For the second week running at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ed Miliband’s inquiries were on health reform. He had one of his most successful sessions so far, during which we found out that David Cameron doesn’t want Andrew Lansley to be taken out and shot.

Miliband was on excellent form and, by golly by gosh, at one point he almost ascended to the John Smith “hotels fall into the sea” level of stinging wit, with this passage:

Isn’t this interesting? The Prime Minister says that this is all about reform, but even the Tory Reform Group has come out against these proposals. It comes to something when even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the NHS.

It sounded better than it looks written on the page.

There were hordes of traded statistics. Cameron held his ground well. But I can’t help but think that the government is battening down the hatches and preparing to sail on through flak and storms to get the Health and Social Care Bill, come what may, on goat skin to the Diamond Monarch for her signature.

Liberal Democrat questions

Sir Menzies Campbell asked what confidence we can have that unilateral intervention by Russia will put an end to the terrible violence in Syria. “Very little” – was the PM’s response.

Gordon Birtwistle highlighted the success of the Work programme since it was introduced in Burnley in October 2010. The town has gone from 66% of people economically active to 75% in that time.

Unusual event of the week

Nick Clegg nodded. He only does that once every blue moon these days. On this occasion it was to indicate his support for the sovereign. Safe nodding territory there.

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Now that we know that a referendum will definitely be held on Scottish independence, I am committed to working with the Scottish Government to ensure we have one that is fair, legal and decisive. A few weeks ago I launched a consultation to seek views on how we could achieve this and I want to encourage Borderers to take part to make their voices heard on this incredibly important issue.

Following the launch of the consultation I have also met with the CBI, Scottish Engineering and others and I plan to meet with many other Scottish businesses, representatives of civil society and individuals to encourage them to take part and shape the referendum. We want to hear people’s views on who should be able to vote in the referendum, when it should be held, how many questions should be asked and how to ensure it is legal. Most importantly, we want it to be made in Scotland, for the people of Scotland.

Once the form and timing of the referendum is agreed I’m sure the campaign will quickly get going and the passions of both sides will be evident. I personally will be arguing for Scotland to remain part of a modern United Kingdom where we share the risks and benefits of statehood. At the same time, I want to work to deepen the devolution of power to Scotland through the Scotland Bill so we have more power to make the choices to suit our needs. The Lib Dems are passionate about democracy and the devolution of power and we want to see Scotland thrive as part of the UK family. To this end, we have also set up the Home Rule Commission to look at the options for further devolution beyond the Scotland Bill.

Post Offices

Here in the Borders, Post Offices are the glue that holds our local communities together and they provide vital services to thousands of Borderers who use them to send post, manage their finances and collect their pensions. However, under the previous Labour Government, we saw countless Post Office closures here in the Borders and this was devastating for local communities.

On taking office, the Coalition Government made clear its commitment to modernise and invest in the Post Office Network to secure it for the future. Ed Davey the former Lib Dem Minister responsible for post offices has led our plans to transform their  future, with £1.34 billion of Government support and investment without any closure programmes.

Last week further good news was announced after the signing of a ten-year deal between the Post Office and the Royal Mail. The deal between the two companies ensures that the full range of Royal Mail services, including stamps, parcels, airmail and special delivery will continue to be available over Post Office counters for the long term. This is great for Borders Post Offices and gives additional certainty to our local subpostmasters.

In the run-up to the general election, you may remember, the tabloids were screaming, saying that if there was a hung Parliament locusts would descend from the sky and the sun would be blotted out, you know… so we needed for those first few months to show the most important thing of all, which is this is a government that works, and actually works rather well.

Of course, after that phase you then get [that] we’re different parties, we do have different instincts, we do have different values. I just think we are quite relaxed in government that we have our differences – sometimes they are played out in private, sometimes they are played out in public.

Nick goes on to discuss what he sees as significant achievements for the party in government, and, in a telling line, describes the difficulty Lib Dem peers face in supporting legislation they wouldn’t under different circumstances:

Let’s be blunt: I am asking, day in, day out, Liberal Democrat peers to vote on things that they wouldn’t do in a month of Sundays if it was a Liberal Democrat government.

The interview covers such ground as reform of the upper house, Nick’s stance on the Middle East and changes to the tax system.

You can read the whole interview here.

One of the reasons he did so well is that he took a leaf out of Margaret Thatcher’s book. He lowered the tone of his voice. Gone was the shrill shouting of recent weeks. Instead we had a calm, firm low tone. And he slowed down his delivery, making it very de-li-ber-ate. As a result he sounded a lot more effective.

