

[Simon Hughes]

No, this was two years ago. Labour won 258 seats and just under 30% of public support. We won 57 seats with 23% of public support. Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined did not make a majority. Indeed, Labour and the Liberal Democrats along with the next largest party, the Democratic Unionists, would not have made a majority—we would still have been short—whereas the Conservatives plus the Liberal Democrats made a majority, and the country needed a majority Government. We therefore did our duty, by agreeing to work with people who were normally our opponents, in the national interest, to deliver a common programme. We have done that twice in Scotland, working with Labour in the national interest, and once in Wales, again working with Labour in the national interest. I believe it was right to do so on all those occasions, and that it was right to do so on this occasion, too.

[Meg Hillier]

Given the Prime Minister’s not-so-ringing endorsement of Lords reform from the Dispatch Box, is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that the coalition is still joined together in a common purpose?

[Simon Hughes]

The answer is yes, and if the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will deal later with Lords reform, as it is in the Queen’s Speech and the programme for the coming year.

We need to remember where we were two years ago: there was turmoil in Greece and in the eurozone, and our constituents were paying out of their money—not our money—£120 million a day just in servicing the interest repayments on our debt. That is not a way to use taxpayers’ money for the good. There was a financial crisis caused by a banking system that was entirely focused on short-term gain for the people at the top—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said regularly in the previous Parliament—rather than on creating long-term value for the many small businesses that provide work for most people across the country. The public finances were out of control, we had the largest public deficit in the developed world and the living standards of those on low and middle incomes were being eroded, which had been gradually reducing the spending power of the British consumer over the previous decade. The cost of living was spiralling; for younger people, certainly in constituencies such as mine, a home had become an unaffordable dream. The economic system often encouraged people to take as much as possible for themselves rather than incentivising them to create long-term value and spread wealth and work as widely as possible, and the economy was reliant on energy from scarce resources, the price of which was rising year after year.

Two years later, we are still not where we need to be. We have unacceptably high unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which started long before this Government came to office and was on a significant upward trend in the last years of the Labour Administration. We are in an economic recession and banks are still not lending enough to viable small businesses, as we all know from our constituency casework, whereas the pay of those at the top is rising more than can possibly be justified by their performance. We heard the figures just this week: an 11% increase in salaries at the top last year, whereas the increase for the working population as a whole was 1%.

It is therefore absolutely right that the Government continue to focus on doing all we can to promote economic growth and recovery, it is right that we continue with the programme we set out and it is right that we have a programme that, as the last Budget did, seeks to put more money into the pockets of those low and middle income working people and to make work pay. The programme should regulate the banks, encourage the growth of renewable energy and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing so that the spending priorities of the Government, about which we care—health care, education and support for the less well-off—can be adequately financed. No Government have ever invested in better schools or hospitals by bankrupting themselves.

It has been difficult and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches know that. There was no parliamentary majority for getting rid of tuition fees and we were not able to deliver that—it just became undeliverable. The Health and Social Care Bill, the Welfare Reform Bill and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill needed significant changes and we changed them and made them hugely better—all of them. The evidence is there in the legislation that is now on the statute book.

The Budget was grossly misrepresented. Its most significant element was that many millions of people were taken out of paying tax. Many more will be lifted out of tax next year and the year after, so that nobody will have to pay anything in tax on their first £10,000 of income. It was also forgotten that last month pensioners had the largest increase ever in the state pension since it was introduced by the post-war Government. Then there was the youth contract, the huge growth in the number of apprenticeships, and the support for further education.

There has already been huge success, but we must ensure that we focus on the priorities. The Gracious Speech started by setting them out very clearly: economic growth, justice and constitutional reform. We are proud on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), will see through the creation of the green investment bank in Edinburgh, for which some of us, as members of an environmental party, have argued for many years and will now see delivered. We are proud that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, our right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), will introduce an energy Bill to give us low-carbon energy generation and to develop renewables, which have a fantastic future—not just onshore, but offshore, tidal, wind and wave, and not just around Scotland but in the whole of the United Kingdom. We are determined to deliver cheaper electricity and greater security of supply.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and others have campaigned for ages for a grocery code adjudicator Bill, and we are delivering that. It will ensure that farmers, local suppliers and local growers get good value for their products and are not trampled on by the power of the monopoly supermarket in their area. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—a Liberal Democrat Minister for Pensions—and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, with whom he works so well, are determined to deliver the new single tier pension to ensure that by the end of this Parliament people will have, rather than the sum of just under £100 a week they get as the state pension at the moment, about £140 a week. That is particularly valuable to women, the low paid and those who have been self-employed. After 30 years of work, people will have a citizen’s pension, for which we have always fought.

The Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)and others are determined, as the Deputy Prime Minister has been, that we should have flexible parental care leave, flexible parental leave and the right to flexible working. Why? They are not just good for the parent and the child, but they allow the parent to stay in work rather than giving it up and to be able to mix work, home, children and a career. That is really important for women’s equality in this country. Why do we not have many women in this place or on boards? It is partly because we do not have those flexible arrangements.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those provisions on shared parental leave also provide choice for families at a very important time, when they are having children?

[Simon Hughes]

Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her commitment to families and women in her profession. She is right—we absolutely need to do that.

We outline in the Gracious Speech the support for those with special educational needs, adding to early-years places for the rising fives so that there is a commitment that 40% of rising fives will be able to have support before they go to school. So, there is much for hard-working, ordinary families and their children in the programme. It is not a programme without legislative plans at all—quite the reverse.

A defamation Bill will deal with the fact that our libel laws still restrict the liberty of speech in this country. I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has worked very hard to make sure that this Bill is in the legislative programme. There is a strong proposal for a National Crime Agency to deal with terrorists and people who do not have the interests of this country at heart. We also have proposals for community sentences for restorative justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has been absolutely clear about the value of such sentences not just in reforming people but in value-for-money terms.

We have been careful about the difficult issue that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised about data and how to deal with it. It is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, to respond to the security services’ request that we make all species of communication areas of consideration for regulation of data control—not so that people can know what one is saying but so that we do not have no-go areas for the security services. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not sign up to legislation that will add to the intrusion into citizens’ lives that we saw so often from the Labour party when it was in government. Under Labour, we had a Big Brother state with identity cards and proposals for 90-day detention. Neither we nor the Conservatives are going down that road, and that is why there is a draft proposal, which we will look at carefully. Only if it is acceptable will it get through.

Let me say a word about the comments of the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on gay marriage. May I say, as a member of the Church, that I think it is entirely reasonable that in a modern society in which we have accepted that both gay and straight couples should be able to have permanent, recognised relationships, the state should allow that to happen in an equal way? It happens in many other places in the world and it does not mean that any denomination of the Church or any other faith group has to accept that, endorse it or carry out such ceremonies in its buildings—it is simply about saying that the state recognises it when two people want to live their lives as adults together. This is not in the Gracious Speech and was never going to be, because the consultation has not ended. However, we should recognise that there is a civil liberties issue at stake for many of our constituents. We should not forget that. I bet there are people in every constituency in the United Kingdom who want us to make sure that this issue remains on the agenda.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Many people will have written to the right hon. Gentleman, as they have written to me, about this issue. Does he agree that when it is explained to people that there is a clear difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage in terms of what is proposed, most of them are reassured? It is our duty to point that out.

[Simon Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right; that is exactly the experience I have had. I have Evangelical Christian friends who are concerned about this issue, but when one explains that it does not suddenly make something sacramental if that is not what the Church or what the individual believes, they are reassured. It is a similar issue—I say this respectfully—as that of tax advantages for people who are married and those who are not married. In our book, if a couple have lived together for 25 years but have not married, they should enjoy the same position in the tax system as those who have chosen to marry. We have to respect people’s different life choices as adults.

Those issues are all important, but the most important legislative proposal for my constituents in a constituency that faces the City of London from across the river is none of those—it is banking reform. It is about making sure that we divide the banks into retail banks that will deal with people’s day-to-day business and separate them from the speculative, international playing with money that has brought us to the state we are in. In my view, the most important aspect of that Bill, for which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary’s Department is also responsible, is that which allows shareholders to control the scandal of executive pay. This week, we have at last seen the beginning of a change in attitudes at the top; shareholder power has at last begun to be exerted. We absolutely need to give shareholders the power not only to advise and express their view but to say, “I’m sorry—if you don’t perform, you are not getting the money.” What has happened previously has resulted from an “if you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours” attitude in the boardrooms, with people offering each other packages and salaries that are beyond the comprehension of most of our constituents. It was obscene and it is unacceptable, but it was allowed, encouraged and developed under a Labour Government, and that should be to their eternal shame.

[Malcolm Bruce]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that shareholders have come to their senses? They recognise that paying directors bonuses for reduced share prices and dividends is not a good deal for anybody.

