CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT    

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 1 MARCH 2011

ANDREA LEADSOM, MR GEOFFREY ROBINSON AND DAN BYLES

ADAM AFRIYIE

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 1 March 2011

Members present:

Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Andrea Leadsom, Mr Geoffrey Robinson, Dan Byles and Adam Afriyie made representations.

Chair: I guess that technically it is still, "Good morning," as the Chamber has not yet sat. Welcome to the Backbench Business Committee. We have had a submission from Andrea Leadsom on high-speed rail. Have you been to one of these sessions before, Andrea?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes.

Q1 Chair: So, you know the idea. We want to know the length of the debate, where you want to have it, whether there would be a substantive motion, and whether there is interest on both sides of the House and also within the political parties, where there are different views.

Andrea Leadsom: Thank you. I am going to defer to Geoffrey to kick off. We are very much here as the three of us-Dan Byles, Geoffrey Robinson and me-and we certainly have cross-party support.

Mr Robinson: Thank you very much, Andrea. Taking one of the important points that you made, Chair, there is tremendous interest in the matter throughout the House, and I think it goes virtually right across the parties. The Labour Government started it off and Labour is now revising it, and the Conservative Government have taken it up and are pushing ahead with it, so there is tremendous interest and I think that you could expect a very well-attended debate in the House. At this rate, we are going to get what increasingly is put to me, and I am sure the same goes for Andrea and our other colleagues, which is: why is Parliament not debating this? We should have a general debate on it. Of course, the only way to get a general debate is through this Committee, which is why we are putting it to you very strongly.

Over the weekend, the public consultation on high-speed rail was launched, as you saw, with great fanfare. The public want to be informed. There is a widespread need for that in the country, and tremendous interest throughout the House. Whether it be a whole-day debate or a three-hour debate it will be well attended-we can be sure of that. Those in favour go right across the country geographically, and similarly those who are against-as in our case-cover the whole country. That is except for those areas that will not be affected by HS2 in any way and will not receive any of the benefits, such as the west where there is a big argument for the electrification of the west coast main line, and the north where much could be done to develop the northern hub. Those alternatives have not really reached the public in any way, and the issue is being presented almost as if the only way to meet capacity is by HS2. For all those reasons, we have an appropriate and excellent topic for a Backbench Business Committee debate.

Andrea Leadsom: To add to that, we have a number of supporting Members who are not affected by the line. For those of us whose constituencies will be affected, this all started as an attempt to defend our residents. However, when we came to look at the business case and the economic case, and at the priorities for rail investment and so on, we started to have significant doubts about the sensible size and scope of this project, particularly its cost. Since then the argument has moved on a great deal, and it is important that Members get the chance to debate this topic. It is a massive project worth £17 billion, and enormous alternatives are proposed. Two weeks ago I spoke in a three-hour Transport Committee debate in Westminster Hall. We were talking about priorities for rail investment, and many Members spoke up in favour of alternatives to high-speed rail, which will soak up an enormous part of the budget for transport infrastructure. We feel, as do the likes of John Redwood, Steve Baker, Roger Gale, Stephen Pound, Greg Mulholland and George Freeman, that a debate needs to be had about the priorities, not necessarily just about how it affects us.

Chair: There are a whole lot of different political parties in that.

Andrea Leadsom: Exactly. It is certainly cross-bench.

Dan Byles: Briefly, as Andrea said, it is about the sheer cost and size of this project, and the opportunity cost. The £17 billion is simply the first part up to Birmingham. We must remember that there could potentially be HS3, HS4 and HS5 pushing up to Manchester and beyond. All that rests on the decision about the first bit. People are saying that although the consultation will take place now on the line to Birmingham, should not people in Manchester, Leeds and beyond also be consulted? Once this project starts, it won’t stop; it will carry on up the country. It is such a large project-it is bigger than investment in Trident and lots of other things that have been discussed in the House. For it not to be subject to a general debate on the Floor of the House seems remarkable.

Q2 Chair: Just on that last point, did you want to have a general debate, or did you want it on a substantive motion?

Andrea Leadsom: A general debate.

Q3 Mr Hollobone: Why?