First on executive pay, and then on the NHS, Miliband did well against the PM. For me, his line of the week was this one on top pay:

he says that the class war against the bankers is going to be led by him and his Cabinet of millionaires. I do not think it is going to wash, frankly.

On the NHS reforms, he also started a very good chorus of “against the bill” from his own backbenchers, as he read out a list of professional and other bodies who are…..all together now….”AGAINST THE BILL”.

David Cameron got into trouble with the speaker for accusing Miliband of “hypocrisy”, which was deemed “not parliamentary” and had to be withdrawn.

Doughnut of the week
There is a little piece of business which takes place when backbenchers ask questions. More often than not, they are surrounded by like-minded MPs. It is interesting to observe the supportive nods and noises from these “doughnuts”. As Esther McVey (Con) asked a question, I thought Eleanor Laing won the prize for adoring look of the week.

Whipwatch
The Tory whips managed to rack up five Tory questions about the £26,000 benefit cap, with two additional Prime MInisterial mentions and a further question from the DUP.

The Labour whips managed to get in a few mentions of the contrast between the government’s ‘lax’ treatment of high earning executives and its treatment of hard-working families. In fact, “working” scores heavily in this Wordle cloud (right) of this week’s PMQs. Indeed, “I think it is right to support working people” is the sentence of the week, according to Wordle.

LibDem questions
Tom Brake asked about the future of the Epsom, St Helier and Sutton hospitals.

Juilan Huppert asked if the Prime Minister would go “further and faster” on the increase of the income tax threshold to £10,000, pointing out that the measure was on the front page of the last Liberal Democrat manifesto.

Quoting the tragic case of a constituent, Greg Mulholland asked whether drivers’ licences will be withdrawn as a bail condition in death by dangerous driving cases involving alleged serious breaches of the alcohol limit.

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Lib Dem Lords Thomas, Carlile, Clement Jones and Phillips have a set of amendments down for debate tomorrow to put right what Ken Clarke hasn’t got right in his zeal to end the so-called ‘compensation culture’. The amendments look to tighten up and improve the plans to ban so-called ‘referral fees’ in personal injury cases. Its these fees which are behind ambulance-chasing lawyers encouraging people to put in spurious claims.

As picked up by Kiran Stacey in the FT, the Liberal Democrat peers have tabled amendments to ban law firms from (among other things) sending those annoying unsolicited spam texts and from advertising in hospitals. They also seek to end the reprehensible practice of insurers forcing accident victims to settle for low-level damages without letting them speak to a lawyer, and to protect legitimate routes to justice for genuine accident victims.

There’s a risk the amendments will get squeezed out due to lack of time unless the Lib Dem peers insist on pushing the issue. They should do. It’s an important issue in its own right, the changes will help ensure the legal system is there to help those in need rather than clogged up by profiteers pursuing dodgy claims – and it’s a popular cause with the public to boot.

Here’s hoping tomorrow brings goods news from the Liberal Democrat team in the Lords…

Full disclosure: One of the clients of the company that I work for in my day job, National Accident Helpline, has an interest in these issues.

* Mark Pack is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and writes a monthly newsletter about the Liberal Democrats.

Whilst the Commons continues to doze, the Lords continues to put in a long shift at the legislative coalface. This week, the highlights are as follows;

Day 2 of the Report Stage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill takes place on 6 February, with rumours of a Conservative-led rebellion on the vexed question of the vast array of people and organisations that have access to your home. We hope to have an article on the subject nearer the time, so watch this space.

On 7 and 9 February, the Committee Stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill reaches days 8 and 9. In all likelihood, this Bill still has a long way to go, with fifty amendments still to be debated at the time of writing, and time beginning to run out in this Parliamentary session.

The Health and Social Care Bill has reached its Report Stage, with Days 1 and 2 scheduled for 8 and 13 February. Whilst the first Marshalled list of Amendments is still to be drawn up, the opposition to the Bill in the Lords has scented weakness, with talk of more and more concessions. In reality, there is a danger that expectations are overblown, but Earl Howe, said to have a very good bedside manner indeed, quite unlike Andrew Lansley, is likely to make a stab at retaining as much of the Bill as can be salvaged.

