Simon Hughes: Local elections will be the most difficult ever for the Liberal Democrats

Andrew Sparrow speaks to the Liberal Democrat deputy leader about health, education, local elections, AV, Nick Clegg, Labour and internal party reform

Nick Clegg complained in an interview this week about being treated like a punchbag. Simon Hughes would have been forgiven for feeling the same way if he had read all 255 questions submitted on the blog I posted earlier this week inviting suggestions for questions ahead of our interview. But he seemed surprisingly upbeat for the deputy leader of a party that has seen its polling figures shrink by more than 50% since the general election. Here are the highlights:

? Hughes said the local elections would be "the most difficult" the party had ever faced in England. But he claimed that, if people voted on local issues, Lib Dems could benefit from the way their councils have protected services. "It absolutely isn't looking like a dire and dreadful prospect, and because we've done a good job in many places, we may do much better than some people forecast," he said.

? He said that he wanted university scholarships to be offered on a school-by-school basis. As the government's adviser on access to higher education, Hughes is making recommendations to ministers about how the �150m national scholarship programme should operate. He said he would like university scholarship programmes to "reach every school", so that scholarships gave pupils an incentive to apply. "At the moment, almost nobody applies to any university because of the bursaries they offer," he said. "What happens is that they apply to university and then they discover there's a bursary." He also said he wanted pupils to have a "careers account", so that they were constantly reminded about the university opportunities available.

? He said that if the alternative vote was defeated, it would kill the prospect of electoral reform "for a decade, or longer". He urged people not to use the vote as an opportunity to punish the Lib Dems. That would not be "grown-up politics", he said. "I make a plea: don't vote on the referendum because of your views about the behaviour of my party or any other party. This is beyond party. It is cross party. And the opportunity may not come [again], certainly for a decade, or longer."

? He said the Liberal Democrats had changed their internal party rules to stop Lib Dem ministers agreeing to measures contrary to party policy. The new system would have stopped Andrew Lansley publishing the health bill in the form that he did, Hughes said. Lansley would now have to make "substantive" changes to the bill, he went on. "There has to be the unscrambling and the remaking [of the bill] because the health bill clearly doesn't conform to either the coalition agreement, or party policy," Hughes said.

? He dismissed speculation that Nick Clegg might stand down as leader before the 2015 election.

? He said it was "absolutely possible" to imagine the Lib Dems going into a general election campaign again promising to get rid of tuition fees. Technically, the Lib Dems were still committed to getting rid of tuition fees, he said. "It has been reaffirmed since the election. That's our party's policy." He acknowledged that it might not be realistic to have this as policy in 2015. But that was a debate that the party still had to have, he said.

Hughes was running late - no surprise there, colleagues will think - and we ended up conducting the interview in the back of a taxi between his constituency office in Bermondsey and Camden, where he was taking part in an alternative vote rally. We covered the health, education, local elections, AV, Nick Clegg, Labour and internal party reform. But, having read all 255 questions, I had to start with the utter contempt that some people appear to feel for the Lib Dems in the light for their decision to go into coalition with the Tories and, in particular, their blatant pledge-breaking over tuition fees. Here's how it went.

Voters who feel betrayed

Q: When I asked people on a blog to suggest questions they would like to ask you, the replies showed just how angry some voters are with the Liberal Democrats. There was this [from BitterBunny at 12.18pm]: "Do you understand the level of betrayal felt by Liberal Democrat voters?" And this [from Nazo at 12.11pm]: "If politicians are allowed to promise (in writing) to do something if elected, then do the polar opposite when they are, what is the point of democracy in the first place?" And this [from gmtyre at 11.01am]: "How does he feel now that he is perceived by many who once admired him as a Tory stooge?" How are you going to get these people back?

A: First, obviously, it's the first time in the lifetime, probably, of all the people who are putting pressure on us that we've gone from opposition to government. By definition, that's always going to be more difficult. Government is always a place where you can't do as much as you hoped, and you can't be as critical and as populist as you have been in the past. Second, if you go into coalition, and it's an unexpected coalition and it's a coalition with the Tories, then you are bound to get anger from people who would have voted Labour if they had not voted for us, or who are naturally Labour anyway. But I'm clear that it was the only viable coalition option and - more importantly - the alternative would not have been a coalition with Labour. The alternative was a minority Tory government which would have very soon become a majority Tory government.

Q: Because there would have been an early election?

A: Because they probably would have done what minority governments in the past have done, and called an early election. And that could have ushered in, as it always has in the recent past, probably further periods of Tory government.