Andrea Leadsom: Because we recognise that at the moment there are arguments for and against. The debate needs to be had openly, and without people effectively being whipped to vote in line with party policy. As Geoffrey has just said, the Labour party is still very much undecided. The Green party has come out against high-speed rail in recent days, and the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are very much in favour at the moment. We don’t want party whipping to stand in the way of a decent debate where we get the issues out on the table. Very importantly, the national consultation has just started now. It will run for five months, and it is right that residents, whether for or against, get the opportunity to have their voices heard in Parliament without the need for whipping.

Mr Robinson: We have some experience of the substantive motion and the vote on an earlier debate, which I think many will remember. That was very effective, but if we were to ask for it now, would the Speaker be in a position to give a vote on it? Otherwise, you are going to cramp the debate in some way or another. There is a danger that it could turn into a sort of cross-party debate, which is the last thing we want, particularly on this when we have such good cross-party interest in it already.

Q4 Mr Hollobone: I understand why you are calling for a general debate. Through your choice of title, you could steer it one way or another. I am a bear of little brain, but it seems to me that there are two issues. One is whether there is a need for high-speed rail. The other is where it goes. Depending on where one’s constituency is, one may be on one side of the fence of the other. You could have a general debate entitled, "The need for high-speed rail" or a general debate on the route for a high-speed rail network; or you could give it the general title, "High speed rail".

Andrea Leadsom: May I kick off in answer to that question? The problem is that there are so many different views. There are those who believe that rail capacity is the key issue and that the speed is irrelevant-that you need another train line but the trains don’t have to go at 250 mph. There are others who believe that you can make do by improving capacity on existing rail networks, and that you don’t need a new train line. Some believe that HS2 is wonderful but we cannot afford it, and others think that it is utterly essential. You wouldn’t be able to encapsulate all the views already being expressed across the House unless you had an open general debate.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Given the widespread interest you claim for the topic, why are you being so modest on your application and only requesting three hours? Surely it merits a full day’s debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr Robinson: If I didn’t make that clear, I apologise. We would obviously prefer a whole day’s debate, but I am not sure whether the Committee is placed to offer a six-hour debate in the near future.

Q6 Chair: That’s a very good point. As you probably know from previous experience, we are not completely in control of these things. The Government allocate days to us, and there may be one relatively soon. The question that I would put-you probably know the answer before I ask it-is whether you would be in a position to have this debate if it was in the next few weeks?

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, we would welcome it.

Dan Byles: Given the fact that the consultation was launched yesterday, that would be very timely. What is said in that debate can go on to inform the consultation in a meaningful way, rather than, as often happens, the Government saying "This Select Committee report is wonderful; if only we’d had this six months ago." We can inform the debate from the start.

Q7 Jane Ellison: One of my points is the one that has been answered about timing. From your point of view, do you feel that holding it during the consultation period is ideal, so that in effect it is part of the body of evidence?

Andrea Leadsom: Essential.

Mr Robinson: The sooner the better.

Q8 Jane Ellison: My other point was that there has been time on this in Westminster Hall,-not specifically, but it came up in a rail debate. From your point of view, why is the Chamber essential, given that you have given clear reasons why you do not want a substantive debate? Why the Chamber, rather than three more hours in Westminster Hall?

Mr Robinson: The importance of it nationally is the sheer amount of money. It is £30 billion, so there will be no money left for other transport programmes. It may impinge adversely on a range of other important national priorities. There is the sheer scale of it in money terms, and in terms of the number of constituents that it will affect, and there are issues beyond just money that it raises.

I return to your earlier point, Philip. If we had to choose a subject to go into-I have made it very clear that I thought there were so many areas that it would be difficult to encapsulate them all-one might well be the economic case if you wanted a narrow focus, but hopefully people won’t stick to that. The whole point is whether the Government can justify £30 billion of public expenditure. It is an enormous sum and it will probably have doubled by the time we get there-£60 billion of public money, and is there ever a chance of the Government getting any of it back, or getting any return on it?

Chair: I am conscious that we need to move on.

