Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

The coalition is committed to transforming rehabilitation in order to reduce reoffending and, consequently, to reduce the number of people who are victims of crime. Since 1 February under the new system, providers from the public, voluntary and private sectors have been providing the new transforming rehabilitation services. The crucial thing is that all those people who are currently sentenced to less than a year in prison will have support when they come out. They are the people who reoffend most and who cause the most victims. Payments to providers will be dependent on results.

[Mr Speaker]

I realise that the Minister is not a prisoner, but I am not sure that being forced to answer so many questions will aid his rehabilitation when he is obviously struggling with a very sore throat. That seems to be a considerable unkindness.

[Gareth Johnson]

I welcome the measures that the Ministry of Justice has taken to work with short-term prisoners. I think that this is the first time we have ever seen that happening, and it has become possible only because of the pioneering approach of the Ministry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to work with short-term prisoners, who often have more deeply rooted offending behaviour than many other types of offenders?

[Simon Hughes]

I am grateful to you for your concern, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State offered me the chance to opt out, but I volunteered to come here and do my duty, so I hope I am forgiven. I might have to curl up and hide in the corner in a minute, however.

I would say to the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) that in the year ending last March, 57% of all adult offenders released from custody after serving a sentence of less than 12 months reoffended within a year. They are the largest group of reoffenders. They are the people who cause the most victims the most grief and the criminal justice system the most cost. We have never had a Government who have dealt with this issue, but we have been determined to do so and I believe that the way in which we rehabilitate those people will be transformational.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister’s virtue is not in doubt.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce drug scanners into prisons. As the Minister knows, 51% of prisoners report a drug dependency. Can he tell me how many have entered a rehabilitation scheme in the past year, and how many have been successfully rehabilitated in relation to their use of drugs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I have to tell the hon. Lady that the message here is not one of failure but one of increasing success. The number of people attending mediation assessment meetings has gone up in the last three quarters, and there is no report of these being shambolic. I will willingly meet the hon. Lady and her constituent on the subject, but I am clear that her party is committing no extra money for legal aid, so it will not be any different or greatly reformed under Labour.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Karl MᶜCartney.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Bayley]

I do not want to raise the matter of the licence, but I ask the Minister, in the interests of fairness, to reconsider. It is 16 and a half months since the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) said in this House that many of the points that I had raised in the debate “deserve further consideration”. On 12 March 2013 in Westminster Hall—Vol. 560 of the Official Report, column 30WH—he said:

“We would be happy to facilitate a meeting between the people”

from York and Leicester to discuss the burial arrangements. Those arrangements need to be discussed.

A commitment was given by the Government. For the past 16 and a half months, they have said that they could not act on that commitment because the matter was before the courts. It is no longer before the courts. Will the Government therefore fulfil the commitment that they made, so that there is an inclusive funeral that does not exclude people from the north of England, who have strong feelings about the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

The question is too long. There will not be much left of the remains.

[Simon Hughes]

These remains have certainly occupied the attention of the House for a long time already. The hon. Gentleman is right that the offer of a meeting was made, but there was then a court challenge. The court challenge failed and the position is now absolutely clear: the licence was applied for properly and the university of Leicester can proceed. There will not be a meeting to facilitate that, but I am sure that the university and Leicester cathedral will ensure that other people’s interests are taken into consideration. King Richard III was the King of all England and did not just have particular interests in certain parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hughes]

My hon. Friend is quite right that it was a car park with an unusual interest. There was a belief that Richard III was buried in the grounds of the Greyfriars church. His body was found. The tradition is that bodies are buried in the nearest Christian church that is appropriate. As the MP for the area where the Rose theatre was discovered, I know that one can never underestimate the exciting things that can be discovered by good archaeologists.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all now better informed. We are grateful to the Minister.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

As the Minister said, Richard III was the King of all England, not just of York or Yorkshire. Is he aware that the Dean and Chapter of Leicester cathedral see it as their responsibility to rebury the remains of King Richard and to commemorate his memory on behalf of the whole nation, and not just for Leicester or York?