Tuition fees

Q: But your critics can understand the difference between going into coalition and not being able to do everything that you want, and specifically breaking a promise. What do you say to the person who wants to know what point there is of voting for politicians who sign a pledge saying they will do one thing, then do the opposite? Do you accept there's a fundamental problem there?

A: There is, I accept that. But, again, the whole of the last year has forced people to readjust their mindsets in UK politics, in a way that people have already done in Scotland and Wales because of being in coalition. At other places in the UK people have got used to the idea that you don't have a single party delivering its manifesto and not having any constraint. We had never confronted that since the war.

Q: People understand that. But what they have a fundamental objection to is a party going back on a promise.

A: The only clearly expressed key policy where we, in the end, went in a different direction from what we promised was the tuition fees issue. That's the only one. That clouded for most people the whole perception. I think we might have been wiser in anticipating that, which we didn't. We could have been wiser, and I regret that we didn't negotiate in the coalition agreement that we could have had a free vote in the House of Commons, which would have got everybody off that hook.

Q: But in the coalition agreement you had the option to abstain as a party, and you didn't even use that.

A: Well, I used it, and eight parliamentary colleagues used it.

Q: Do you think the party as a whole should have used that option?

A: I was one of those who argued that all of us should abstain, because the coalition deal very clearly said if Liberal Democrats can't agree with the recommendations of Lord Browne, we could abstain. It would have been a position that many of us would have agreed to go along with. In the end several colleagues had made their position public, and said they would vote against, so it wasn't possible. I tried that. It was my idea. But we didn't deliver. So, I accept that we made the pledge and we couldn't deliver.

Q: Do you accept that the party will now never again be able to go into an election promising to be able to get rid of tuition fees? Or could the party at some point in the future commit itself again to getting rid of tuition fees?

A: It's absolutely possible that we could. Party policy is still to get rid of tuition fees. It has been reaffirmed since the election. That's our party's policy.

Q: But if you have a party policy that is diametrically opposed to what the government is doing, that makes you look absurd.

A: No, it doesn't, because the party policy, for example, is to have no nuclear power stations, but we had to negotiate a coalition deal saying that nuclear power could go ahead without subsidy. The party is clear. It has not changed its policy. We would wish that three years of education at university was paid for by the taxpayer in general, rather than the graduates.

Q: But would it be realistic at the next election to put that to the voters knowing what will have happened by then?

A: That's a debate we have to have. We are four years out from the next election. Clearly, it will be more difficult, of course, to get to that position from where we will be in 2015 than from where we are now. I accept that. But it's a debate we haven't had, we will have, and the debate about the whole of the future funding of higher education will start with the white paper later this year.

Access to higher education

Q: You're now working on improving access to higher education. After I said that I was interviewing you, I received an email from an Oxford professor who has been dealing with admissions for 20 years who said this: "Admissions officers in Russell Group universities know that the problem with access is not bias in the admissions process - exam results broken down by education sector confirm that - but too few applications from able candidates at schools in the state sector." He wanted to know if you agree.

A: Having looked at this afresh over the last few months, three things clearly determine what happens in terms of who gets to universities. Firstly, the opportunities given from primary school and before. It's about making sure you don't have disadvantage in the years up to five. Secondly, there has been a cultural problem whereby Russell Group universities in particular have tended to draw from regular sources - schools that have a tradition of sending pupils - and certain schools never have the aspiration or the ambition to send people. [Thirdly] although there has been generally widened participation, the Russell Group has done far less well than others. The Russell Group is a part of the problem, and they must be part of the solution. I have spent some considerable time working with Martin Harris, director of the Office for Fair Access, to make sure there are much tougher access agreements and that if people don't have verifiable improvement year on year, they could be fined or [made to charge fees of �6,000 again].

One of the ideas I'm working on is a national scholarship scheme that would offer scholarships to every school, every sixth-form college and every FE college if people get adequate grades at university, so that from 15 onwards youngsters understand that there is the potential for them to go to university, either in their region or somewhere else, and they would get financial help to do it. [The government has already announced the broad outline of its �150m national scholarship scheme. Hughes is working on the details.]

Q: What would be the difference between that and the financial help that is already available?

A: It would be far more transparent and public because it would be a national scheme. At the moment, almost nobody applies to any university because of the bursaries they offer. What happens is that they apply to university and then they discover there's a bursary. It's not a motivating force. All the evidence is that if you are trying to get kids from the Old Kent Road to go to Oxbridge or anywhere else, then unless you have a significant financial incentive, that doesn't carry much weight. That's why the government is right to start thinking in terms of �3,000 a year as being the sort of figure that makes people think that's worth having. Actually, in my view, it should be money that is offered not for fees, because if we are trying to say you won't have to pay your fees unless you earn enough, then getting your fees paid for is illogical. It should be to help pay for accommodation and living costs.

