The delegation was entirely Lib Dem, led by Malcolm Bruce, also including Simon Hughes, Andrew Stunell and Robin Teverson, a former MEP now in the Lords. For Malcolm and myself it was a follow up to our visit in 2007. Estonia also has a centre-right coalition, but this one is Liberal led by the Reform Party and we met with several of our fellow liberals on the visit.

Estonia is one of the smallest EU states, with a population of 1.3 million. The majority of its inhabitants are Estonian speaking but there is a significant Russian speaking minority of about 23%, a legacy of the long period of rule by imperial Russia and then occupation by the Soviet Union until 1991. Estonian is a unique language, of little use outside Estonia, a miracle of survival next to the dominant Russian bear. As a Welshman, I can empathise! But while Wales is mountainous, Estonia is flat and 70% trees and bog. Our road journey from the capital Tallin, to Kuresssare on the island of Saaremaa was one of the most monotonous of my life as the bus swept through endless forest.

In its second period of independence (the first being between the deposition of Czar Nicholas II and the invasion by Stalin in 1940) since 1991 Estonia has established itself as a liberal, high tech, fiscally sound country. It has achieved the greatest prosperity of the three ex Soviet Baltic states, in particular since joining the EU in 2004. The Reform Party led coalition has persued a policy of free market economics. It has the lowest proportion of government debt to the economy of any EU state, at about 10%, an eighth of our rate. When we met Prime Minister Andrus Ansip he bluntly told us that governments should not borrow off the next generation. Summit meetings with Gordon Brown must have been lively.

Estonia’s finances were so sound that they were able to join the € in 2011. Its southern neighbour Latvia will join next year so any right wing Tory hopes for a collapse of the single currency are wide of reality. Estonia is unique in Europe for its flat rate of taxes. Income and company taxes are both 21%. Individuals have a tiny personal allowance of €144 a month so the flat rate is quite regressive. All is not what it seems on the corporate side either with a swingeing 30% payroll tax, an equivalent of our NIC but used to fund all health and welfare spending. A dedicated tax for the NHS is something the Liberal Democrats have considered and this may be the way to separate out political wrangling on NHS spending and bureaucracy from actual health care policies.

While Estonia practices free market economics I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s also socially liberal. But this may be due to a more relaxed attitude to social norms from elsewhere in Europe. The country has the lowest rate of religious adherence and marriage rates are low. I hope they will soon allow same sex marriage and it will probably happen with less fuss than in the UK. The country is run by a relatively young group of people. I had a great discussion with the 32 year old Taavi Roivas, the minister for social affairs…which covers the equivalent of our health department and DWP, like the old UK DHSS of the 1970s and 80s.

But the most radical, though unsurprising, innovation by this young country is its embrace of new technology. One of the highlights of the week was the visit to the ICT Demo Centre http://e-estonia.com/ict-demo-center The country won’t be chopping down any of its millions of trees to make paper as it moves steadily towards an e-enabled society. All government services can be accessed or implemented on line. Internet access was described as a “social right” with fast broadband available everywhere and also free wi-fi access in most public and commercial buildings. More than 90% of tax returns are filed on line. In the 2011 general election a quarter of people voted via the Internet. Once the election campaign is underway voting can begin and the system even allows for people to change their vote up to 7 days before the election! It may make our campaigning sound antiquated though I’m a long way from being converted to e-voting.

Finally, a little note on Estonia’s painful history. They are well disposed towards the British as the Royal Navy saw off the Soviet ships in 1918, enabling Estonian independence. Freedom was short lived as the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact handed the country back to Soviet occupation. Prime Minister Ansip showed us the portraits of his predecessors from 1918-1940, all murdered by Stalin.

On my last visit in 2007 there was a visit to Narva, on the border with Russia. Two medieval castles, one Swedish and one Russian, face each other across the river. The town is literally at the edge of the European Union. The two castles act as a metaphor for two visions of Europe. One is a bastion of freedom of expression, of trade and innovation and international cooperation. The other expresses a quite different fortress mentality, with limited personal freedom. Estonia may be at the fringes of Europe but in its mind it is at the centre of the modern Europe that all liberals want to see.

While I am well used to speaking in the Commons, the Humble Address is a major Commons event for which the chamber is packed.  The speech is meant to be a mixture of the serious and light hearted.  The Commons has been described as the most formidable theatre of debate in the world.  On this occasion most MPs across all parties wish you well but you are aware of the schadenfreude that might be felt if you crash and burn.  It’s also an extremely rare occasion when all the party leaders are listening and the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader refer to you in their own speeches.  So the stakes were high!

Anyway I managed to turn my back of an envelope notes scribbled on the train yesterday into a ten minute speech.  To my huge relief, it seemed to go well and colleagues from all parties have been making kind comments all afternoon.

Here’s the Hansard official record of what I said, following Conservative MP Peter Luff, who mentioned his hero was Brunel:

It is an honour to second the motion on the Humble Address and a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff). I guess that that might be the first of several valedictory speeches we will hear from him over the next two years. When he does reach retirement after the next general election, the third age of life, I invite him to visit my constituency, where he will see the greatest concentration of Brunel heritage assets anywhere, including the Clifton suspension bridge, Bristol Temple Meads station and SS Great Britain. He will be most welcome.