Q9 Jane Ellison: I have a quick follow-up explanation. I understand that it is a massive project. One of the reasons I asked you where the debate should be is that we as a Committee are still teasing out why some groups bid for time in one place or the other. It is helpful for us to understand the reasons why people bid for time in the Chamber versus Westminster Hall. It is an evolving process of understanding what is suitable for which kind of debate, and what motivates people to ask for the Chamber or Westminster Hall. That was the reason for my question.

Chair: Thank you.

Dan Byles: A final point on this topic. I do not think any of us want this to be a discussion about the route, and whether it should be through this constituency or that. That would be wrong. It is about the principle of high-speed rail-is it right for the country and does the business case stack up-without getting into the detail of whose garden it would go through if it went ahead. That would be wrong.

Chair: Thank you for your excellent presentation. Adam, I think you are next up. Welcome back.

Adam Afriyie: It’s lovely to be back although I wish it were under different circumstances.

Q10 Chair: You know the procedure. Do you want to crack on and tell us why you are here?

Adam Afriyie: Yes. On 2 December last year the House passed a unanimous motion that in effect said that IPSA should bring forward a scheme that would be in operation by 1 April that was simpler, costs less and did not discriminate against people with families, the less well-off or deter people from claiming. From everything I have heard, and many of the people in the room will have been interacting with IPSA and looking at its consultation paper, it seems that at best one can expect some fairly minor cosmetic changes following the consultation. The motion was clear. It said that by April there should be a new scheme that was operational. Subsequently the Prime Minister supported the motion. The House passed it unanimously.

It seems to me that if IPSA comes forward with a scheme in the second or even the third week of March that does not meet the criteria of the motion-the will of Parliament-then Parliament needs to be in a position to respond. At present there is nothing in the legislative timetable or the parliamentary timetable that gives Parliament an opportunity to respond. So what I am asking for today, and it slightly pre-empts the situation, is that we have a short debate on a substantive motion pretty much along the lines that I have handed out to the Committee today.

Q11 Chair: Because we are being broadcast, Adam, would you mind reading it out so that it is on the record?

Adam Afriyie: This is a draft of the motion and is subject to some change. It reads:

"This House regrets the failure of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to introduce a simpler, cheaper scheme of office expenses and members’ allowances in accordance with the unanimous resolution passed by this House on 2 December 2010, and supported by the Prime Minister; calls on the Government to fulfil its commitments by now making time available for a Parliamentary Standards Bill"-

not "the", but "a"-

"and resolves that the Leader of the House should do so in time for a new scheme to be in operation by 1 April."

You can see that the timeline on this is incredibly tight. I am incredibly frustrated because the Government have blocked attempts for any measures to be brought before Parliament that would have pre-empted this situation. If in the second or third week of March IPSA bring forward a scheme that is wholly inadequate, how will Parliament fulfil this motion that was passed unanimously? Unless the Leader of the House is going to make time for a Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Act, this place will become the laughing stock of the country. We pass a unanimous motion and it is completely ignored by the Government. The Leader of the House does not schedule any time and off everything goes into the long grass.

Q12 Chair: Just looking at the time scale on this, effectively we would have to debate your resolution in March because of what it says and because in practice in April we are largely in recess. We have half a day available on Thursday 10 March that is not yet allocated.

Adam Afriyie: It might be slightly too early. The ideal scenario would be this: IPSA comes forward with a fantastic scheme that resolves the issue for 100 years and everyone is happy and we all go quiet. I fear that it will not bring forward any scheme at all until at least the second or possibly the third week of March. It would be inappropriate to schedule that debate before it has delivered its new scheme. The ideal date-I appreciate that this is not necessarily in the Committee’s control-would be at the end of the second week or in the third week of March. Monday 21 March would be perfect because, by that time, we will know that the scheme is being delivered, and if it is a perfect scheme, the motion will simply be withdrawn.

Q13 Philip Davies: I accept the logic of the position you’ve set out, and it is probably undeniable. The bit I don’t understand is that you seem to be asking for a Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Act to be in operation by 1 April.

Adam Afriyie: Yes.

Q14 Philip Davies: Even with the best programming motions in the world, it is difficult to envisage how, following a debate in March, a Bill can have gone through Parliament and be in operation by 1 April.