I've talked to ministers about having something that reaches every school. There are models in the States that work, where the state universities offer scholarships to every high school in the state. You have to get the grades. But there isn't a single high school where you don't know that if you do well enough you can get a place at the state university.

Q: Because there's a leaflet when you're 16 ...

A: There's more than a leaflet. And I will be coming up with some quite radical ideas about how you don't just give people the information once when they are 15. Effectively, they are then locked into a careers account that keeps on giving them the information and helping them and prompting them and so on.

Local elections

Q: How are the Lib Dems going to do in the local elections?

A: They are going to be difficult, self-evidently.

Q: How many seats are you likely to lose?

A: I can't tell you. Not because I don't want to tell you, but because I've been to many places where we are defending councils and I'm expecting us to still be in control of the council after 5 May.

Q: Do you expect to still be in control of Sheffield [as grahamew asked on the blog at 12.30pm]?

A: We can hang on to Sheffield, yes. I've been up there campaigning and I shall be going there again next week. I think we can hang on to Newcastle. I was in Chesterfield the other day. I think we can hang on to Chesterfield. The records of our councils, where we are still in government, are often extremely good. People, I hope, will vote on local issues. If they do, you may well find that because people understand that we have protected frontline services, we do much better than people think. Obviously, it is going to be the most difficult set of elections we have ever faced in England. But it absolutely isn't looking like a dire and dreadful prospect, and because we've done a good job in many places, we may do much better than some people forecast.

Alternative vote

Q: Ed Miliband thinks that Nick Clegg is a liability to the AV campaign. Do you think he's right?

A: From the beginning the fairer votes campaign was always meant to be about putting up non-politicians, and using their arguments to win the case. That remains the case. Clearly we want to continue to do that. In certain parts of the country Nick has campaign for AV perfectly unproblematically.

Q: Do you accept, then, that there are other parts of the country where having him campaign for it is a problem?

A: He will judge that, and the campaign will judge that. But votes are going to be won if the public think that ordinary people like them will do better out of it. My plea to the politicians is this. Our party is trying very hard, because I know hardly anyone in our party who is not a believer in moving to fairer votes. My plea is that the other progressives in politics, like the progressives in the Labour party, get up off their backsides and do the campaigning because they have wanted a modern constitution.

Q: But they might cite people like some of the readers who posted questions on the blog saying they would not vote for AV because they wanted to punish the Lib Dems. Like this person [chilloutpeeps at 12.34pm]: "I have supported electoral reform for the 35 years of my adult life. Does it bother you that after all that time I will happily vote against it just in order to fuck you and your leader off?" [Or garyallen at 2.13pm.] Do you accept there's a problem there?

A: No. My response to that is that that is not grown-up politics. This is the first opportunity ever in British political history for the public to vote to have a fairer voting system. This is not a matter of single party interest. It won't produce more balanced parliaments necessarily, with Liberal Democrats holding the balance. Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary.

Q: But there's no evidence showing it will harm the Liberal Democrats. The evidence suggests it will help them in a modest way.

A: It may have a marginal effect, but you know the evidence. Australia, which has had the system for 90 years, has had fewer balanced parliaments than we have had in Britain with a first past the post system. The change is about whether people have a real influence in their seat. All progressives, I hope, will realise the benefit of the new system. And I make a plea: don't vote on the referendum because of your views about the behaviour of my party or any other party. This is beyond party. It is cross party. And the opportunity may not come [again], certainly for a decade, or longer. And it will reinvigorate politics.

Lib Dem influence on the coalition

Q: On the blog someone [liberacy at 5.06pm] posted this question about Lib Dem influence on coalition policy: "What procedures should be put in place to prevent a repeat of the NHS fiasco? If Conservative ministers want to propose other bills that do not reflect either party policy or the coalition agreement, how will you make sure they are acceptable to the party?" I know the party passed a motion at the spring conference addressing this, but can you explain what's going to happen.

A: The answer is we've taken the action already. I saw this as an issue from the time I got elected as deputy leader last summer. I have worked with colleagues in the parliamentary party. We have amended our rules. If anything comes forward now that is contrary to our party's policy or contrary to coalition policy, it will not be something that our government ministers can back unless there is the agreement of the parliamentary party in the House of Commons.

Q: Did that procedure work over Libya?

A: With Libya, yes, it came to the parliamentary party, and it was agreed by the parliamentary party.

Q: Before or after David Cameron committed himself to a no-fly zone?

A: We had a debate before that.