[Simon Hughes]

Absolutely. If we can have a real rise of shareholder power over the next few years—individuals and pension funds—it will be a really good thing.

There are two more things I want to say. The first is about constitutional reform, in part to answer the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). We are right not to forget constitutional reform. The Liberal Democrat party is a party of reform. We have agreed fixed-term Parliaments—a good thing. We have agreed that there should be no transfer of powers to the European Union without a referendum, which is an absolutely reasonable thing. We have agreed that whatever the number of constituencies, they should at least have the same size electorate—a good thing. We have agreed to look at devolution to England, which I have argued for a long time, because there is unequal devolution. Since I have been in this place we have had fantastically successful devolution in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I welcome it. England needs a bit of the same.

We have agreed that Back Benchers should be more powerful in determining the agenda in this place—a good thing. We have agreed that there will be a change in the laws of succession to the Crown—absolutely a good thing. I hope it will soon be part of the legislative programme. We have more work to do, to make sure we scrutinise legislation better in this place. We do not do it well enough in either place; often we do not have enough time here and we leave it to the other end of the building. That is not a plea for more legislation. In every Parliament I have sat in, we have asked for less legislation and I am glad that we are not trying to jam in all sorts of things that the public do not want. We want fewer regulations and less legislation, but we want to do it better.

[Tony Baldry]

Does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition have suddenly started mischief-making over Lords reform, by asking for a referendum? Is it because they hope that in so doing they will cause Liberal Democrat Members to go slow on the equalisation of constituency boundaries? As Labour Members do not want equalisation of constituency boundaries, they hope that by frustrating Lords reform they can frustrate that idea. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and his colleagues are committed to ensuring that a vote in Southwark is worth the same as a vote in Banbury, or in Wales or Scotland?

[Simon Hughes]

I am keen that we have a system whereby votes in all parts of the country are fair. Of course I would like a proportional system, but I accept that I shall not have that in this Parliament. Friends on the Plaid and other Benches know of my Welsh background. The Welsh have the most advantageous position at the moment, because many constituencies have far fewer electors. We need a fair system.

I do not know what the motives of Labour Members are, but if they try to play silly games and prevent the other place from changing from an entirely nominated or hereditary Chamber to a democratic one, it will be to their eternal discredit. This is the best opportunity they have ever had—especially as they did not do it—to change our Parliament. Why? There are only 15 countries in the world that still have a predominantly appointed second Chamber; I am sure Labour Members would think that Belize and Burkina Faso are good examples. In only one other country is heredity a determinant for membership of the legislature—Lesotho. It is a lovely country, but I am not sure that it is the best model for democratic, 21st-century politics.

There are more Members down the other end of the corridor who are over 90 than under 40. There are 818 Members there already—92 hereditary—and the balance between men and women is 638 to 180. The Chamber is not representative by gender, ethnicity or age. It is not representative in any way. Why not? Because it exists by patronage and heredity. We just have to move on. It has been on the agenda for 100 years and we have to finish the business.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No.

I say to hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches who are not entirely persuaded about Lords reform that I understand that it is a lovely place, that they look lovely, some of them are lovely, and that it is part of our great, historic constitution and offers a job for life— I am not going there, but they might want to—so I understand why it touches a soft spot, but come on, guys: we have to move on. If the Tory party is to be the modern party that it wants to be and that the Prime Minister says it needs to be, it, too, must deliver. We can talk about the detail, the percentages and the length of the term of office, but we must end up with a second Chamber that is predominantly democratically elected.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the regional variations are significant. On the point his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made about the reduction in the number of constituencies, is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House this afternoon that what we are all seeing on social network websites is wrong and that there will be no frustration as a result of that reduction?

[Simon Hughes]

First, I am surrounded by colleagues who say that those who believe social network websites are in trouble. Secondly, most things on them are wrong. Thirdly, they are sometimes libellous. Seriously, I understand the general point the hon. Gentleman is making. I am not a member of the Government and so cannot speak for them, but I can speak for my colleagues here. What we want is a package of constitutional reform that has a fair constituency system. There is an argument about how many constituencies there should be—I was never in favour of the number going down quite as far as it has done, but there was an argument for making it smaller—and there is a strong argument for having equal numbers, but there is an equally strong argument for Lords reform. I hope that Labour will support us in delivering both, and we will be watching.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hughes]

No, because other colleagues wish to speak and I am bringing my comments to a close.

