Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Ruffley

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I might ask: where is the hon. Gentleman’s deputy leader? I ask him to stop insulting the Chief Whip, who I consider to be a fully fledged member—[Interruption.] Stop denigrating the Government Chief Whip—very unfair on him indeed. Far from this Government disintegrating, we have continued steadfastly to clear up the mess left by the party of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), to fill the black hole in our public finances, to give tax cuts to millions of people on low and middle incomes, to introduce the pupil premium, to increase apprenticeships on a scale never seen before, and finally to put this country economically back on the straight and narrow.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

Yesterday, Robert Chote, the director of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, said:

“Not very much has actually come from a reduction in social security spending as a share of national income.”

In the light of that, would the Deputy Prime Minister care to apologise to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for criticising the Chancellor’s excellent speech on welfare yesterday?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

No, I will not do that because there is a sincerely held difference of view. I believe that if we are to complete the job of further fiscal consolidation we need to do what pretty well every mainstream economist in the world advocates, which is a mix of, yes, public spending restraint, welfare savings and fair taxes on those with the broadest shoulders. If the Conservative party chooses to do it all through further sacrifices by the working-age poor who are dependent on welfare, that is its choice. It is not a choice that my party has signed up to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Ruffley

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The average salary cost of special advisers is 9% lower than it was under the last Labour Administration, so pots and kettles don’t half spring to mind.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

We all know that the reputation of special advisers was tarnished during Labour’s 13 years in government, but on the question of having technical advisers, which we have heard about in the past 24 hours, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate what criteria would be used to ensure that they are indeed technical advisers, not political spin doctors?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Most usefully perhaps, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report from the Institute for Public Policy Research—not a think-tank widely known always to support the measures of the coalition Government—which stated that, when compared with other similar systems, it is clear that Ministers often struggle to get the right kind of expertise they need to discharge their duties effectively. That is why, under proper processes of authorisation, we will explore the way Ministers can access that advice and expertise so that they can do their jobs better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Clegg and David Ruffley

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That is an excellent idea, and it is exactly one of the tasks of the Electoral Commission to find out where EROs are most effective and then ensure that their colleagues in other parts of the country are aware of best practice.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

3. What recent representations he has received on reform of the House of Lords.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The Government have received more than 250 representations since the publication of the White Paper and the draft House of Lords Reform Bill in May last year.

[Mr Ruffley]

Many of us are of the view that many Members of an elected upper House, elected by proportional representation, will be tempted to claim a mandate equal to that of hon. Members in this place. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister think that his rather squalid Bill will not undermine the primacy of this Chamber?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not think that anything in our plans would change the primacy of this Chamber or that there is an automatic link between changing the composition of the other place and changing the balance of power between the two Chambers. There are many bicameral systems around the world where both Chambers are either wholly or fully elected but there is a clear division of labour between them. The hon. Gentleman calls this a squalid proposal; it is a proposal to introduce a smidgen of democracy in the other place, which has been around for about 100 years, and I think that we should now get on with it.