PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

23 Debate on the Address
9 MAY 2012
Debate on the Address
24
[The Prime Minister]
for the Government—that is dealing with the deficit,
getting our economy moving, increasing the level of
responsibility in our society and getting on the side of
hard-working people. Those are the things that matter
the most, but I think it is perfectly possible for Parliament
to do more than two things at the same time. At the last
election, all political parties put forward in their manifestos
proposals for a partly, or mainly, elected House of
Lords, but let me say this: this is only going to proceed if
the political parties will agree to work together and take
a responsible attitude towards this reform. I think it is
possible, and it would be a good reform if we could
achieve it; it would be better if we had a smaller House
of Lords and if it had an elected element. So I ask
people to work together across party lines to try to
make that happen.
Sir Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) (Lab): The Prime
Minister referred to the deficit in Europe, and he will
recall that he declined to sign the fiscal compact entered
into by 25 of the 27 EU member states. I presume he
will go to the conference on 23 May with his fellow
leaders in Europe, who will begin working on a growth
compact. Will he be prepared to sign that?
The Prime Minister: I want to work with everyone in
Europe to try to deliver better policies for growth. That
is why we have been saying, “Let’s complete the single
market in energy; let’s finish the single market in services;
let’s complete the single market in digital.” Those are
the things we are putting on the table. Britain is not in
the euro, so we are not bound by the terms of the fiscal
pact; I have made that very clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister: I will give way in a moment, but
I want to make one point about the Leader of the
Opposition’s response. They have had two years to work
out what their answer is. What is their answer to too
much borrowing, too much spending and too much
debt? Their answer is more borrowing, more spending
and more debt. Because the right hon. Gentleman did
not mention his alternative Queen’s Speech, let me go
straight to its centrepiece. The centrepiece of the alternative
Queen’s Speech is, I believe, a bonus tax to pay for a
jobs fund. Never mind that the last Chancellor in the
Labour Government said that a bonus tax would not
work; let us look at the detail. The deputy leader of the
Labour party was asked in a big set-piece interview how
much money that would raise, and this was her response:
“I haven’t got quite the, er, er, I know that we have worked out
that figure. I’ll have to get back to you on that.”
She went on to say:
“I haven’t got that actual figure to hand but I can absolutely
assure you that Ed Balls has”.
Ah—[Interruption.] The plot thickens. The shadow
Chancellor was interviewed this weekend—I know, I
need to get out more—and he said that he was sorry,
but
“I have not costed the whole programme”.
So there we have it. We have a deputy leader who
does not have a clue and a shadow Chancellor who does
not have the figures, and I can tell the House why: they
have spent their bonus tax 10 times over. They have
used it to reverse the VAT increase, to reverse the child
benefit change, to reverse the tax credits change, to
boost the regional growth fund, to boost capital spending
and even to turn empty shops into community centres.
They have no idea whatsoever about how to deal with
this deficit. They give in to every single interest group—it
is the bank tax that likes to say yes from the Front
Benchers who cannot say no.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab): May I take the
Prime Minister back to what he said about reform of
the House of Lords? As someone who spent four years
working very co-operatively with his colleagues and the
Liberal Democrats to find a solution, I say to him that
it is palpable that each party is divided on the issue and
work between the Front Benchers will not resolve it. It
is right in principle that the British people should
decide, and that would also avoid a train wreck in the
business of this House. Will the Prime Minister look
carefully and positively at the idea of having a pre-legislative
referendum on reform of the Lords?
The Prime Minister: I very much respect the work—often
painstaking, careful and difficult—that the right hon.
Gentleman did in a range of different roles to try to
move House of Lords reform on. He is absolutely right
that all parties are divided on this matter—we should
be frank about that—so we will only achieve reform if
people work together. I do not believe that a pre-legislative
referendum is a good move. On the whole, that is a
weapon that has been used by slightly unsavoury regimes
over the years. On the question of a referendum more
generally, I will merely say that every political party
went into the election with a pledge to reform the
House of Lords so I do not personally see a referendum
as having much to recommend it. The House of Commons
can discuss this matter and the House of Commons
must decide. If we are going to achieve reform, we will
have to work together across the parties to try to deliver
what I think will be progress for our constitution—a
reformed and smaller House of Lords.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab): The Prime Minister might be aware that I was
one of those who, since last July, served on the Joint
Committee that considered the future of the House
of Lords. We were not given any indication of the
Government’s thinking on funding or costing. Can he
tell us today what costing has taken place on the proposal
in the Queen’s Speech and will he share that with the
House?
The Prime Minister: Certainly, the cost of a stand-alone
referendum would be significant and it is worth taking
that into account.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): Will
the Prime Minister take it from me, after a lot of
canvassing last week, that many people in this country
are astounded that in the Queen’s Speech there is nothing
about youth unemployment or providing jobs, no higher
education Bill and nothing to address the large number
of unemployed graduates we now have in this country?
The Prime Minister: The youth contract, which is
going to do enormous amounts on youth unemployment,
started last month. We achieved 450,000 apprenticeships