Day 3 of the Committee Stage of the Scotland Bill, is timetabled for St Valentine’s Day. We await with interest the attempt by the Earl of Caithness to save Rockall for the Union in the event of Scotland gaining its independence (Amendment 26). More seriously, expect further attempts by the likes of Lord Forsyth from the Conservative benches, and Lord Foulkes from the Labour benches, to whittle away at the powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. So much for localism?

Finally, as far as legislation is concerned, 10 February sees the Report Stage of the other House of Lords Reform Bill, that of Lord Steel of Aikwood. There are those who see this as being instead of wholesale reform, and those who see it as an interim step as part of the process towards that reform. And, of course, there are those amongst the hereditary Peers who would rather die than see any reform at all…

Last, but not least, there will be Oral Questions from Lord Dykes (7th) on progress being made on discussions with European member states on the future legal basis for the European fiscal compact treaty, Lord Avebury (13th) on the progress being made towards the framing of a new constitution and preparations for elections in Zimbabwe, Baroness Hussein-Ece (also on the 13th) on plans to reduce the age at which women in England first undergo smear tests, to bring it into line with that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and, last but not least, Baroness Tonge (16th) on the number cases of female genital mutilation were investigated by the police.

16 February sees the Lords adjourn for a late winter break before returning to action on 27 February. Your correspondent will be using the time to make a trip to the Arctic Circle to examine one of the world’s most successful logistics and distribution businesses and, assuming that I don’t freeze to death, I’ll be back in a fortnight’s time.

The important point about the proposal is that it is discretionary and councils would be particularly interested in using this measure if there was a shortage of housing for local people. In my local area of Purbeck, for example, 7.3% of homes are second homes. This adds to demand, and supply is very limited because of heath land, the heritage coast and much more and therefore the premium could help moderate demand and/or produce extra revenue which could be used to tackle the shortage of housing.

Tim Farron MP, who co-signed the amendment, has highlighted the problem in South Lakeland, where there are 3000 people on the housing waiting list and over 3500 second homes. And Stephen Gilbert MP, another co-signatory, has raised the fact that there are 14,000 second homes in Cornwall and around 12,000 people on the waiting list for their first home.

In some areas there are very large concentrations of second homes in villages, and as a consequence the village starts to lose its facilities – bus services, and local shops and pubs. Again, there is a case for intervention if a local authority wishes.

There are practical problems with the implementation of such a policy but as Liberal Democrats, we want to generate a widespread debate around these issues – and this is party policy!

I shall tell the Prime Minister what is happening in the NHS: waiting lists up, morale down. What does the majority-Conservative Select Committee on Health say about his reorganisation? It says that it will be a “disruption and distraction that hinders the ability of organisations to” release savings.

Let us be frank: this is a Bill that nobody wants. It is opposed by doctors, nurses and patients. Before the election the Prime Minister said, “No more top-down reorganisation.” Is it not time he kept at least one promise, put aside his pride and arrogance, and dropped this unnecessary and unwanted Bill?

In return, all Cameron could do was bleat on about Doncaster, almost to the point of obsession.

Pass the sick bag, Alice

It takes considerable aplomb to out-pontificate Sir Peter Tapsell, but Eleanor Laing (Con) managed it with a very loud quotation from Robert Burns, it being Burns Night (Day). OK, she’s Scottish. – Shame she has to represent Epping Forest.

But she set off David Cameron who also felt the need to quote Burns. Oh dear.

iPad watch

Caroline Spelman (Con), Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, spent the first few minutes of PMQs catching up on her email on her iPad. Bless her. She types very well on a touch-screen.

Liberal Democrat questions

Suitably, for Burns Night (Day), they came from two Scots:

Sir Robert Smith stated that the UK has developed a world-leading safety regime for offshore oil and gas which is threatened by EU regulaton. He asked if the PM would press for directives which can be interpreted flexibly, rather than regulation.

Malcolm Bruce asked about the British Airways takeover of BMI and what assurances there would be to retain landing slots at Heathrow Airport from regional airports such as Aberdeen.

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

The Bill – with the distinctly ungainly title of the Public Services (Social Value) Bill – started life as a private members’ bill in the Commons. Chris White the new Conservative MP for Warwick was successful in the ballot for private members’ bills and introduced the bill within months of being elected. With some amendments it gained Government support, with Nick Hurd, the Cabinet Office Minister strongly helpful. If it achieves its Second Reading on Friday and we can avoid a Committee Stage in the Lords (both highly likely outcomes) it will become law before Easter.