Adam Afriyie: I suspect that that will be the main subject of the debate. The House passed a unanimous motion, making these things absolutely clear on 2 December, but the appropriate time has not been made available to deal with the situation. I suspect that the point you raise will be one of the key points raised during the debate.

Q15 Philip Davies: Would you not accept that, as the motion stands, nobody could possibly vote in favour of it, because, even if everybody agreed with what you’re saying, we couldn’t possibly resolve to have a new scheme and put a Bill through Parliament in the two weeks, one week or whatever before 1 April? That is the bit I can’t quite work out.

Adam Afriyie: There are two or three routes by which that outcome can be achieved. The first simply involves the Leader of the House seeing the motion on the Order Paper, which may prompt some action to at least schedule some parliamentary time for legislation before the third week of March. Secondly, a lot of these things can be achieved not through primary legislation, but through an agreement with IPSA, which would need to be driven from the highest levels of Government, if anything was to happen. Thirdly, if we make a decision in this House in the middle of the third week of March, it is quite possible-we have checked the timetabling carefully-to get the structure of something new through by 1 April. However, these are things that I would expect to come up in debate and which the Government would need to respond to, given that they have pointed out that it is up to the Backbench Business Committee to deal with this issue.

Q16 Ian Mearns: Before the Backbench Business Committee determines whether any time should be devoted to what you’re suggesting, can you tell us whether the water has been tested with the Leader of the House since 2 December via business questions on a Thursday?

Adam Afriyie: Not since 2 December. Before 2 December, the Leader of the House made it absolutely clear that this was a matter for the Backbench Business Committee to deal with.

Q17 Ian Mearns: But the House made it clear in a unanimous vote on 2 December that it was unhappy with the situation. One wonders whether that might elicit a different response from the Leader of the House via business questions.

Adam Afriyie: I was very hopeful of that, and I am certainly happy to ask the question this Thursday, but I think I can guess what the answer will be. On 2 December, the motion was obviously accepted, but any moves actually to introduce the dual-track process-with a piece of legislation at least going into Committee, although necessarily being debated there-have been blocked on two and possibly three subsequent occasions. It is clear that the Government are quite keen at present to find a different route for these things.

Q18 John Hemming: To go back to the words of the motion, it strikes me that changing them so that they said that a new scheme would be applicable for the financial year starting on 1 April 2011 would be a much more practicable way forward, because you could do some things retrospectively if needs be. The wording as it stands would not really work.

Adam Afriyie: John, I agree with you entirely. As I said, this is draft one.

Q19 John Hemming: So you would be happy enough with something applicable following it up?

Adam Afriyie: Yes, I’m sure there will be some amendments to it. We’ll find some other small issues with it after speaking to the Clerk. The main purpose of today was simply to get this on the radar and to try to get a date booked in the diary. It need not be a day-long debate; indeed, I’m happy with an hour. The main thing is for Parliament to assert itself.

Q20 John Hemming: Not an hour on 10 March, though?

Adam Afriyie: To be frank, I think it would be premature because we will not have the proposals from IPSA.

Q21 Mr Hollobone: Following the resolution of the House on 2 December, what approach have the Government taken to your Bill on amending the expenses system on the occasions when you have presented it to the House?

Adam Afriyie: It has been objected to, and no other proposals have been brought forward. There was one particular objection on a Friday-clearly, by a Government Whip. First, it was on the record that a Government Whip objected. Secondly, if the Government were going to be true to their commitment to support the motion, and leave the option open for Parliament to act in time to have a scheme for 1 April, they really needed to have brought forward measures or had an alternative proposal should IPSA not come forward with the correct proposal. I am now beginning to question the Government’s motivation. It may be a cock-up or a conspiracy, but I am beginning to question whether they wish to address the subject at all.

Q22 Mr Hollobone: On how many occasions have the Government blocked your Bill?

Adam Afriyie: Since 2 December, on three occasions so far. The Bill is up again on Friday. I have made it very clear to the Government that it is not my Bill; it is a Bill that can be used as a vehicle by Parliament to ensure that Parliament has the option to undertake action should IPSA fail to resolve the system satisfactorily. Question marks are beginning to arise.