Points of Order

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Look, I make one light-hearted point to the hon. Gentleman and one more serious one. The light-hearted one is that I cannot imagine that any attempt to threaten him could be successful. I have known him for 25 years, and he is not the sort of person to be threatened effectively, let me put it that way.

On the more substantial and substantive front, I am afraid that I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman that a complaint on grounds of privilege has to be put to me in writing. He knows very well that I am extremely concerned about the protection of parliamentary privilege and the need to guard against any threat to it, as manifested in the recent case involving the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the exchanges relating to that case. I am sensitive to his concerns, but let us now hear—preferably with brevity—from the Minister. [Laughter]

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

I have not said a word.

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. the Ministry of Justice is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) for raising the matter with us. It is of great constitutional importance and significance, and people in local authorities need to know what the law is. It is clear to me that the solicitor acting for Norfolk county council was wrong in what she said, which was that it would be clearly in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of court for the documents to be disclosed to the Member of Parliament of the person in question. The president of the family division has drawn the local authority’s attention to the case of Re N, where the judgment is clear. Since then, the family procedure rules have been changed and make it clear that unless a judge has ruled otherwise, parties involved in family cases can disclose information relating to their case to any person, including their constituency MP, as long as it is for the purpose of confidential discussion. The rules are above doubt and clear, and I hope that all local authorities will respect the role of Members of Parliament in representing their constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

I was aware of the change of rules, and now the House is. We are grateful for that and will leave it there for today. I hope that is helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. Does he agree that mediation is well established in the commercial law field and growing in the family and matrimonial law field, but that we are perhaps missing a trick in two areas? The first is in ensuring that more use is made of mediation in land compensation and related planning disputes. Will he meet me to discuss whether the Bill on High Speed 2 gives the Government an opportunity to promote that and to create greater awareness among fellow Departments, and—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if he was paid by the word when he was practising at the Bar, he must have become a very rich man indeed.

[Simon Hughes]

First, the whole Government are committed to mediation being used whenever possible, although it is not always practical. HS2 and other such matters are well beyond my brief, and I am not going to be that brave on my first outing.

Personal Statement

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

A report has been published today by the Standards Committee following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into complaints made about me. I am grateful to the commissioner for her thorough, courteous and professional work and her report, and to the Chair of the Committee, its members and Clerk for dealing with this matter in a very fair and efficient way. I accept entirely their conclusions.

From the beginning I believed that I had not breached the lobbying rules and I am grateful and relieved that the commissioner and the Committee have rejected those complaints. The Committee has found that there was no attempt to conceal any donations, which were all reported to the Electoral Commission and in the public domain, but that I failed to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests some donations to my local party; that I failed to make declarations in debate, and in connection with one meeting, in relation to two of those donations; and that I registered two donations late. I have, of course, admitted my mistakes and apologised from the outset to the commissioner and to the Committee.

Although the commissioner found that none of these breaches of the rules was intentional, I accept entirely the findings of the commissioner and the Committee that I was not as attentive to these matters or as careful as I should have been, and therefore in those ways failed properly to observe the code of conduct, and that I did not sufficiently seek advice from the registrar. I will immediately register the outstanding interests as the Committee recommends. I take full responsibility for these failures and I apologise unreservedly to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Simon Hughes, from the distant territory of Southwark and Bermondsey.

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

When I visited Liverpool to do some work for the Government on access to education, I was clear that one thing that students there wanted was the opportunity for scholarships to help with living costs. Will the Minister update us on the roll-out of the scholarship programme for young people from deprived backgrounds in Liverpool and elsewhere?

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I shall make just a brief point in support of my amendment 116, which would make a simple change to list of people who, when lobbied, are to be subject to appropriate registration. At the moment, the list includes a Minister of the Crown or a permanent secretary, and my proposal is to add special advisers to that list. They are clearly a group of people known to be part of the political system operating out there as a bridge between Ministers, Departments and the public. It seems to me that they are naturally perceived to be people who can receive messages from lobbyists and pass them on to their political bosses. It would be good politics and not a complication to add this group of people to the list. I know that so far this has been considered but rejected by the Government. I hope that they will be open to the possibility of adding it either tonight or, if not, when the Bill goes to the other place for further consideration.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the right hon. Gentleman finished? He has. I thank him and call Mr Paul Flynn.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is certainly scope for a one and a half hour debate in Westminster Hall on the matter, and quite possibly for a full day in the Chamber.