Q: Has this been written into party rules? Or is this an informal mechanism?

A: No. There have been long deliberations over what has been agreed. They will, at the next appropriate occasion, be formally written into the standing orders of the parliamentary party. But we've made the agreement. The parliamentary party has had sub-committees looking at it. It has come up with recommendations. They have been agreed to.

Q: Did that happen before the health bill was published or after?

A: It happened after the announcement on health policy. The process started in the autumn and finished after Christmas, after the New Year. We now have a system that would not allow the Liberal Democrats to be bounced into a position that came out of the pale blue yonder.

Q: Would it have prevented the health bill getting into committee in the shape it did?

A: Yes. It would have prevented the health policy being turned into the health bill in its present shape. It's unique because it's the only major piece of legislation that has not come from the coalition agreement. That's why now there has to be the unscrambling and the remaking [of the bill] because the health bill clearly doesn't conform to either the coalition agreement, or party policy.

Health bill

Q: At the spring conference the Lib Dems passed a quite technical motion on the health bill proposing lots of specific changes, including one saying that about half of all the seats on boards of GP commissioning consortia should go to local councillors. As a Lib Dem MP, are you now bound by that, or are you bound to support government policy, which at the moment is not saying half those seats should go to councillors?

A: [Having 50% of seats go to councillors] is party policy. That is our starting point. That does not mean to say that you can't undot an i, and uncross a t. That is the position that we now take into the negotiations that should have proceeded the policy being announced in the first place. Again, it's a coalition. I can't imagine that we will agree every single part of that. But the party has a very clear view. Party members and supporters would expect us to deliver that. Work has already started, from Nick [Clegg] downwards, to try to deliver as much of that as possible.

Q: And are you confident that there will be substantive changes to the bill? There are suggestions that the changes will just be cosmetic.

A: No, it has got to be substantive. It would not pass the test if it was not substantively changed. I think everybody's got the message.

Nick Clegg

Q: I had a question on the blog from someone [Peter61 at 11.42am] who wanted to know if you were "ashamed" when Nick Clegg was recorded on a platform with David Cameron saying they could not find anything to disagree on.

A: It was a joke. You sometimes have to realise that people do say things lightheartedly that can be misinterpreted. I know, having worked closely with Nick all the time since last year, he is as determined as the rest of us are to make sure that as we get towards the next election, we have clearly identifiable Liberal Democrat policy positions. Work has started on that already. Obviously, we are bound to deliver jointly the coalition agreement. That may not take the whole of this parliament. We will start working out our separate positions. So, there won't be a failure to notice the difference between us and the Tories.

And for people like me, who come from the left of politics, and who believe that there is no inevitability about a coalition with the Tories rather than a coalition with Labour, then we need to make sure that we have robust, independent, radical policies that are as appealing to people who come from the progressive left.

Q: As someone who does work closely with Clegg, are you 100% sure that he will be leader of the party at the time of the next election?

A: I see absolutely no reason why he won't be.

Q: What happens if he is perceived as a liability?

A: The first year of the government, the first two years, were always going to be difficult. Nick has led us into government for the first time since the war. About two thirds of our manifesto is being implemented. We just have to make sure that our successes are not lost by the one particular difficulty of last year, and some smaller matters, when there have been just the most amazing set of political reforms. People must judge Nick and his colleagues on what we've delivered. That's why the five-year term is so vital.

Q: So there's no chance of him disappearing off to be a European commissioner, as some have speculated?

A: I see no chance. He will want to defend our record in government, and I think, as the second half of the parliament moves towards a general election, people will be able to see exactly the influence of the Liberal Democrats in government. It wouldn't have happened without Nick's determination to be there, and absolute energy and tenacity in making sure not a single thing in government escapes his attention and doesn't have our input into it.

Relations with Labour

Q: How are your relations with Labour at the moment? On the blog someone [Torresdelbabel at 1.01pm ] said: "You must be talking to the Labour at some level about what an alternative coalition might look like, or at the very least forcing an election prior to 2015."

A: My relationship with different Labour people, it's very good with some, good with others, less good with others. The answer is, there are no conversations within the first year about what might happen after the next election which is four years away.

Q: At the spring conference, the party passed a strategy motion saying that the party should fight the next election with "no preference for potential future coalition partners". But, realistically, how is that going to work if you've got a Labour leader who's rude about Nick Clegg in public, while you've got Tories like Michael Gove saying [in an interview in the Times (paywall)] "I love Nick Clegg."

A: At the next election, once we're into an election campaign, it will be like every other country where you have coalitions in term time and then you have an election. You take your independent position, you argue your own corner and you argue that your corner is better than the others.