Q23 Jane Ellison: I just want to tease out why you think people are responding in the way that they are. I want to go back to some of the points that you made. I do not disagree with the thrust of everything you have been doing on this, but, on using this as a vehicle, one of your points was that Parliament would be a public laughing stock if the will of Parliament was defied. Do you not feel that one of the problems is that the public generally despise any attempt by Parliament to revise its own expenses regime? The Leader of the House issued a pretty strongly worded statement on the day that the last expenses were issued, which was pretty much shot down by IPSA. As far as I could tell, the press release that came out in response essentially said, "Well, you all would say that, wouldn’t you?", "It is not for you to set your own regime" and, "We’ve been put here by the public to do it and we are going to do it." It seemed that IPSA was actually saying, "It is not for Parliament to do it." What is your take on that? I do not think it accepts that Parliament has the right to question it. That seems to be IPSA’s position.

Adam Afriyie: Far be it from me to quote Jacob Rees-Mogg, but I will. He made it absolutely clear that there is nothing independent in a Parliamentary democracy. You can have the appearance of independence but, ultimately, the Prime Minister, the Government and Parliament call the shots.

You made two points. The first was about public opinion. You have to ask how is public opinion judged? Is it in the short or long term? In the short term, it may feel more comfortable for MPs and the Executive not to do anything because of fear that one may have a short-term negative headline. But if you look through the history of the past 100 years, it is absolutely clear that MPs and Parliament have come down to a very low point, hence the need for IPSA to be established. But what IPSA is doing, and the approach that it is taking, continues to undermine Parliament, as we have seen with the recent publications on 3 February.

Finally, my Bill does not propose that we get rid of the independence of IPSA. There are a few misconceptions about my Bill, partly because people are manoeuvring around trying to say what is wrong with it, but it establishes the independence of IPSA ever more firmly. It simply tells it to fulfil its original mandate to be cost-effective, and the additional part tells it not to discriminate against people.

Q24 Jane Ellison: Thank you, Adam. I think I have asked you this question before. Do you have no faith in an iterative process of consultation and the variations of the scheme? It seems that the parliamentary presence on bodies that review and comment on IPSA is being beefed up. Do you have no faith that that might be a route that, although more iterative, might in the end yield results?

Adam Afriyie: What the motion unanimously passed by Parliament said, and what the 100 people who are signatories to my letter to IPSA agree with, as do the other 200 who privately agreed but did not want their names to be made public initially on the letter, is that fundamentally the approach that IPSA has taken is not the correct one. I will put it this way: we MPs have a duty to act in the public interest, and that may not be the same as popular public opinion in the first two weeks of an issue of public interest. We have a duty to make sure that there is a system in place that is less expensive for the taxpayer, and simpler, and does not discriminate against people with families, or the less well-off. That is the system that we have at the moment. That is conclusive.

Q25 Philip Davies: I don’t object to things being unpopular. This Committee is one of the vehicles for people with unpopular causes to be heard. There’s nothing wrong with that at all. It’s not a question of whether it’s popular or unpopular; it’s a question of whether or not this Committee should be finding time to debate IPSA when for example it could be recommending debates on Libya and things in the middle east, and what’s going on in Africa, and all that kind of business; or people in the Ministry of Defence losing their jobs; or the debate over overseas aid. I suppose the question is why a debate on IPSA should take precedence over all those other issues that are going on, which are of massive importance.

Adam Afriyie: The answer is that the debate should not take precedence over those really important matters, and that’s why on both occasions, and now, I have been saying this does not need to be a long debate. The purpose is a substantive motion that makes the will of Parliament absolutely clear and gives the Leader of the House the power, if you like, or the resolve, to get on and sort the situation out if IPSA does not. The reason it is, however, a very important long-term issue-and an issue, probably, in the short term too-is that if we end up with a Parliament full of wealthy people because we are too afraid just to deal with this issue once and for all, that undermines the long-term decision making of this place and the ability of Back Benchers to hold the Government to account, who have ministerial salaries and all sorts of other things.

Chair: Thanks, Adam, for your splendid presentation. We will get back to you on it. Before we close the public session I just want to mention for the record that we appreciate very much the Deputy Leader of the House finding time to listen to all the evidence today. That is much appreciated.