I am sure that most of us, whether we saw it in person or watched it on television, will have enjoyed the pageantry of the state opening of Parliament. My first experience of royal London was as a school boy, when I stayed with my grandmother’s sisters in north London in the late 1970s and early 1980s. My Aunty Eve and Aunty Edith lived in Finchley. I was somewhat surprised, when walking down the high street, to see framed photographs of the local Member of Parliament at the time, Mrs Thatcher. It was something of a culture shock for a valleys boy from the mining village of Abercynon in south Wales. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether there are such framed photographs of you or, indeed, whether there are framed photographs of the current Prime Minister in his constituency, but I remember at the Liberal Democrat spring conference in Sheffield a couple of years ago being somewhat startled to be confronted by enormous billboards paid for by Unite—an organisation which, if I may say so, funds quite a lot of mischief around the country—that were adorned with a curious image of a creature called Cleggzilla who was trampling public services before him. [Interruption.] Mischief, as I said.

Mrs Thatcher—this will not surprise you, Mr Speaker, or anyone else—is certainly not my political hero. My political hero is one of the other contenders for the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century: Lloyd George. I first saw a statue of Lloyd George by Caernarfon castle and I visited the library and museum about him at Llanystumdwy—another boyhood holiday destination, Butlins in Pwllheli in north Wales, which is perhaps not quite so familiar to most members of the Cabinet. Lloyd George and Asquith laid the foundations of the welfare state, including the old age pension. I am therefore delighted that one of the key announcements in today’s Queen’s Speech is a further radical reform of the state pension that will correct an injustice that has been within the system for many decades for those who stay at home to look after their children. I am also delighted that the single-tier state pension is to be taken through Parliament by my Greater Bristol parliamentary colleague, the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb).

Lloyd George headed a Liberal-Conservative coalition that broke up 81 years ago. I understand that our current coalition colleagues recently celebrated the anniversary of their 1922 committee, but I am sure that rumours of a new 2015 committee are unfounded. I have heard the Prime Minister say that he has a better relationship with the 1922 committee than some of his predecessors. The Prime Minister and I were born within 48 hours of each other. For the avoidance of doubt, he is the older of the two, but I can see from this vantage point that genetics have been kinder to him than they have to me, particularly in the tonsorial department, both in colour and cover. While our family and school circumstances were quite different, we must have had similar cultural reference points and experiences during the 1970s and ’80s. I believe that he was a fan of The Smiths—though I understand that the feeling is not entirely mutual—while I preferred Duran Duran and ABBA, with my favourite song being “Dancing Queen”, which will not come as much of a surprise to many of my colleagues.

That leads me, almost neatly, into one of the great social reforms of this Parliament, and that is of course gay marriage. The right of same-sex couples to demonstrate their love and commitment to each other before their family and friends will be a lasting social reform of this Parliament. The legislation is brought forward by this coalition Government but supported by Members from all parties around the House. Bristol West has three Quaker meeting houses, a Unitarian chapel and a reform synagogue, so the country’s first same-sex marriage may well be in my own constituency—but, personally, I am still waiting for my own Prince Charming so that I may be able to take advantage of this new legal right.

Whatever the background of my constituents, my Lib Dem colleagues and I want to build for them a stronger economy and a fairer society where everyone is able to get on in life. We already know that by the end of this tax year the amount of pay that people can take home free of income tax will have been raised to £10,000. It was announced today in the Queen’s Speech that there will be a national insurance contributions Bill giving employers a £2,000 national insurance credit, enabling them to take on take on new employees. That means that a business could take on four adults on the national minimum wage and pay no national insurance. Moreover, 450,000 small businesses will have their national insurance bills eliminated completely. We have cut taxes for people in work and we are also cutting national insurance and reforming child care to enable people to enter or stay in employment.

In Bristol, the new enterprise zone around Bristol Temple Meads station will become a hub for media businesses. Bristol already has a worldwide reputation for film making, with Aardman Animations perhaps the most famous, especially for its cartoon characters, Wallace and Gromit. This summer, Bristol will be adorned with 80 statues of its most famous animated dog, and they will be sold at a “Gromit Unleashed” auction in order to raise money for the Bristol children’s hospital. Before that auction takes place, I would like to invite the Leader of the Opposition to come to Bristol to pose next to a statue of Gromit—I am sure the cartoonists would be delighted.

I came into politics to tackle the social inequality—particularly in education and health—that I found in the village where I grew up and in the city where I have lived all my adult life. Bristol has some schools where almost everyone achieves high grades and proceeds to university, but there are also some schools in the city where expectations historically have been the opposite. I am delighted that the Lib Dem policy of the pupil premium, brought into life by this coalition Government, is already giving extra resources for each child on free school meals and will make a huge difference to their life chances.

Health inequalities are also stark in Bristol. The biggest cause of early death is, of course, smoking. If I am allowed on this occasion to express one disappointment with the Queen’s Speech, it is with the lack of new measures to reduce the number of children taking up smoking. The regulation of lobbyists was also absent from the Queen’s Speech. I am sure that some will conclude that tobacco lobbyists will celebrate that as a double victory.

Many of us will be pondering the lessons and meanings of last week’s local election results. Perhaps, as Disraeli said,

“England does not love coalitions.”—[Official Report, 16 December 1852; Vol. 123, c. 1,666.]

I do not think so. All three main parties should be concerned about why people are turning to what might be thought of as marginal parties. Robert Kennedy, when trying to understand the appeal of Governor Wallace of Alabama, said:

“About one-fifth of the people are against everything all of the time.”

We need to think about how to counter this new, curious alliance of Nigels, who both advocate withdrawal from Europe and deny the human contribution to climate change.