The new President of France said after he was elected on Sunday that his two priorities were a fairer country and support for the next generation, the young people of France. I think that those are good things for us to champion for our country from these Benches. We need a redistribution of wealth and of work, an end to the obscenity of top pay and a closing of the gap between rich and poor. We need to make sure that work always pays, to create more apprenticeships and a more skilled work force, to give more opportunities for employment and self-employment and to build the largest opportunity for infrastructure investment that we can manage, in all countries and regions of the UK, and the largest affordable programme for housing that we can deliver, particularly social rented housing, which is desperately needed in my constituency and elsewhere. I guess that there is not a single colleague who does not have constituents coming to their surgery every week pleading with them to find somewhere where they and their partner, or they and their parents, or they and their children can live. Young people need a decent careers and youth service, decent work experience, decent mentoring, good apprenticeships and good further and higher education.

To the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, I say, “You were right, of course, to take as many poor people out of tax as you have, but please do not again reduce tax rates for the well-off.” Whatever the balance of equity, it came across very badly, it did not look as if we are all in this together and the evidence does not show that any further reduction will do any greater good for the economy. We have had one Budget which does this and we know the outcome, but no more please. Let us take the poorer out of tax, not the people at the top.

To colleagues here who sometimes have disagreements with the Government—we all do—I say that we have to remain strong, united, determined, liberal and radical. We have to be committed to the things we came here for: the spreading of wealth and power and a cleaner, greener, safer and, above all, fairer Britain.

To the people outside who wonder what we are doing in this difficult coalition, I say that we are clear that we cannot achieve everything we want because in a coalition, by definition, that is not possible, but it is better to be in government influencing a huge amount than in opposition influencing nothing. We are determined to use our influence not unfairly, disproportionately or unreasonably, but this is a partnership of two parties. That is the deal and that is what we will stick to.

We won 16% of the vote in the local elections the other day; we won 23% in the general election. It is not an impossible task over three years to build confidence, but it depends on whether we can get the economy going, help growth, make sure that we are seen to be economically competent and deliver a fairer Britain.

I think that we can do it, and Asquith gave us something 100 years ago this year as an encouragement on our way. In his speech in Nottingham to our party conference, at a time when he was leading one of the greatest Governments in British history, he said this—

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Were you there?

[Simon Hughes]

I was not there, no—not even in my previous life!

Asquith said:

“If we have—and I believe you will see that we have—concentration of purpose, unity of spirit, and unshaken firmness of resolve, then, long and stormy though the voyage may have been before it comes to an end, the ship will find her way with a full cargo into the desired haven.”

Liberal Democrats are determined to deliver us safely on the other side and, much more importantly, to deliver our constituents to a better Britain, with better prospects, higher employment, lower unemployment and a much more secure economy for the five years following 2015 than the one we inherited when we took over in 2010.

Ministerial Code (Culture Secretary)

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, 15 years of secret meetings, pyjama parties, christenings and all the rest of it—and not one word of apology. Let me answer, very directly, the three points that the right hon. Gentleman made. First, he spoke about the response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). If the right hon. Gentleman had done his research, he would have seen that the Secretary of State set out in full the proper answer to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) in September 2011. If you are going to make these accusations, get your facts right before you come here.

On the second issue, the right hon. Gentleman raised specifically the information provided to News Corporation, and was completely wrong. On that, the special adviser has said:

“While it was part of my role to keep News Corporation informed throughout the BskyB bid process the content and extent of my contact was done without authorisation from the Secretary of State.”

So the second accusation is completely wrong.

The third accusation is also about the special adviser and the ministerial code. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took responsibility. He came to the House, explained what had happened and gave a full account of himself. While we are on the subject of Ministers taking responsibility for their special advisers, can anyone remember a Minister taking responsibility for Charlie Whelan? Can we remember anyone taking responsibility for Damian McBride? What a lot of self-serving double standards we have had from the Labour party.

Let me just make two further points. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is an issue of judgment about what steps to take. Let us examine, briefly, what the judgment of the deputy leader of the Labour party was. She was asked very specifically, “You called for the Secretary of State’s resignation within 23 minutes of the evidence being provided to the Leveson inquiry. Did you read that evidence?” She said, “No, I didn’t need to.” She was asked, “Why didn’t you need to?” She said, “Because I heard the evidence of James Murdoch.” So that is it: he is Labour’s arbiter of standards and the ministerial code. What complete nonsense.

