PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
45 Debate on the Address<br />
9 MAY 2012<br />
Debate on the Address<br />
46<br />
have a fantastic future—not just onshore, but offshore,<br />
tidal, wind and wave, and not just around Scotland but<br />
in the whole of the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong>. We are determined<br />
to deliver cheaper electricity and greater security of supply.<br />
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George)<br />
and others have campaigned for ages for a grocery code<br />
adjudicator Bill, and we are delivering that. It will<br />
ensure that farmers, local suppliers and local growers<br />
get good value for their products and are not trampled<br />
on by the power of the monopoly supermarket in their<br />
area. The Minister of State, Department for Work and<br />
Pensions, my good and hon. Friend the Member for<br />
Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—a Liberal Democrat<br />
Minister for Pensions—and his right hon. Friend the<br />
Secretary of State, with whom he works so well, are<br />
determined to deliver the new single tier pension to ensure<br />
that by the end of this <strong>Parliament</strong> people will have,<br />
rather than the sum of just under £100 a week they get<br />
as the state pension at the moment, about £140 a week.<br />
That is particularly valuable to women, the low paid<br />
and those who have been self-employed. After 30 years<br />
of work, people will have a citizen’s pension, for which<br />
we have always fought.<br />
The Minister of State, Department for Education,<br />
my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah<br />
Teather)and others are determined, as the Deputy Prime<br />
Minister has been, that we should have flexible parental<br />
care leave, flexible parental leave and the right to flexible<br />
working. Why? They are not just good for the parent<br />
and the child, but they allow the parent to stay in work<br />
rather than giving it up and to be able to mix work,<br />
home, children and a career. That is really important for<br />
women’s equality in this country. Why do we not have<br />
many women in this place or on boards? It is partly<br />
because we do not have those flexible arrangements.<br />
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con):<br />
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those provisions<br />
on shared parental leave also provide choice for families<br />
at a very important time, when they are having children?<br />
Simon Hughes: Absolutely, and I pay tribute to my<br />
hon. Friend for her commitment to families and women<br />
in her profession. She is right—we absolutely need to do<br />
that.<br />
We outline in the Gracious Speech the support for<br />
those with special educational needs, adding to early-years<br />
places for the rising fives so that there is a commitment<br />
that 40% of rising fives will be able to have support<br />
before they go to school. So, there is much for hard-working,<br />
ordinary families and their children in the programme.<br />
It is not a programme without legislative plans at all—quite<br />
the reverse.<br />
A defamation Bill will deal with the fact that our libel<br />
laws still restrict the liberty of speech in this country. I<br />
pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who has worked very<br />
hard to make sure that this Bill is in the legislative<br />
programme. There is a strong proposal for a National<br />
Crime Agency to deal with terrorists and people who do<br />
not have the interests of this country at heart. We also<br />
have proposals for community sentences for restorative<br />
justice. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwickupon-Tweed<br />
(Sir Alan Beith) has been absolutely clear<br />
about the value of such sentences not just in reforming<br />
people but in value-for-money terms.<br />
We have been careful about the difficult issue that<br />
the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden<br />
(Mr Davis) raised about data and how to deal with it. It<br />
is perfectly reasonable, as my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, to respond to<br />
the security services’ request that we make all species of<br />
communication areas of consideration for regulation of<br />
data control—not so that people can know what one is<br />
saying but so that we do not have no-go areas for the<br />
security services. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches<br />
will not sign up to legislation that will add to the<br />
intrusion into citizens’ lives that we saw so often from<br />
the Labour party when it was in government. Under<br />
Labour, we had a Big Brother state with identity cards<br />
and proposals for 90-day detention. Neither we nor the<br />
Conservatives are going down that road, and that is why<br />
there is a draft proposal, which we will look at carefully.<br />
Only if it is acceptable will it get through.<br />
Let me say a word about the comments of the right<br />
hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) on gay<br />
marriage. May I say, as a member of the Church, that I<br />
think it is entirely reasonable that in a modern society in<br />
which we have accepted that both gay and straight<br />
couples should be able to have permanent, recognised<br />
relationships, the state should allow that to happen in<br />
an equal way? It happens in many other places in the<br />
world and it does not mean that any denomination of<br />
the Church or any other faith group has to accept that,<br />
endorse it or carry out such ceremonies in its buildings—it<br />
is simply about saying that the state recognises it when<br />
two people want to live their lives as adults together.<br />
This is not in the Gracious Speech and was never going<br />
to be, because the consultation has not ended. However,<br />
we should recognise that there is a civil liberties issue at<br />
stake for many of our constituents. We should not<br />
forget that. I bet there are people in every constituency<br />
in the <strong>United</strong> <strong>Kingdom</strong> who want us to make sure that<br />
this issue remains on the agenda.<br />
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con):<br />
Many people will have written to the right hon. Gentleman,<br />
as they have written to me, about this issue. Does he<br />
agree that when it is explained to people that there is a<br />
clear difference between a civil marriage and a religious<br />
marriage in terms of what is proposed, most of them<br />
are reassured? It is our duty to point that out.<br />
Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right;<br />
that is exactly the experience I have had. I have Evangelical<br />
Christian friends who are concerned about this issue,<br />
but when one explains that it does not suddenly make<br />
something sacramental if that is not what the Church<br />
or what the individual believes, they are reassured. It is<br />
a similar issue—I say this respectfully—as that of tax<br />
advantages for people who are married and those who<br />
are not married. In our book, if a couple have lived<br />
together for 25 years but have not married, they should<br />
enjoy the same position in the tax system as those who<br />
have chosen to marry. We have to respect people’s different<br />
life choices as adults.<br />
Those issues are all important, but the most important<br />
legislative proposal for my constituents in a constituency<br />
that faces the City of London from across the river is<br />
none of those—it is banking reform. It is about making<br />
sure that we divide the banks into retail banks that will<br />
deal with people’s day-to-day business and separate