On the European Union, Europhiles, such as me and many of my colleagues, and Euro-pragmatists in the Government need to make the case for Britain’s participation in Europe, and we need to do so with some urgency. On the EU, immigration and climate change, I believe that leadership, not followership, is required.

Finally, my most illustrious predecessor as MP for the historic city of Bristol was Edmund Burke. He had much to say on that matter and wrote to his constituents:

“it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.”

He concluded his address to the electors of Bristol:

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

That is all very well, but I am afraid that in 1780 the electors of Bristol showed Mr Burke the door. In 2013 we have to listen as well as lead. I am not sure what Edmund Burke would have made of 38 Degrees.

I would like to thank all of my constituents in Bristol West for the hundreds of letters and e-mails they send me every month, and I am sure there will be plenty on this Queen’s Speech. It is with them uppermost in my mind and on behalf of my 92,000 electors in Bristol West that I say that it has been a pleasure and a privilege to second this Humble Address to Her Majesty, thanking her for her Gracious Speech today.

The party even squabbled about its new name, with the membership vote for the short form of Democrats being overturned in favour of Liberal Democrats.  As a former member of the SDP I preferred Democrats at the time but quickly realised I was wrong.  “Lib Dems” has now become common political currency and it was important to make it clear we were the successors of Gladstone and Lloyd George.

The name confusion and the short lived competition of David Owen’s “continuing SDP” gave the new party such an awful set of election results in 1989 that it looked as though it might collapse before or be wiped out at the next general election.  As Paddy Ashdown often jokes, his new party was an “*” in opinion polls, with negligible support.  In Bristol West we came fourth in all bar one ward and I can remember attending a Clifton branch meeting where we discussed whether anyone could actually face going canvassing…I had to go out on my own.

But the 1990 local election results were better and in October David Bellotti won the Eastbourne by election, becoming the first MP elected as a Liberal Democrat.  Presumably someone told Mrs Thatcher that her “dead parrot” was not only alive but squawking loudly. Within weeks she had resigned.

Since Eastbourne the Liberal Democrats have elected another 105 MPs, in 84 constituencies.  In the 2010 general election the party got its highest ever absolute number of votes and vote share but only 57 MPs.  First past the post is part to blame but perhaps a better incumbency programme over the preceding twenty years would have given the party about 90 seats, given that several new ones were won at that election.

Aside from the psephology, the demographics are quite depressing for a liberal party. Only one of the 106 MPs has been from an ethnic minority.  Only seventeen have been women.  We do slightly better on sexuality.  I was the party’s first openly gay MP.  Stephen Gilbert joined me in 2010. But we are the only two to have been open with our constituents before our first election. Four others have been outed as gay or bi-sexual.  I’ve not done the precise arithmetic on social background but there is undoubtedly a strong tinge of middle class, privately educated and Oxbridge about many of my current and former Parliamentary colleagues.

Last Thursdays local elections were tough for the party.  But we’re in much better shape than  our first electoral outing in 1989.  There’s two years to go before the next general election.  The 2015 general election will be on the same boundaries as 2010, giving defending MPs a significant incumbency advantage.  But if we are to do better than previous elections in holding on to what we’ve got, as well as making gains, then the party needs to be more ruthless in its marshalling of support for sitting MPs or held constituencies.  We also must make sure that the 2015 Parliamentary party looks more like 21^st century Britain.  Many more women, more non white and more of whatever gender, race, sexuality or disability who aren’t too posh to know the price of milk.

The origins of this post are my doodles and calculations that I tweeted on Easter Sunday.  I promised to write up the names and seats of the 106 MPs….sorry it’s taken so long but I’ve been busy electioneering!  This could easily lead to future articles on MP political origins (SDP, Lib, Lib Dem and others), length of service, reasons for defeat, where are they now, etc etc!

Here’s the full One Hundred and Six, in date order:

1990

David Bellotti – Eastbourne by election. Defeated GE 1992.

1991

Mike Carr – Ribble Valley by election. Defeated GE 1992.

Nicol Stephen – Kincardine and Deeside by election. Defeated GE 1992.

1992 General Election

Russell Johnson – Inverness.  First elected 1964. Retired GE 1997 and constituency lost.

David Steel – Tweedale, Ettrick & Lauderdale. First elected 1965. Retired GE 1997.

Robert MacLennan – Caithness and Sutherland. First elected 1966. Retired GE 1997.

Alan Beith – Berwick Upon Tweed. First elected 1973.

David Alton – Liverpool Mossley Hill.  First elected 1979. Retired GE 1997 & constituency abolished.

Simon Hughes – Southwark and Bermondsey.  First elected 1983.

Paddy Ashdown – Yeovil.  First elected 1983. Retired GE 2001

Alex Carlile – Montgomery. First elected 1983.  Retired  GE 1997.

Charles Kennedy – Ross, Cromarty and Skye. First elected1983

Archie Kirkwood – Roxburgh and Berwickshire.  First elected 1983.  Retired GE 2005.