I am not belittling this issue. It is a serious issue, but it is not as serious as the eurozone, the jobs, investment and debt that we have to deal with. It is time we focused on that. Let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman: endlessly questioning the integrity of someone when you do not have the evidence is bad judgment, rotten politics and plain wrong. We have learnt something about the Labour leader today and I think it is something he will regret.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I hope that the Prime Minister accepts that for more than 25 years every Liberal Democrat leader and colleague in both Houses has sought to break the insidious relationship between Labour and Tory Governments and the media. We therefore welcome the Leveson inquiry, which is doing an excellent job. If the Prime Minister accepts that that gives confidence to the public, will he also accept that referring this matter next month to the independent adviser will also give confidence to the public and that possibly, in the future, that should be done independently and not at the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend says about the opportunity provided for the Leveson inquiry. I think we should be frank: the relationships between the media and the police, and between the media and politicians, and some of the ethics and problems in the media, have not been dealt with properly under Governments both Labour and Conservative, and this gives us an opportunity to deal with the matter. On the specific issue of the Secretary of State, what is more robust than a judge-led inquiry, with Ministers under oath—holding the Bible, speaking under oath and answering questions? That is the point on which we have heard absolutely no answer from the Labour party.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—there are major bureaucratic obstacles and regulatory hurdles. My noble Friend Lord Hodgson has been looking specifically at those, and my team and I have been looking at them as part of the red tape challenge. We are going through every single regulation that affects the voluntary sector, the community sector and social enterprises to see what we can do to ameliorate or remove those obstacles, because we are determined to build the big society.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

6. How much and what proportion of Government procurement was made from small and medium-sized enterprises in the latest period for which figures are available.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

9. What recent progress he has made on opening up public sector procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

A year ago, the Prime Minister and I launched a package of radical measures to increase opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to supply to Government. One year on, central Government’s direct spend with SMEs is on track to more than double to nearly 14% since we took office.

[Simon Hughes]

Those are very encouraging figures. In order to encourage small and medium-sized firms and show Government transparency, will the evidence behind the facts and figures be put in the public domain as soon as possible?

[Mr Maude]

I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that we make this information much more public and transparent than it has ever been before. The Contracts Finder website contains much more information about tenders, contracts and successful bids than has ever been the case, but we have more distance to go, and we will do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we increased the child tax credit by £255 last year, which was the biggest increase in its history, and that it will go up by another £135 this year. In terms of the very richest in our country, let me reassure her that, after this Budget, they will be paying more in tax.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree that, as well as the Liberal Democrat priority to lift the tax threshold to £10,000, one of the best ways of helping—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Hughes must be heard.

[Simon Hughes]

Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the best ways of helping families on low and medium incomes is to build more affordable housing throughout the country? Given that Labour’s legacy in London was to have 350,000 families on the waiting list, will he assure us that there will be more affordable housing in London and across the country?

[The Prime Minister]

We do want to get our housing markets started again, including for affordable housing. That is why, with the higher right-to-buy discounts, that money is going to go back into building affordable homes. At the same time, we are doing more to kick-start those places that have planning permission but cannot get under way because of problems with bank and other finance. That is why we are putting extra money into those schemes, to make sure that that building takes place this year or next year.

Diamond Jubilee

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

It is a privilege and a pleasure to support the Prime Minister in his motion to send an Address to the Queen on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. Like the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), and everyone else in the House and beyond who have met her on a one-to-one basis, I have been daunted by the prospect as well as humbled by the experience. That is not surprising, given the record that she has achieved. She is not only the second-longest serving monarch we have ever had on these islands, but the second-longest serving Head of State in the world at the moment. I suppose if this were a primary school, I would offer a prize to anyone who could tell me who the longest serving Head of State is—

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Who is it?

[Simon Hughes]

I will tell you later.

Picking up on the comments made by the Father of the House, I find it extraordinary that we have a monarch who has met nearly a quarter of all the Presidents of the United States throughout its history, and who has known a fifth of all British Prime Ministers. Those are extraordinary records.

In paying tribute to the Queen, I should also like to pay tribute to Prince Philip, who has stood alongside her for every month of those 60 years, and more.