Why does it matter? At present many public sector procurers choose large companies as a matter of course rather than even considering smaller, local mutuals, social enterprises and small businesses, even though these can offer additional value by supporting local employment, offering training (often to particularly disadvantaged groups) and simply providing a better quality service than mega-companies with a profit-maximising approach. At a time when civil society organisations are feeling the effects of the cuts particularly harshly, the Bill will help tilt the playing field back in their direction. Several local authorities do follow a social value led approach to commissioning – including Durham, Camden and Wakefield, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

That is why, on the eve of its Third Reading in the Commons, Social Enterprise UK co-ordinated a letter from the CEOs of 15 umbrella organisations which said that “the Bill will play a key role in enabling social enterprises, voluntary organisations and small businesses to bid for public sector contracts.” Signatories included the CEOs of ACEVO, Co-operatives UK, NCVO and the Race Equality Foundation.

Although the Bill has Labour support, it is only happening because of coalition action. And although I don’t expect it to feature very heavily in anyone’s Focus leaflet, I hope very much that Liberal Democrats will point out at every opportunity that it is through measures such as this that this Government is fulfilling its commitment to support mutual and social enterprises. In so doing, we not only get better value for our public services but also help develop the kind of inclusive, empowering society for which we strive.

* Dick Newby is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson in the House of Lords.

1st – Baroness Tonge (26 votes against the Government)

Jenny would probably appear at or near the top of most lists of ‘Liberal Democrat Peer most likely to rebel’, so it perhaps isn’t much of a surprise to see her in such a prominent position. Whilst many of her rebellions have been on the Health and Social Care and Welfare Reform Bills, she also rebelled three times on each of the Public Bodies and European Union Bills. Surprisingly though, on only four occasions has she been a lone rebel and has been part of ten of the eleven biggest rebellions of this Parliament.

2nd – Baroness Harris of Richmond (17 votes)

Perhaps a more unexpected entry in the list, the generally loyal Deputy Speaker cast sixteen votes against the Government on the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, reflecting the experience gleaned from seven years as Chair of the North Yorkshire Police Authority, although on six occasions she was a lone rebel. Another to vote in favour of excluding child benefit from the benefit cap yesterday, her position on this list is less likely to be a guide to future voting patterns.

3rd – Lord Maclennan of Rogart (13 votes)

Like most of you, I wouldn’t have expected this, but the former Party Leader rebelled seven times on the European Union Bill, a reminder of his commitment to Europe over a number of decades. He also rebelled earlier in the Session in votes on the Identity Documents, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies and Public Bodies Bills. Another to rebel yesterday, he voted against the Government in both divisions, one of fourteen to do so.

4th (equal) – Lord Goodhart (11 votes)

Another relatively unexpected entry, and long-term party grandee (if there are any in the Liberal Democrats, he would have to be one of them), he rebelled six times on the European Union Bill as another longtime pro-European, but also rebelled on issues dear to his heart as a jurist, including the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill. He can also claim to be the first Liberal Democrat Peer to cast a vote against the Government, rebelling on the Academies Bill as early as 7 July 2010.

4th (equal) – Lord Greaves (11 votes)

An independent spirit but passionate in his liberalism, Tony has not allowed being in coalition with the Conservatives to prevent him speaking his mind, including here on the pages of Liberal Democrat Voice as time permits. His background in local government allows him to spot the impact of central government legislation on local councils, and he is quick to bring issues to the attention of ministers. And if he can’t persuade them, he will vote against them if necessary.

Honourable mentions go to Lord Dykes (10 votes), Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (9 votes) and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (9 votes).

In all, sixty-two Liberal Democrat Peers have cast at least one vote against the Government in this Parliament.

Right now, we need to block the main the legal aid provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill (currently at committee stage in the Lords). In summary, unless amended, the Bill will take away legal aid from clinical negligence, personal injury, welfare/benefits claims, and claims under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. In family cases there will be no legal aid unless there has been domestic violence (very narrowly defined). It could limit the right of someone arrested to a lawyer.

And maybe most worryingly, the Bill would give the Lord Chancellor sweeping powers to take legal aid away from categories the bill’s drafters haven’t listed in the future.

That is a weirdly sweeping power.

These parts of the bill contain exactly the sort of proposals we would have tried our hardest to eviscerate in opposition. The arguments we would have deployed are so strong that we might have succeeded – in the Lords at least, and maybe the Commons. So I’ve winced watching our justice minister Tom McNally, a peer I like and respect, defending its contents by reading from a script that has a serious credibility gap. It’s not just that I’m embarrassed for Tom – though I am.