Malcolm Bruce – Gordon (1983 – )

Jim Wallace – Orkney & Shetland (1983 – retired 2001)

Matthew Taylor – Truro & St Austell (1987 by election  – retired GE 2010)

Menzies Campbell – Fife North East (1987 – )

Ray Michie – Argyll & Bute (1987 – retired 2001)

Don Foster – Bath

Nick Harvey – North Devon

Nigel Jones – Cheltenham. Retired GE 2005

Liz Lynne – Rochdale.  Defeated GE 1997

Paul Tyler – North Cornwall.  Retired 2005 (Also MP for Bodmin Feb – Oct 1974)

1993

David Rendel – Newbury by election. Defeated 2005

Diana Maddock – Christchurch by election. Defeated 1997

1994

David Chidgey – Eastleigh by election.  Retired 2005

 1995

Chris Davies – Littleborough & Saddleworth by election.  Defeated GE 1997

 General Election 1997:

Mike Hancock – Portsmouth South (previously SDP 1984 – 1987)

Richard Livsey – Brecon and Radnor (previously Lib 985 – 1992) Retired 2001.

Ronnie Fearn – Southport (previously Lib 1987 – 1992) Retired 2001.

Andrew George  - St Ives

Colin Breed – Cornwall South East. Retired GE 2010 and constituency lost.

John Burnett – Devon West & Torridge. Retired  2005 and constituency lost.

Adrian Sanders – Torbay

Jackie Ballard – Taunton. Defeated  GE 2001.

David Heath – Somerton & Frome

Brian Cotter – Weston Super Mare. Defeated GE  2005.

Steve Webb – Northavon

Dr Peter Brand – Isle of Wight. Defeated GE 2001.

Mark Oaten –  Winchester. Retired GE 2010 and constituency lost.

Norman Baker – Lewes.

Vince Cable – Twickenham

Dr Jenny Tonge – Richmond Park. Retired GE 2005

Edward Davey – Kingston & Surbiton

Tom Brake – Carshalton & Wallington

Paul Burstow – Sutton & Cheam

Bob Russell – Colchester

Dr Evan Harris – Oxford West & Abingdon. Defeated GE 2010

Paul Keetch  – Hereford. Retired GE 2010 and constituency lost.

Andrew Stunell –  Hazel Grove

Phil Willis –  Harrogate & Knaresborough. Retired GE 2010 and constituency lost

Richard Allen  - Sheffield Hallam. Retired GE 2005

Donald Gorrie – Edinburgh West. Retired GE 2001

Sir Robert Smith – West Aberdeenshire

Lembit Opik  – Montgomery. Defeated GE 2010

Michael Moore – Tweedale, Ettrick & Lauderdale (Roxburgh and Berwickshire since 2005)

2000

Sandra Gidley – Romsey by election.  Defeated GE 2010

2001 General Election

Richard Younger-Ross – Teignbridge.  Defeated (at Newton Abbot) GE 2010

Annette Brooke – Mid Dorset and North Poole

Sue Doughty – Guildford. Defeated GE 2005

Norman Lamb – North Norfolk

Matthew Green – Ludlow. Defeated GE  2005

Patsy Calton – Cheadle. Died 2005

Paul Holmes – Chesterfield. Defeated GE 2010

David Laws – Yeovil

Dr John Pugh –  Southport

Roger Williams – Brecon & Radnor

Alistair Carmichael – Orkney & Shetland

John Thurso – Caithness & Sutherland

Alan Reid – Argyll & Bute

John Barrett – Edinburgh West. Retired GE 2010

2003

Sarah Teather – Brent East by election. Seat abolished GE 2010 and ST elected at Brent Central

2004

Parmjit Singh Gill – Leicester South (2004 – 2005)

2005 General Election

Lorely Burt – Solihull

Tim Farron –  Westmoreland & Lonsdale

Julia Goldsworthy – Falmouth & Camborne. Defeated (at Camborne and Redruth) GE 2010

Jeremy Browne – Taunton

Stephen Williams – Bristol West

Lynne Featherstone – Hornsey & Wood Green

John Hemming – Birmingham Yardley

David Howarth – Cambridge.  Retired GE 2010

Greg Mulholland – Leeds North West

John Leech – Manchester Withington

Paul Rowen – Rochdale. Defeated GE 2010

Jenny Willott – Cardiff Central

Jo Swinson – East Dumbartonshire

Danny Alexander – Inverness, Badenoch & Strathspey

Mark Williams – Ceredigion

Dan Rogerson – Cornwall North

Martin Horwood – Cheltenham

Chris Huhne – Eastleigh.  Resigned 2013

Susan Kramer – Richmond Park. Defeated GE 2010

Nick Clegg – Sheffield Hallam.

2005

Mark Hunter – Cheadle by election.

2006

Willie Rennie – Dunfermline & West Fife by election.  Defeated GE  2010

2010 General Election

Stephen Gilbert – St Austell & Newquay

Duncan Hames – Chippenham

Tessa Munt – Wells

Stephen Lloyd – Eastbourne

Simon Wright Norwich South

David Ward Bradford East

Gordon Birtwhistle – Burnley

Ian Swales – Redcar

Julian Huppert – Cambridge

Mike Crockart  – Edinburgh West

2013

Mike Thornton – Eastleigh by election

Defectors (not ever elected as Liberal Democrats have been Emma Nicholson (Con, Devon West 1995, retired 1997), Peter Thurnham (Con, Bolton North East 1996, retired 1997), Paul Marsden (Lab, Shrewsbury & Atcham 2001, re-joined Lab pre GE 2005) and Brian Sedgemore (Lab, Hackney South and Shoreditch 2005 and retired GE 2005).

I managed to achieve several road closures and one way streets, transforming Kingsdown in particular.  But a residents parking scheme remained elusive.  Finally, at the end of 2010 a scheme was introduced and it is very popular.  Ironically, it came in just as I moved from Kingsdown to a road in St Andrews that has its own appalling traffic problems.