Unlike the Father of the House, I am not old enough to remember the accession or the coronation, although I must be honest and tell the House that I was just alive at the time, and I am sure that my family were celebrating. Other events have been significant throughout the Queen’s life. When she has visited our communities, those visits have been really important. There have been conventional events, such as her visit to Llandaff cathedral when I was a little boy. It had been restored after sustaining bomb damage during the war. There have been conventional events relating to past jubilees. She came to the King’s Stairs gardens in Bermondsey, by Edward III’s manor house, to mark her silver jubilee, for example. There have also been some esoteric events. She came to an event near London Bridge a few years ago, in which she unveiled a stone in honour of a native American Indian who was buried there—a fact that came as a surprise to us all. It was a slightly unexpected mixture, seeing the Queen next to a red Indian chief somewhere near London Bridge station.

As the Prime Minister indicated, the Queen has certainly also gone beyond the call of duty on many occasions. The example that most comes to mind is indeed the blessed millennium eve celebrations at the dome. I think that she was reassured by stopping off at Southwark cathedral first, which she enjoyed and found highly appropriate. That visit probably also gave her the spiritual strength and courage to go on to the events that straddled midnight.

People have rightly paid tribute to the Queen’s international as well as national service. It is extraordinary that she is Queen of 16 countries, and of about 130 million people around the world. She is Queen of the second-largest country in the world—Canada—as well as of Tuvalu, a country of only 10,000 people. It is absolutely consistent with her service that the trust set up to mark the jubilee is intended to serve the poorest peoples of the Commonwealth—exactly the sort of mission she has always supported herself.

The Queen has been pre-eminent in making sure that people in the public service, and particularly those in military service, have been honoured and supported by her. We thank her for that, because they do the bravest and most difficult of jobs. She has also always gone out of her way to support those in voluntary service, commending that non-paid activity in our country and beyond. She has also been particular in making sure that she has supported and encouraged people of all faiths and backgrounds.

People have paid many tributes in this place on occasions during the 60 years. They have highlighted the Queen’s unassuming virtues and her faultless example. In fact, she has stood like a rock in a sea of troubles, she has lived out the promises made at her accession and coronation and she has exemplified dignity, experience, wisdom and, above all, her incomparable sense of duty.

As we say our grateful thank you to a Queen who has been our monarch for 60 years, it is also fair to say that she has also been our servant—the people’s servant—for 60 years. She has been a servant monarch, which is what she said she would be when she took the coronation oath.

Let me finish with two short personal comments. I am a member of the Christian Church. There are people in this Parliament of many faiths and of none. Speaking as someone of faith, may I say on behalf of those who have faith in general and of Christians in particular that when the Queen has expressed her views about the truths and good news of the Christian gospel, as she did in her Christmas broadcast last year, she has done so more honestly, more simply and more clearly than probably any other Christian leader in the world? People of all faiths should be thankful for that. She has absolutely got it right in expressing the faith in which she so clearly believes.

I am privileged to be the MP whose constituency includes the Old Kent road. The Prime Minister alluded to a relevant description earlier. We regularly call people—we are not the only people to do so—“diamond geezers”. I am not sure that the Queen would be overly keen on the second part of the description, but in the vernacular of Bermondsey, the Old Kent road and everywhere else: she is a diamond; she has been a diamond; and for the many more years we hope she reigns, she will go on being a diamond. On behalf of all my colleagues—and so say all of us.

European Council

Simon Hughes Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on this point: 40% of our exports go to eurozone countries and we want those countries to recover. We have to accept, however, that doing that while dealing with fiscal deficits is enormously challenging. On Greece, those of us who are sceptical about the euro and who do not want to join it must accept, whatever our views, that the Greeks have made their choice. That is the path that they want to pursue. Whatever our misgivings, we must allow them to make those decisions to make their economy more competitive within the eurozone.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

Given that the evidence from last week’s summit is that full participation in the EU is the best news for jobs and growth in this country and for all our neighbours, will the Prime Minister tell us the best estimate of the number of extra jobs that completion of the digital services and energy single markets will achieve by the end of this Parliament? Will he also reassure the House that we will lead the way in dealing with tax fraud and tax evasion at the next European summit in June?

[The Prime Minister]

We believe in dealing with tax fraud and tax evasion. That is vital. On the jobs effect of completing the energy and digital services single markets, I have given the GDP figures for how much it would add to the EU, but if the right hon. Gentleman would like, I could perhaps look at how many jobs that could convert into. It is worth noting, however, that the Commission’s forecast for growth this year is that Britain will grow faster than France, the EU and the euro area. Furthermore, according to International Monetary Fund figures, we will grow faster than France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the EU and the euro area this year and next year.