If the bill reaches the statute book unamended, it will also render vulnerable some of the achievements and compromises we believe we have secured through participation in the coalition.

On the Welfare Reform Bill, it was reported that many of our peers voted against their hearts because they felt they had to keep our commitment to reducing the deficit. There is no such argument to be made on legal aid. Apart from the fact that there are knock-on costs for the rest of the system, especially on welfare and housing cases, good work on where savings could be made has been completely ignored by the Ministry of Justice.

The Law Society’s legal aid team found £350m of savings that could be made. In the last week, a study from Kings College London found that planned cuts to legal aid in private family work, social welfare law and clinical negligence will save less than half the sum predicted by the government. Kings and The Law Society weren’t alone.

Citizens Advice Bureau have calculated that every £1 spent on timely advice on social housing, debt advice, benefits and employment advice, between £2.34 and £8.80 of public money is saved.

Tom confessed to ‘report fatigue’ on these calculations, but none of their findings have been actually challenged by the Ministry of Justice. I’ve looked for fault in the underlying data, and cannot find any. These reports are, to use another phrase I’m embarrassed to find us on the receiving end of, ‘inconvenient truths’. But we should not just oppose changes to legal aid provision on sound financial grounds. If the bill is carried as it stands, it will undermine the ability of people to protect the rights we think we have used our part in government to protect.

Chief among these is our defence of the Human Rights Act. Nick Clegg’s defence of the HRA was so important – but if some of Britain’s most vulnerable people can’t find a way to make the state keep its HRA promises, then Nick has obtained a worthless concession.

A right to liberty won’t be funded for several key constituencies; the right to a fair trial is also affected; discrimination; the right to an education. And don’t forget, any Lord Chancellor can add to that list at will. Civil servants he appoints can also ‘define’ what might be adequate advice for someone arrested – a lawyer on site (preferable), an email, a phone call – maybe even a text or exchange on Twitter or Facebook.

I wish the latter two were outlandish ideas but there is nothing to stop them being adequate under this bill.

I am also concerned that this bill’s contents, and our supine attitude to it at a senior level, highlights another area of public policy we have failed to pick up on – that our coalition partners do not like the idea that any organisation, public or private, should be held to account by an aggrieved party when it messes up. And here, there is a broader point of importance here for us as Lib Dems in government. It has been said that our ministers are thinly spread – to the point where we miss vital points. If people are able to use the law to assert rights we approve of, then they can be our eyes and ears.

To do this, people need the means and the rights. Unless amended, this bill will be part of the process of taking both means and rights away from them.

That cannot and should not happen.

* Eduardo Reyes was a Liberal Democrat parliamentary researcher from 1995 to 1998, and is now features editor at The Law Society Gazette.

Amendment 58D, moved by Labour peer, Lord Mackenzie of Luton, was a relatively opportunistic attempt to provide an exemption from the proposed benefit cap for “vulnerable individuals, and individuals and couples with children”, threatened with homelessness, owed a duty to be provided with temporary accommodation or who had been accepted as homeless and in priority need. Opportunistic because, as one Peer commented, it looked as though it had been drawn up on the back of an envelope.

Baroness Walmsley, whilst supporting the Amendment, noted;

I do not necessarily think that it is exactly the right amendment, but we need to send it back to another place and ask it to think again and tell us a little more about the measures that will be put in place — I hope that they will be, and know that the Government intend that they will be — to make sure that families with children are not made homeless.

and Baroness Hussein-Ece pleaded on behalf of the diversity of urban communities;

I want to live in a mixed community. I do not want to live in a Paris-style ghetto. I do not want ghettos such as in Paris, where the poorer families have been forced into the doughnut outside the city. We should support mixed communities. We want our children to have a healthy outlook and mix with people from all different backgrounds.

Repeatedly, Liberal Democrat Peers sought reassurance from the Minister, with Lords Ashdown and German offering Lord Freud every opportunity to offer clarity on transitional arrangements, and reassurance that families would not be made homeless as a result of the proposed changes in the Bill. But clarity and reassurance came there none.

With the Crossbenchers having hitherto voted heavily against the Government, it looked likely that another defeat loomed. And then, relief for the Minister, as the Crossbenchers split 52-31 against the Amendment, and with seventeen Liberal Democrat rebels outweighed by forty-two remaining loyal to the Government, the Amendment was lost by twenty-eight votes, 250-222.