So I’m pleased that Mayor Ferguson has decided to roll out resident parking zones across most of the Bristol West constituency.  But my constituency is not some homogenous mass of streets, suitable for a one size fits all scheme.  Some areas such as St Pauls and the Dings still suffer from commuter parking.  Other areas such as Clifton or the streets adjacent to Gloucester Road are a complex ecosystem of local residents and independent businesses dependent on short term parking. Some areas have a problem during the day, some in the evening.

The Mayor will need to take on board the concerns of residents about zone boundaries, times of operation and permit prices.  He will also have to accept that some areas don’t have a problem that needs to be solved, even  allowing for any displacement by a nearby parking scheme. It is hard for me to see the need for a scheme in many parts of Bishopston or St Werburghs.

The announcement of the residents parking scheme is the first major policy decision by the new Mayor that will directly affects tens of thousands of people.  It is also the first test of how the Mayor works in harmony with local ward councillors, or for that matter a constituency MP.  It’s a real opportunity for the Mayor to take a strategic decision but for the on the ground implementation to be influenced by local councillors applying their street by street knowledge to the task.  If the Mayor decides to press ahead with a blanket imposition of the scheme then he will have operated within the limits of his powers but crossed the boundary of common sense.

While canvassing for the local elections in recent weeks I have stressed the need for local community champions, working with but also acting as a check on the power of our new Mayor. Residents parking will show whether the new model of local government can work.

NOTE – this article was written for the Bristol Post, published on 2 May 2013

Budget 2013 will be remembered for the announcement that the Coalition Government has delivered on the Liberal Democrat promise of £10,000 tax free pay. In the last general election I campaigned in Bristol West for a  huge rise in the income tax personal allowance, from roughly £6,500 to £10,000. We made that policy the main demand in our Coalition negotiations.  In the agreement we eventually made with the Conservatives, it was to be the first fiscal priority of the Coalition Government.

So now, thanks to the Liberal Democrats, nearly 3 milion people will have been lifted out of income tax by April 2014.  The remaining 24 million income tax payers will have their tax bill slashed by £700.  This is a huge achievement, at a time of budgetary difficulty for the country.

As the Liberal Democrats Chair of our Economic Affairs Committee I speak for the party on all matters to do with tax and the economy.  So I get to respond in the Commons chamber to all Budgets and other statements made by the Chancellor.  Here is my speech from this afternoon, which is just over 10 minutes long, with a few interventions from other MPs.

3 pm

While the Bill is receiving this detailed scrutiny MPs have the opportunity to move amendments and new clauses. At the end of this afternoons sitting I introduced two new clauses, enabling the extension of existing civil partnership law to opposite sex couples. This has initiated a debate that will continue when the Bill returns to the full House of Commons in late March, when a vote will be taken. Here’s what I said, as extracted from the Hansard record. My opening remark about cricket was made as we had sat through several tedious long winded speeches from Tory MP David Burrowes, one of the lead opponents of marriage equality, who’s speeches are littered with cricket metaphors…

The Chair:

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—

‘(1) Part 1 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1, subsection (1), leave out “of the same sex”.’.

New clause 2—Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—

‘(1) Part 2 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3, subsection (1), after “if—”, leave out—

“(a) they are not of the same sex”.’.

>Stephen Williams

I promise the Committee that there will be no cricket metaphors, analogies or references in my speech. On one of the occasions I appeared in the Daily Mail sketch, Mr Letts said, “Mr Williams is just the sort of man who you know will be absolutely no good at cricket.” I think it was meant as an insult, but he was actually very accurate, as my games teacher from school could no doubt confirm.

The Bill is about extending the institution of marriage to same-sex couples and, from that perspective, about equalities and civil rights. New clauses 1 and 2 would complete the circle of equality by extending the rather more recent institution of civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. I shall advance three reasons why I hope the Committee will consider that this is a good proposal. More importantly, by the time that we get to Report, I hope that the Government will either embrace the new clauses or table provisions of their own to put the proposal into effect.

The first reason is that we should have parity of esteem between civil partnerships and civil marriage—a parallel legal and societal recognition of loving, sexual and exclusive relationships between two consenting adults. Civil partnerships will remain after the Bill is enacted. The Government must have considered whether to abolish them, perhaps at some point in the future, but they have decided not to do so. They will therefore remain for the couples who have them as a legal recognition of their relationships. Same-sex couples will still be able to enter into new civil partnerships under the Bill. Some of the existing holders of civil partnerships may decide to convert them into a civil marriage, or even into a religious marriage, if their denomination or faith opts into the provisions of the Bill.

I describe that process deliberately as a conversion. I do not see converting from a civil partnership to a civil marriage or even a religious marriage as trading up. I do not think that marriage is necessarily the gold standard. It would be regrettable if, after the Bill’s enactment, people who have civil partnerships and do not wish for whatever reason to convert them into civil or religious marriages feel that they are somehow members of a residual class of relationship that declines in importance as more people take up civil and religious marriages. Parliament should not only continue with civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but extend the opportunity to enter into a civil partnership to opposite-sex couples.

The second reason is that there may be some demand from opposite-sex couples to take up a civil partnership, as opposed to the civil or religious marriages that are already available to them. Modern Britain has many different households and we are a very diverse society. We have many people who live alone and are in no particular relationship. We have single-parent families. We also have families with children who have two fathers or two mothers, as well as the more traditional family units of which I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would approve. We therefore need modern laws that recognise the sort of relationships that people have in modern Britain.