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

2. What plans the Government have to bring forward legislative proposals for equal pay.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Oh no!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Hughes’s question will be heard.

[Simon Hughes]

Q14. Many water companies in England have paid huge dividends to their shareholders, have avoided paying tax and are not properly accountable, and in this region are proposing an annual increase of £80 a year on water rates. Will the Prime Minister ensure that no public subsidy is given to Thames Water or any other water company that puts its profits and shareholders ahead of the interests of ordinary ratepayers and taxpayers in his constituency and mine?

business of the house

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Thirty years ago this month, I made my maiden speech. I want to make two brief introductory points, and then spend a couple of minutes on the subject on the Order Paper.

First, I want to say thank you to all the people who, for all the time that we have all been here, have looked after us so well in this place: not only the staff employed by the Palace, but the staff who work for us, without whom we could not do our job. If that is not enough and if Members have nothing better to do when the debate finishes, we are celebrating my having been here 30 years, and everyone is very welcome to come to the Attlee Suite for a drink. We are there until 9 o’clock. I want to couple with that a thanks to my head of office, George Turner, who is retiring and going to other things, having seen through the last general election and the first half of this Parliament. I am very grateful to him for his work.

Secondly, I was prompted to say something on a subject that has nothing to do with the main one: the Revenue and Customs consultation on whether tax offices should be closed or a face-to-face service should continue. I just want to make a very simple point. Many of us can use the internet and e-mail, but many constituents—not just the elderly—sometimes need to talk to somebody. I make a plea that the Government understand that, whether with careers, benefits or tax advice, doing it on the phone or via the internet is not always the answer. We must make sure that we keep face-to-face provision.

The substantive issue I want to address is the Thames tunnel proposed by Thames Water to deal with London’s sewage. I have been campaigning to clean up the Thames all my political life. Our sewers are overflowing. The wonderful Victorian sewer system cannot cope with the vast size of London and the now increasingly intermittent and heavy rain. As colleagues will know, every time it rains, water pours through the drains and gutters and floods the sewers, which overflow into the Thames. Some 83 million cubic metres of storm water, mixed with raw sewage—a horrible figure—went into the Thames last year. That hardly bears thinking about. The European Community has taken action. It is prosecuting the UK for failing to meet the terms of our waste water directive. I, like all other colleagues with riverside constituencies or in the Thames Water catchment area, have therefore questioned what the solution is.

The current solution is to pour millions of tonnes of concrete into building a super-sewer through the Thames to intercept the outflows from the sewerage system. That will be very expensive, costing an average of £80 a year for all of Thames Water’s household customers, and it will be hugely disruptive. In my constituency, for example, one site might be worked on for up to seven years. In addition, this solution deals with only one problem. It will efficiently keep sewage out of the Thames, but it will do nothing else.

Other countries across the world are doing things differently now. Places such as Detroit and Philadelphia and places in Europe started to think about building tunnels but have realised that greener alternatives may be better. Instead of building a big tunnel, Philadelphia now has small interventions: much more porous surfaces on roads, drives and car parks; and smaller sewage collection tanks across the city, rather than in a central place. People in those places believe that what they call a blue-green solution is a better solution and it allows parks to flourish, with the transformation of the city into a wholly greener environment. Such a solution also produces many more jobs at the lower skill levels more quickly than one big tunnel project does. Philadelphia and London may not be the same, but Greater Philadelphia has a huge population, just as London does.

I have had helpful engagement with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Treasury and with the Minister for Government Policy. My plea to the Government is that we look at the blue-green experiences elsewhere. We should look at what has happened in Philadelphia and other cities. It is not too late to have an alternative to a super-sewer down the middle of the Thames. I hope that we can pursue an alternative. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay back to Ministers that that is very much supported by the community and that the Thames tunnel can be replaced by a greener, more sustainable and more cost-effective solution. Happy Easter to you, Mr Speaker, and do not forget the drink later, if you are thirsty.