Liberal Democrats supporting the Amendment were as follows;

Avebury, Lord
Greaves, Lord
Hamwee, Baroness
Hussein-Ece, Baroness (her first rebellion of this Parliament)
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, Lord
Maclennan of Rogart, Lord
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Baroness
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Lord
Roberts of Llandudno, Lord
Sharp of Guildford, Baroness (her first rebellion of this Parliament)
Shipley, Lord
Smith of Clifton, Lord
Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord
Thomas of Winchester, Baroness
Tonge, Baroness
Tyler, Lord
Walmsley, Baroness

This represented the second largest Liberal Democrat rebellion of this Parliament to date, only topped by the nineteen Peers voting against the Government on the European Union Bill on 15 June last year. But worse was to follow…

The government has been defeated in the Lords in a vote on its plans for a £26,000-a-year household benefit cap. Lib Dem, Labour and crossbench peers backed a bishop’s amendment by 252 to 237 that child benefit should not be included in the cap. Critics argued that imposing the same cap on all families, regardless of size, would penalise children. The government said it was “very disappointed” and the vote “clearly flies in the face of public opinion”.

Lib Dem peers split 26 in favour of the amendment (and therefore against the Coalition) and 39 against the amendment (and therefore backing the Coalition position).

Here’s the named vote…

Lib Dem peers who voted for the amendment:

Allan of Hallam, Lord
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, Lord
Avebury, Lord
Benjamin, Baroness
Cotter, Lord
Doocey, Baroness
Dykes, Lord
Greaves, Lord
Harris of Richmond, Baroness
Hussain, Lord
Hussein-Ece, Baroness
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, Lord
Macdonald of River Glaven, Lord
Maclennan of Rogart, Lord
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Baroness
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Lord
Redesdale, Lord
Roberts of Llandudno, Lord
Smith of Clifton, Lord
Taylor of Goss Moor, Lord
Thomas of Winchester, Baroness
Tonge, Baroness
Tyler of Enfield, Baroness
Tyler, Lord
Walmsley, Baroness
Williams of Crosby, Baroness

Lib Dem peers who voted against the amendment:

Addington, Lord
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, Baroness
Brinton, Baroness
Burnett, Lord
Carlile of Berriew, Lord
Clement-Jones, Lord
Dholakia, Lord
Falkner of Margravine, Baroness
Garden of Frognal, Baroness
German, Lord
Goodhart, Lord
Jolly, Baroness
Kramer, Baroness
Lee of Trafford, Lord
Lester of Herne Hill, Lord
Loomba, Lord
Maddock, Baroness
Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord
McNally, Lord
Newby, Lord
Northover, Baroness
Randerson, Baroness
Razzall, Lord
Rennard, Lord
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, Lord
Scott of Needham Market, Baroness
Sharkey, Lord
Sharp of Guildford, Baroness
Shipley, Lord
Shutt of Greetland, Lord
Stoneham of Droxford, Lord
Strasburger, Lord
Taverne, Lord
Teverson, Lord
Thomas of Gresford, Lord
Tope, Lord
Tordoff, Lord
Wallace of Saltaire, Lord
Wallace of Tankerness, Lord

* Stephen Tall is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and also writes at his own site, The Collected Stephen Tall.

My starting point is, I am afraid, we are going to have keep all these cuts. There is a big squeeze happening on budgets across the piece. The squeeze on defence spending, for instance, is £15bn by 2015. We are going to have to start from that being the baseline. At this stage, we can make no commitments to reverse any of that, on spending or on tax. So I am being absolutely clear about that.

So, it was something of a surprise when Ed Miliband said at this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions:

Why is unemployment rising? It is rising because he is cutting too far and too fast.

I would like to know how the Labour party can say those two things wthin four days. It would appear that Ed Balls has cut the ground from under Ed Miliband’s feet. He simply cannot credibly accuse the government of “cutting too far and too fast” when his shadow chancellor is saying “we are going to have to keep all these cuts”.

Question of the week

Labour’s David Hamilton asked:

In America, six directors from the bailed-out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae companies have been taken to court for gross mismanagement. In this country, the Financial Services Authority says that it cannot bring enforcement action against Royal Bank of Scotland because of the ongoing legal tender. Will the Prime Minister consider introducing a legal sanction of strict liability into his draft Financial Services Bill so that those responsible for the banking crisis will be taken to task?

Liberal Democrat questions

Andrew George called for the Health and Social Care bill to be shelved, and for the government to “go back to the coalition agreement and build from there”.