The latest Office for National Statistics report on household structures in the UK that is relevant to this debate is from 1 November 2012. It is entitled “Cohabitation in the UK” and shows that there are 2,893,000 opposite-sex couples in the UK who are not married. That figure is up from 1,459,000 in 1996, when the figure was previously reported, so between 1996 to 2012, the number of opposite-sex cohabiting couples doubled. Almost 6 million people are in relationships and living under the same roof, but not married, and that is the fastest growing type of family unit in the UK. Among different age groups, it is fastest growing among those aged over 65, who are clearly not entering into such relationships to have children.

While those 6 million people are currently cohabiting, as society sees it, but unmarried, as far as the law sees it, they are none the less in committed relationships. They share a home and there will quite possibly be children in the household. We can speculate about why people would choose to do that. It could be inertia, because they might have decided that their existing relationship works fine for them and see no reason to change it. It might even be cost, and I am sure that the Chancellor will have received representations about that prior to the Budget, perhaps even from several hon. Members in the room, who might wish to intervene to say that tax is the reason why people do not enter into a marriage. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate will tell us.

>
Mr Burrowes:

I am hoping that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me. I understand that Stonewall attended the Lib Dem conference in 2010 and pointed out that the extension that he seeks would cost £5 billion over 10 years. I am not sure where that figure came from, but is he aware of it? Has he been able to assess the likely cost of his proposal?

>Stephen Williams:

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I was not aware of the figure. No doubt the Minister will give us reasons why the Government have chosen not to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples under the Bill. Cost may well be one reason, but perhaps it is not the most compelling one.

Six million people are currently cohabiting in a relationship, perhaps living with children. While that might be due to inertia or cost, I suspect, in many cases, that it is simply a conscious decision that people have made, perhaps because they have an objection to the historical institution of marriage, as it has been defined over time. After the Bill becomes an Act, the perception of marriage might change. However, it has been put to me that many people see the current institution of marriage as a means of social control to which the equal rights of women have been a relatively recent addition.

People in the room, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda, are much more qualified than me to talk about the marriage ceremony. I believe that the phrase “love, honour and obey” has disappeared from the marriage service or is not usually an option any more, but it none the less it lives on in folklore and memory.

I am sure that all of us on the Committee can think of people, perhaps friends or members of our families—certainly several members of Bristol council—in long-term relationships in opposite-sex couples, perhaps living with children, who have chosen not to marry. If we passed the new clauses, those couples could have the option of entering into a civil partnership to give recognition to their commitment and, by that legal underpinning, perhaps also strengthen it, especially if there are children.

4.45 pm

The ONS report to which I referred says that, in 2012, 39% of unmarried couples had at least one child in their household compared with 38% of married couples. The latest statistics from the registrar of births, marriages and deaths show that, in 2010, 53% of birth registrations were to parents who were married. Some 31% of registrations were to unmarried parents who live together, while the remaining 16% were to parents living separately or when the father was not identified for whatever reason.

It is therefore clear that marriage is not necessarily about procreation, and a number of people who enter into marriages do not procreate. Equally, a large number of family units in the United Kingdom certainly do procreate but, for whatever reason, choose not to enter into the existing institution of marriage that is legally available to them. Roughly four out of 10 unmarried couples choose to have children and roughly a third of children are born to unmarried parents living together. Extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples would give legal recognition to such family units.

The third reason behind the proposal is that the legal rights of unmarried couples, or couples who are not in a civil partnership, are not equal to those of couples who are married or in civil partnerships. There is no such thing—certainly in the law of England and Wales—as a common-law husband, wife or partner. While I was reading up on this, I discovered that even a couple who are engaged to be married—as long as there is an indication of clear intention, perhaps by buying a ring—have greater legal protection than a cohabiting couple. That is provided for under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, with which I am sure that at least one of the Ministers in the room is very familiar—or is about to be, if they are not.

At present, unmarried opposite-sex couples can have separation deeds or can enter into cohabitation contracts. These existing societal arrangements seem to offer very good work for solicitors. We have all heard of pre-nuptials for people who are considering entering into marriage—I understand that some family lawyers refer to these agreements as no-nuptials—in order to protect existing property rights. An obvious example would be where a man—it probably would be a man in many cases—owns a house and his girlfriend moves in. They may live together for many years, but if that relationship breaks up at some point in the future, the girlfriend would have absolutely no rights if there had been no intention to marry and they had not been engaged. Even if there were children present, they would still need to have recourse to the courts under the Children Act 1989 to try to establish rights to what everyone else would see as the family home. Extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, particularly if children were present, would provide for protection under the law much more easily.

This Bill is about equality and civil rights, but it would be perverse to pass it unamended and thereby create a new excluded minority—a large, 6 million-strong minority—who cannot enter into a civil partnership if they wish to do so. During our evidence sessions, many of us asked the witnesses whether they supported, or saw any objection to, civil partnerships being extended to opposite-sex couples. I do not recall a single witness who replied negatively. Some were neutral, but nobody put forward an opinion of why we should not do this. Indeed, Baroness Kennedy and Lord Pannick said the Bill would be much better if this extension were included.

The new clauses represent no harm to society, but could be an opportunity to create much happiness in the country. It is very rare that parliamentarians are able to vote on things that do not represent any harm but have the potential to create much happiness, so I hope that we will embrace that opportunity at some point.