[Mr Speaker]

We will not, and your good wishes are reciprocated, Mr Hughes. Thank you.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), I will just point out that there are four Members seeking to contribute. The Secretary of State will want briefly to wind up on the new clause, and the knife falls at 10.21 pm. I am sure all Members will wish to take account of that; it would be good to get them all in.

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

I rise to thank the Secretary of State for introducing this group of new clauses and amendments, and to support them. They are in the name not just of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition, but the Deputy Prime Minister. They are the additional provisions on exemplary damages and costs agreed as a result of the labours of recent days. I have paid tribute to various people, but I just want to add my tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who was more thoroughly engaged, and later into the night, than many of us throughout pretty much all of this process. He must be thanked, too.

I am relieved that agreement was reached, because otherwise it would have been my name leading on 10 amendments, new clauses and schedules, and I would have had to explain all the technical matters on exemplary damages, costs and so on, on behalf of the coalition and other parties, instead of the Secretary of State. I therefore thank those who came to the rescue and did the deal. I will make just a couple of simple points and follow your request, Mr Speaker, to make sure there will be time for the other Members who wish to speak.

As we have all done, I went back to what Lord Justice Leveson said on these matters in his report. He was clear, in paragraphs 66 to 70, about what he was seeking to do. He led into that in paragraph 57, in relation to the body he recommended. He stated that it should

“order appropriate redress while encouraging individual newspapers to embrace a more rigorous process for dealing with complaints internally…and provide a fair, quick and inexpensive arbitration service to deal with any civil law claims based upon its members’ publications.”

I agree absolutely with the deputy leader of the Labour party that an arbitration service is an indispensible part of the structure. I hear, of course, what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said—that that does not necessarily produce a quick, speedy or cheap outcome—but to get something by agreement, rather than full-frontal litigation, is clearly a good thing.

Paragraphs 66 and 67 read:

“The need for incentives…has led me to recommend the provision of an arbitration service… Such a system…would then make it possible to provide an incentive in relation to the costs of civil litigation. The normal rule is that the loser pays the legal costs incurred by the winner but costs recovered are never all the costs incurred”—

everyone who has been to law knows about that—

“and litigation is expensive not only for the loser but frequently for the winner as well. If, by declining to be a part of a regulatory system, a publisher has deprived a claimant of access to a quick, fair, low cost arbitration of the type I have proposed, the Civil Procedure Rules (governing civil litigation) could permit the court to deprive that publisher of its costs of litigation in privacy, defamation and other media cases, even if it had been successful.”

Lord Justice Leveson then sets out how that would happen in relation to exemplary damages, and concludes in paragraph 69:

“Such a system would also work the other way round. If an extremely wealthy claimant wished to force a newspaper publisher that was a member of the regulatory body into litigation (in the hope that the financial risk would compel settlement), it would be open to the publisher to argue that having provided a recognised low cost arbitral route, that claimant, even if successful, should be deprived of costs, simply because there was another, reasonable and cheap route to justice which could have been followed.”

Then there is an easy-to-understand set of recommendations at the back of the Lord Justice Leveson’s introduction on the process for damages.

The really good thing is that, without anybody, including the Secretary of State, pretending that the drafting is perfect for all time, those of us who were involved in the discussions have sought to strike a balance: if a publisher is part of the system, the presumption—I use the word in a non-legalistic way—will be that it will not be subject to exemplary damages, but if it is outside the system, the presumption will be that it could be subject to them. It is not quite that straightforward, but that was the general idea—and it was a good idea. It is an incentive-disincentive system, which was what everybody was working towards, so I join others in calling on the press to join up. If they do, there will be a system ready for them to make. This is not a pre-made system. The starting point is the existing code, but it will be up to the press to make the system work, and we all encourage them to do that. I am glad, then, that we have a platform from which to proceed.

I want to make three final points. First, I understand that further amendments might be necessary. The House of Lords has that opportunity, and the Liberal Democrat team is certainly willing to collaborate with Conservative colleagues, Labour colleagues and colleagues from elsewhere to ensure that we get it right, if we need to make further, more technical amendments in the Lords. We have time to do it. Secondly, I join others in thanking Hacked Off, which became the assembly of people speaking on behalf of victims. It was hard work at times, as all of us who were in the negotiations know, but it had a justified case. Its job was to remind us why we went down this road and, rightfully, to hold our feet to the fire and ensure that we did not forget why we were doing this. It is about the lives of people not in the public gaze.