Tessa Munt said that mainstream terrestrial television carries adverts for online bingo at 5pm and that 31 hours and 55 minutes each week is dedicated to live casino betting and gaming…at a time when there is £1.45 trillion of personal debt in this country. She called for greater protection for consumers via Ofcom.

Uncalled for insult of the week

To Dennis Skinner (Labour), the Prime Minister rather mean-spiritedly said:

It is good to see the hon. Gentleman on such good form. I often say to my children, “There is no need to go to the National History museum to see a dinosaur; come to the House of Commons at about half past twelve.”

Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

The Lib Dems are in a very serious state, possibly facing meltdown of the kind experienced by the Canadian Conservatives some time ago (though they managed a spectacular comeback), or the Canadian Liberals in last year’s elections. The burning question is how, at the very minimum, to limit the electoral damage and hopefully to revive the party’s fortunes.

For more of his thoughts, the full article can be found here.

The last Labour government saw that the train companies were taking advantage of consumers…we took away that power from them

David Cameron retorted that:

The power (to increase fares well above inflation) was given to them to do that by the last Labour government.

Channel 4 News FactCheck, as usual,has an excellent analysis of this spat, concluding that they couldn’t give either men a “Fact” or “Fiction” rating:

Labour may not have invented the practice but they allowed the operators to get away with it for 12 of their 13 years in government, until changing tack just before the last general election. It’s not clear whether the new policy would have been permanent.

But it’s indisputable that the Coalition abandoned it when they came to power, putting commuters in the situation in which they now find themselves.

Perhaps the best summary comes from Stephen Joseph from the Campaign for Better Transport, who told FactCheck:

Fares in the UK are well above European averages. Both parties have bought the argument that the cost should be borne by fare-payers.

We would argue that other countries have taken a different view – that a good transport network benefits everyone and it should not just be paid for by fare-payers but through other means.

That ding-dong was followed by violent agreement on the subject of Scotland.

It was a deeply underwhelming start to the new year for Ed Miliband, who needed a good performance to counter recent rumblings in his party about his leadership. In the past, he has chosen some good subjects on which to tax Cameron. The rail fare thing really was a mistake, given Labour’s record on the subject. He tried hard, but it just didn’t wash.

You can’t fault Miliband’s sincerity and belief. I would prefer to talk with him than Cameron. But he is relatively hopeless at PMQs, labouriously blathering away and tripping over his words. No style. No real wit. Just blundering on.

I think of previous Labour leaders. Smith, Blair, Foot…even Kinnock. Miliband is simply not as good as them. The only close comparison to Miliband I can think of is Gordon Brown. That’s not flattering.

LibDem Questions:

Greg Mulholland asked whether the PM would ensure that the White Paper on the care of older people will present a real way forward “on this vital issue”.

Mike Crockart asked if Cameron will ensure that 2012 is the last year that the Guantanamo Bay detention centre operates.

Sir Bob Russell asked a very powerful question which I quote in full:

Ethnic cleansing and apartheid are evil. Sadly, successive Governments have supported a country where those vile actions are inflicted on indigenous people. We welcomed the Arab spring, but the long Arab winter continues for Palestinians. Last Tuesday the Israeli Government said that they would proceed with the forced eviction of 30,000 Bedouin Arabs from their historic lands. Is it not time we treated Israel as we did apartheid South Africa?

Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Welcome to Liberal Democrat Voice’s coverage of the House of Lords, where we’ll be flagging up some of the forthcoming events at the more reflective end of the Palace of Westminster. So, without further ado…

The House of Lords returns to work next Tuesday after its Christmas recess, with a heavy legislative schedule to be dealt with before the end of the Session, and the first fortnight offers a hint of what is to come.

Days 2, 3 and 4 of the Committee Stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill will be taken on, with Lord McNally leading for the government. Highlights are likely to include a Labour attempt to introduce a requirement for a pre-commencement impact assessment, as they hope to demonstrate how damaging the legal aid proposals will be for women, ethnic minorities and other vulnerable groups. Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat lawyers will be attempting to bolster the independence of those assisting the proposed new Director of Legal Aid Casework. Expect plenty of comment from Lords Phillips of Sudbury, Thomas of Gresford and Macdonald of River Glaven, amongst others.