In the meantime here is the Commons record of my short speech from last Tuesday.  We had just 4 minutes each!

Stephen Williams (Lib Dem, Bristol West):  Last Saturday I went to the opening of an exhibition at M Shed, a museum in Bristol, entitled OutStories. It tells the stories of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people in Bristol over the last half century, and it begins with the story of Oliver, a 55-year-old partner in a firm of solicitors, who in 1963 was found guilty of gross indecency and sentenced to three months in prison or a fine of £40. It reveals all the trials and tribulations of that half-century, the ups and downs, and the way in which the experiences of gay people in Bristol have changed during that period.

Like all exhibitions, OutStories is not interested only in the abstract; it makes one think about one’s own place in history. For me that was rather easy, because I am mentioned in the exhibition as the first openly gay Member of Parliament to serve my city, and indeed the first on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I was born in 1966, when homosexuality was still without the law and a criminal offence. During my life we have seen much progress, but it has come in fits and starts and has not always been easy. Throughout my teenage years and my years at university, being openly gay was virtually impossible, because occasionally it could be a terrifying identity for an individual to have. I am thinking of the abuse that I received myself, and the far worse that I saw meted out to other people at school and university. What I say to colleagues on both sides of the House who oppose what we are trying to achieve today is please have some empathy with what your fellow citizens have been through. Equality is not something that can be delivered partially—equality is absolute.

Since 1994, when the age of consent was lowered to 18, we have had rapid change, and equal marriage is the last remaining significant building block in order for us to have genuine parity of esteem between same-sex couples and opposite-sex relationships.

Dame Angela Watkinson: does my hon. Friend agree with the gay people who have approached me, who feel that the vows of commitment they are allowed to exchange in the civil partnership ceremony are not regarded with the same value as those in a marriage, and that is why they want this?

Stephen Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The introduction of civil partnerships was an important step and I would like them to be retained. I have plenty of opposite-sex friends who are not in a full marriage and would welcome civil partnerships being extended to opposite-sex couples. I hope that an amendment will be introduced in Committee or on Report to bring that about.

Today, we are legislating to allow same-sex couples to show their love and commitment before their friends and family, and to have it recognised by the state as a marriage and, possibly, celebrated within their religious faith. This Bill is permissive: it allows faiths to opt in to having same-sex weddings. I welcome the fact that the three Quaker meeting houses in my constituency, the Bristol progressive liberal synagogue in my constituency and our Unitarian chapel may be among the first in the country to take advantage of this change, and I hope they will be joined by others.

I wish that this debate was mainly about civil rights, but of course it has been characterised by discussion of the differences between religion and the state. Marriage is not the sole property of any faith or denomination; it has always been regulated by civic society, whether during the Reformation, with the various Acts of Uniformity concerning the liturgy and the Book of Common Prayer, or in respect of the rights of women in the 19th century. Indeed, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, which allowed women to divorce their husbands, was rather more radical at the time it was debated than what we are contemplating today. It was opposed by Gladstone, which shows that the wrestling with consciences that some leading figures in my party are doing today is nothing new.

Finally, I wish to touch on the politics of what we are doing. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), whose position as a Home Office Minister did so much to bring this legislation to light. I also wish to thank hon. Members from all parties who are doing their bit today to do the right thing. Much of what we do in this Chamber ends up being the ephemera of history, but what we are doing today will be much more profound and will be remembered for a long time. It will bring genuine change in our country. What we do will be looked upon kindly by history.”

You can read the other speeches here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130205/debtext/130205-0001.htm#13020551000002 There are many worth a read!

The last Labour government didn’t just drift into an unfair tax system. Nor was it a result of the financial crash during their last two years in office. It was by design. Blair and Brown promised to hold down taxes for the rich. They kept the top rate of income tax at 40%, the rate set by Nigel Lawson in 1988. But they slashed capital gains tax from 40% to 18%. I often taunt Labour MPs with Mandelson’s assertion that New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” and usually stop there. To be fair, he went on to say “as long as they pay their taxes.” Taxes, that is, which were held down by his government and a tax system that was somewhat leaky. For thirteen years Labour refused to introduce a general anti-avoidance rule.

So what have the Liberal Democrats done in government? Well we made sure that our number one manifesto commitment, a £10,000 annual income tax allowance, was the fiscal priority in the Coalition Agreement. Each Budget has seen us get ever closer to the goal of giving everyone £10,000 of tax free pay. The next tax year starts in April, when the allowance will be £9,440 which means that someone will pay £600 less tax than when the Coalition came to office. A dual income household will receive a £1,200 tax cut, thanks to the Liberal Democrats.

I’m hopeful that we will hit the £10,000 allowance in April 2014. As chair of the Lib Dems’ Parliamentary Economic Affairs Committee, it’s top of the list of my Budget submissions to the Treasury.

But that’s not all. As well as giving a big tax break to low and middle earners we’ve made sure that the rich make their fair contribution to reducing the budget deficit. For the first three years of the Coalition we will have kept the 50% top rate of income tax, put in place by Alistair Darling a month before the 2010 general election. From April we will have put in place more effective taxes on the wealthy, bringing in more money. The tax rate will be 45%,broadly in line with most other major economies.