Finally, we have referred to people—the McCanns, the Dowlers and others have been cited—who suddenly find themselves unexpectedly in the public eye. The other people referred to by at least one colleague are those who become part of the public commentary simply by their association with somebody who is in the public eye. That is equally unacceptable. It is the children, the mother, the elderly parent, the former wife, husband or partner, the friend or the associate—those people often get dragged in completely unwittingly. Perhaps they happened to be in a photograph or were at the house when somebody knocked on the door. We have to have a system that understands that if there is due cause for complaint about a politician, a sports celebrity or a business person, that is fine, but that does not mean that anyone has a free rein to go after all the other people who are absolutely innocent appendages to their lives, which happen to be public lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 1st November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I encourage Members to look closely at the question on the Order Paper, and to frame their supplementary questions accordingly?

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

4. What his policy is on subsidising new nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Whether we have time or not, we will hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

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

16. What steps his Department is taking to implement the recommendations of the final report of the riots communities and victims panel.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, the House—and the nation—can hear from Mr Simon Hughes.

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

Following the exchanges about tax avoidance and the Government’s very robust position, can one of the Treasury team tell us how soon we will have in place a system that targets not just celebrity individuals but all high-worth individuals, so that they all pay a decent share of tax to the nation?

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Let me reassure the Minister that Liberal Democrats welcome the change both to the pasty tax and the caravan tax. [Interruption.] We would also have liked a third change—to keep the top rate of income tax, but we did not win that argument. Will the Minister join me and make sure that all Ministers turn up the volume—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is most discourteous. We must hear the voice of Bermondsey and Old Southwark— Mr Simon Hughes.

[Simon Hughes]

Will the Minister ensure that all Ministers turn up the volume to get over the central message of the Budget, which is that over 20 million pay less tax and millions pay no tax at all? Clearly, some people have not heard it yet.

Stephen Lawrence

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Patience is rewarded for the representative of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has got the message from London MPs and from others that although we absolutely applaud the new commissioner’s robust attitude, everybody now wants the new Mayor, whoever that will be, and the commissioner to refer independently for assessment the continuing racist allegations as regards the Lawrence case as well as other racist allegations? Does he agree that the best thing the Government can do is to ensure that every one of our 43 police forces in England and Wales better reflects the community it serves, particularly in the ethnic mix at the highest level?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must come to order to hear Mr Simon Hughes.

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

T7. What contribution are Departments making to greater energy efficiency and reducing carbon emissions following the successful Durban summit?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

With extreme brevity, I call Mr Simon Hughes.

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

May I say to the Minister—[Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must give the right hon. Gentleman a chance.

[Simon Hughes]

May I say to the Minister that this is an inherited matter that has now lasted for 18 months? There is an obligation on the Government to sort it out soon. Can he give a commitment that victims will get their answer before the end of this calendar year?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to place his thoughts on the record on that very important matter, but unfortunately it does not relate to Parliament week, and therefore we will have to leave it there for today.

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

4. What plans he has for future pre-legislative scrutiny of Government legislation; and if he will make a statement.

Draft Financial Services Bill (Joint Committee)

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it usual or in order for Front-Bench Members to both shout and object on matters that are Back-Bench objections? I gather that the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and others may have objected in order to force the last vote, but it is my understanding that that is not the normal convention.

[Mr Speaker]

The issue is whether there is an objection. There are matters that some people, including the right hon. Gentleman, might deem unusual, and that may be so in terms of party combat, but that does not necessarily have an implication for the conduct of proceedings in Parliament or for the judgment of the Chair. That said, the right hon. Gentleman has put his point squarely on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It would be very difficult for me to underestimate the comprehensiveness of the hon. Gentleman’s reply, which I think I can safely say is unsurpassed in the House.

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

9. What recent assessment the Church Commissioners have made of the financial consequences for the Church of England of (a) women priests and (b) women bishops.

Points of Order

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the Foreign Secretary has said. We will leave it there for today.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of it, but the matter has arisen literally since I left the Chamber a few moments ago.

Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you gave a very clear indication of your view when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) raised a matter concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) and an inquiry by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, after reports concerning the commissioner’s report had appeared in a national newspaper and on one of the television channels.

In the last hour, Sky News has reported on not just what appears to be the commissioner’s report, but a meeting of the relevant Committee of Members of the House of Commons. That is clearly in breach of rulings that you, Sir, have made in the past, and of all the principles guarding both the confidentiality of and respect for the proceedings of, in particular, our very important Committees. May I not just alert you to what has happened, Mr Speaker, but ask you to state—as you have on previous occasions, in the most strident terms—that it is clearly a breach of the rules of the House, and that everyone who has breached the rules must understand the implications of that when the matter is examined both by you and by the relevant Committees?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope that I made clear in the most uncompromising terms, on behalf of the House, my view of unauthorised disclosures in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). On that occasion I made the point—which I must reiterate today—that at this juncture what has been raised is not specifically a matter for me, but a matter for the Committee itself to investigate.

The Committee may wish to establish how this came about, because I think that all Members who care about this place would unite in deprecating it in the strongest terms, because of the unfairness to the Member concerned and the rank discourtesy to the institution of the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are talking about redundancy costs, so we must get on with it.

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

I gather that in the comprehensive spending review the Government allocated £200 million for the capitalisation cost of redundancy payments. I also gather that local authority chief executives and treasurers suggest that the costs might be between £1.5 billion and £3 billion. If they are correct and the Government estimate is much lower than the actual sums involved, what are the Government going to do about it?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes]

I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer, having appeared at inquiries in the past. The justification is that the job will be done by an independent set of boundary commissions, which are no more or less likely to treat people and arguments fairly by receiving representations in writing than in oral evidence. Often, the main argument at public inquiries has been not among real people about their communities, but among political parties’ paid officers.

One argument that has been made is that we cannot reform one part of the constitution without reforming the others. I say gently to colleagues in the Labour party that unlike them, we will secure a predominantly elected House of Lords, which they did not do. Unlike them, we have on our agenda a reduction of the number of Ministers in future. [Hon. Members: “No you don’t.”] Yes, we do. We have it on the agenda—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have never known a situation in which the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is virtually shouted down. It is not only unprecedented, it is unacceptable. We must hear the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the strong feelings.

[Simon Hughes]

This is the first of a series of radical constitutional reforms that Labour never delivered, and that the coalition is willing to deliver. I hope that the House is radical enough to support it, and that the House of Lords does a proper job of ensuring that we have the best possible form for the two proposals that I have mentioned. It does Labour no good to argue against changes none of which it introduced in 13 years.

Points of Order

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that that will suffice for now; I think it must.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before we come to the serious matter of resuming the debate on the Budget, I wonder if I might crave your indulgence to see whether you might be willing to consider doing something on behalf of the House. You might have noticed that yesterday saw the most titanic tennis match ever played—in this great city of ours and in our country. Nicolas Mahut, the Frenchman, and John Isner, from the United States, ended up in the fifth set at 59-all when, for the second day running, they were not able to complete that match. They will take it to a conclusion today. I wondered whether at the end of the match you might consider inviting the two players to this House to show, in this great summer of sport, how much we value sport in this country and how much we value people from all over the world coming to show their talents in this great country of ours.

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. First, it may or may not be of interest to him and the House to know that I myself watched significant parts of that match—certainly for at least a couple of hours in the evening—and was as fascinated by it as the hon. Gentleman. The second point is that his suggestion is an interesting one but, sadly, does not qualify as a point of order. My third point is that I would be more than happy to invite the two gentlemen concerned to the House, but I do not have the foggiest idea whether they would be interested in accepting the invitation.

If there are no further points of order, we come now to the main business.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Simon Hughes and John Bercow

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Hon. Members]

Wooh!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the House wishes to hear Mr Simon Hughes.

[Simon Hughes]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his new office, and he was right to criticise some of the legacy of the Labour party. Can he therefore give the House and the country an assurance that we will do better in his Government at building council housing and providing affordable housing in rural constituencies such as his, as well as in urban constituencies such as mine?