Days 3 and 4 of the Report Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill are also awaiting the unwary, with the likelihood of further difficulties for the Government following the sizable rebellion that caused a defeat on the proposed underoccupation penalties for social housing residents before Christmas. There will be a series of attempts to lessen the perceived harshness of some of the proposals. And given that the Committee Stage ran for seventeen days, this one could run and run…

What else is there to draw the eye? There will be oral questions from Hugh Dykes on discussions with other EU member states on the Eurozone agreement (10th), Mike Storey on cyber-bullying (11th), Bill Bradshaw on passenger rolling stock and Judith Jolly on the commissioning of integrated health and social care services (12th). The following week sees Chris Rennard raise his concerns about the accuracy of electoral registers (16th) and Roger Roberts address careers advice for the under-25s (17th).

Meanwhile, the EU Sub-Committee G (Social Policies and Consumer Protection) will continue its look into the EU contribution to the modernisation of higher education in Europe, quizzing David Willetts on his views on the subject.

And finally, for this edition, the 17th sees the laying of Orders for mayoral referendums in Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Sheffield and Wakefield… whether they want them or not…

We’ve come a long way in a few months. Now, DPMQs are relatively sedate affairs. The DPM is well in control and there is little mischief from the Labour benches. Well, none that would spoil LibDem MPs’ lunches.

Indeed, at least four MPs found it difficult to summon enthusiasm for DPMQs this time. Unusually, that number tabled questions but couldn’t be bothered to turn up to ask them.

In response to a question from John Pugh (LibDem), Nick Clegg announced that the Joint Committee of both houses on House of Lords reform will report by 27th March 2012.

In answer to Sadiq Khan (Lab), the DPM was, again, very clear about reform:

Yes, of course…I support a fully elected second Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman’s party achieved precisely 0% of election to the other Chamber. I modestly suggest that if we achieve 80%, that will be better than 0%.

It is often assumed that Tory backbenchers are opposed to House of Lords reform. However, this session demonstrated that, on this subject, there is a nexus of sensible Tory MPs, particularly in the East of England. Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) and Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) both asked questions which were solidly supportive to reform. In fact, I detected much less Tory anti-reform noise than has previously been the case. Perhaps the whips have dusted off their old files.

About the most unsedate that the session got was when Sadiq Khan goaded Nick Clegg about a series of alleged LibDem failures to influence the government. Nick Clegg fired back, saying the government are “clearing up the mess” left behind by Labour and that Labour have nothing to say on the economy.

LibDem question of the week

Duncan Hames asked an excellent question highlighting that Labour councillors in Manchester have voted to reject the pupil premium to help children from the most challenging backgrounds.

Hold the front page

Labour’s Mike Gapes tried to suggest that it was some sort of evidence of a major rift in the coalition that Nick Clegg and William Hague met the German foreign minister this week in separate meetings.

Career limiting question

Peter Bone (Con – Swivel-eyed) is obsessed with who will takeover as Prime Minister if David Cameron dies. He’s asked the question several times now – almost as often as he reads out dispatches from “Mrs Bone” – and asked again at this DPMQs. Bear in mind that the last British Prime Minister to die in office was Palmerston in 1865. No surprise, then, that Nick Clegg got a big laugh when he retorted:

I must say…that his morbid fascination with the premature death of his own party leader is a subject not for me, but for the Chief Whip.

Other subjects covered were:

-Lobbying
-Armed Forces electoral registration
-The Electoral Register
-Electoral Participation
-The Boundary Commission proposals
-Topical issues

Paul Walter blogs at Liberal Burblings

* Paul Walter is Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Liberal Burblings

Liberal Democrat peers used to be in a remarkably privileged position in the party. Not only because they have held office without the pesky need for elections but also because for many years the third party in the House of Lords has been the key swing vote when the government has been wanting to get legislation through…

[However,] helped by the primacy of the Commons, revolts by Liberal Democrat MPs which could cost the government its majority are now no longer the neglected, poor relative of revolts by Liberal Democrat peers - but the patterns of rebellions have, so far, received relatively little attention.

You can read Mark’s full post here, and here’s his infographic in full:

This week saw the revelation in the Independent that there are now 326 former MPs who hold Former Members’ Passes.

The passes allow them access to bring guests into the House of Commons and book restaurants with family in the Palace of Westminster. The Independent raises worries that former MPs may be using these passes to further there lobbying careers.

Former speaker Michael Martin introduced the scheme to allow former MPs to keep up with friends in Parliament but should former MPs have passes at all?

Why should our Parliament be used as a social club for MPs who have resigned or been kicked out by voters and in some cases even committed a criminal offence?