As well as a top rate higher than the one set by Labour for all bar 36 days of their time in office, we will have slashed the tax relief high earners get for contributions to their own pension funds. Under Labour a rich banker could put £250,000 into their fund and get tax relief. The new limit will be just £40,000. We’ve also introduced a new higher rate of stamp duty of 7% on house purchase over £2million. And we’ve slapped a big surcharge on houses held in trusts and companies, a form of tax avoidance that grew unchecked under Labour.
To tackle tax avoidance by both companies and rich individuals we’re putting in place a general anti-abuse rule. I’ve been raising the issue of international corporate tax avoidance for the last couple of years, calling for action by the EU and the OECD. The Coalition is now making combatting tax avoidance a major aim during our presidency this year of the G8. Corporate tax avoidance also harms developing countries. I’ve been working with Action Aid and Christian Aid to highlight these issues in Parliament.

Oh, and finally, we’ve increased capital gains tax to 28% so a city trader no longer pays less tax than the cleaner.

At just over half way through the Coalition these are significant achievements. Liberal Democrats in government have done much to achieve that fairer more balanced tax system that we all campaigned for in 2010. We’ve put more money in the pockets of ordinary families and taken more off the wealthiest. A record to be proud of and something we should shout about from the rooftops.

So the time is right for me to have my second attempt as an MP to lower the voting age. On Thursday 24th January I will be opening a debate in the House of Commons on a votable resolution to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in all UK elections and referenda. The last time I tried was over seven years ago in November 2005. On that occasion my Bill was defeated by just eight votes. This time I am optimistic that the majority of MPs now favour change.

So why do I believe in trusting people in their late mid teens with the vote? Has the case for change got better in the last seven years?

First, I have long believed that 16 year olds are mature enough to vote, if they want to. Years of experience of talking and listening to sixth form and college students has convinced me that enough of them have the knowledge about their communities and the wider world to make judgements on how they want the future to look. The curriculum itself and extra curricula activities have made the current generation of late teens the best informed and engaged in our history. Traditional lessons such as history or RE are now taught in a way that enables students to understand their place in society and to weigh up evidence and make judgements. More recent subjects such as PSHE and citizenship give young people more preparation for the world outside the classroom.

Participation in the UK Youth Parliament has grown and most schools now have their own councils with elected representatives. Frankly, I have met many older voters in their fifties and sixties who are remarkably ignorant about the world around them. We don’t suggest taking the vote off people who have no qualifications and stubbornly held but I’ll informed opinions. So we should not continue to withhold the vote from the best informed generation of young people.

Today’s young people also have easy access to a wide variety of viewpoints. I’ve been re-reading the debates in the Commons from 1968, when the process began of reducing the voting age from twenty one to eighteen. MPs then were worried about eighteen year olds being influenced by their parents or older siblings. Much the same arguments about immature minds being easy to influence were advanced a hundred years ago against giving votes to women or to poor working men. In 2013 young people don’t just have the benefit of a good education. They also live in the internet age, with news and information at their fingertips. Family and peer group influences will always play a part in how everyone votes but all of us now have access to countervailing views.

Many people have argued that the best reason for giving sixteen and seventeen year olds the vote is the long list of other rights and responsibilities they already enjoy. No taxation without representation has been around for a long time. It is indeed still true that 16 year olds can leave full time education, start work and pay taxes. The waters are becoming a little muddied here as the education participation age rises to 17 this year and to 18 in 2015. But this includes work based learning such as apprenticeships. Ironically (for this Lib Dem MP) the Coalition Government has already lifted young people on the minimum wage out of the income tax net. But they still pay NIC and spend their wages on VATable products. So the Jeffersonian vintage maxim still holds.

But once you’ve worked your way through the rest of the list – joining the army, driving a car, joining a union and full rights over medical treatment among them, I believe that the most compelling right is the age of consent for sex. What can be more fundamental than the potential to bring another human being into the world?

Personally, I do not believe that every “adult” right and responsibility should come at sixteen. I differ from several campaigners on that one. There are good health reasons for controlling access to alcohol and tobacco. I’m not persuaded of the case for allowing candidacy at 16. We have only recently lowered that right to 18 and I want to see how that works out.

Giving more young people the right to vote would also go some way to rebalancing the demographics of the franchise. I wrote recently about how politicians fear alienating the “grey vote”, which is becoming more significant as our society ages. Older people are also more likely to turn out, giving them even greater electoral firepower. Our democracy is in danger of becoming a gerontocracy as the will of the old trumps the needs of the young.

If Parliament had accepted my proposals in 2005 the UK would have set an example to the world. That’s no longer the case. One EU member state, Austria, has allowed sixteen year olds to vote since 2007. Most German states, Lander and cities allow 16 year olds to vote. The Burgermesiter of Hannover, Bristol’s twin city, has to appeal to 16 year olds as well as 46 year olds. Brazil, one of the world’s largest democracies, has long allowed sixteen year olds to vote. Neighbouring Argentina followed their example just two months ago.

But it’s here in the British Isles that the most relevant change has taken place. In 2006 the Isle of Man lowered the voting age. Jersey and Guernsey followed in 2007. The Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly want to give their sixteen year olds the vote but need Westmister approval. Most compelling of all is the recent agreement by the UK government to allow the Scottish Parliament the right to set the franchise for the referendum on Scotland’s future with the UK, in 2014.

So British citizens are already voting for their elected representatives in the Crown dependencies. Scots teens north of the border could hold the key to the future of the United Kingdom. The genie is now out of the bottle. It is time to trust all British sixteen year olds with the franchise. The time has come for votes at 16 and I hope enough of my fellow MPs will join me on Thursday to bring about this historic change.