CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

MONDAY 10 JANUARY 2011

JOHN GLEN, DAMIAN HINDS, MATTHEW HANCOCK AND JOHN HEMMING

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Monday 10 January 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

John Glen, Damian Hinds, Matthew Hancock and John Hemming made representations.

Q1 Chair: You are very welcome. A happy new year. You’re our first guests this year, so thank you very much.

I will briefly run you through what we are looking for. We generally have ongoing slots in Westminster Hall on Thursday afternoons. We also have occasional slots in the Chamber; in fact, we provisionally have up to six hours in the Chamber on 20 January. We would like to hear from you not only a brief outline of your subject, but how much time you think you should have for your debate, how much cross-party support there is and how many people there are for and against so that we know that the debate will not just be about everybody who speaks being on one side. We want to hear why your subject is topical and why you want to debate it, but also how many hours you think you should have and whether you want a vote at the end. We will prompt you as and when we need to, but if you just want to shoot, that would be great.

John Glen: The background is that we thought it would be useful to try to understand a little more about Frank Field’s report. I convened some meetings with Conservative MPs to ask Frank Field to explain the background to his report "The Foundation Years".

Q2 Chair: This is about improving life chances for disadvantaged children?

John Glen: Exactly. He completed the report in December. A number of people said it had very wide implications because it looks back at what happened under the previous Government, over the past 10 to 13 years, and at what has been done to deal with the group of people in the report. The focus on the foundation years is probably also novel; it is a new focus, and it would be worth exploring whether it is the right lens with which to look at poverty and life chances.

Damian and I worked together to see whether we could get a cross-party group of supporters for the debate, and we have a number of supporters from other parties, who, unfortunately, can’t be here today. Some 15 to 20 people have said they would be prepared to speak in the debate.

The principal reason why it is worth having a full debate is that the issue can be widely interpreted. Arguably, it covers three main departmental areas. There is the Department for Work and Pensions, where we are looking at how Sure Start functions and at welfare reform more broadly. Then, there is education and how the pupil premium will work and what impact it will have. We would also be looking at the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and at tuition fees, as well. There are loads of ways it can go. The issue really strikes at the heart of what is probably a core interest of every MP-how to deal with poverty-and a debate would reveal a wide range of views across the House.

We have had a range of indications of support. Damian and I discussed the issue before Christmas, and we felt it would be suitable for a three-hour debate in the Chamber itself, and that is what we would like to pitch for.

Damian Hinds: Can I add something about timeliness? There is the Frank Field report and the upcoming Alan Milburn and Graham Allen reports. They cover separate areas, but they all interlink. We deliberately framed the proposed topic for debate very broadly, so that it would not be constrained by comments on those reports but would be about how you enable people to do the best that they can in life. Just about every colleague who mentioned it-albeit a limited number-expressed some interest in having that broad subject debated in the Chamber of the House of Commons. We don’t know of other ways, in the normal course of events, of having these important subjects debated formally.

Q3 Mr Hollobone: One of the big differences between time in the Chamber as opposed to Westminster Hall is that it can be quite interesting in the Chamber because you can table a motion, which can be voted upon or not as the case may be. Have you considered whether you would like to frame a motion? Are there any recommendations in Frank Field’s report that you agree with but which you feel the Government may be hesitant to accept? Might that be something suitable for a motion?

The other advantage of having a motion is that it increases the level of interest in the debate, not least by those who might not otherwise be there, because they may have to make up their minds on the issue if there is to be a vote.

John Glen: That is a fair observation. Indeed, it is something that we have not discussed. I had it in mind that we should avoid taking a position on the report because of what Damian just said about the debate having a broad interpretation and focusing on so many areas. It would be a timely and appropriate mechanism for a high-profile piece of work to come to the attention of a number of departmental areas, and I feel that a motion would probably narrow it too much. It would certainly create more interest in terms of voting, but I don’t think it would do justice to the breadth of issues involved and the fact that, as we set out, pieces of related work by other Members would come into the discussion. The overall outcome of that full discussion would be of more relevance and interest.

Q4 Mr Hollobone: There is no right or wrong in this, but if you felt that way, you might think that we did not need the debate in the Chamber but in Westminster Hall, as it would free time in the Chamber for a votable motion on another subject that someone else may bring forward.

John Glen: We did discuss this. Given the high-profile nature and the breadth of the issues involved, and the cross-party demand, we obviously felt that it would justify us bidding for a debate in the Chamber. I would still be keen to take it forward in Westminster Hall if that is what the Committee felt.

Mr Hollobone: On Thursdays in Westminster Hall there are regularly three-hour debates on just this sort of topic.

John Glen: Yes.

Q5 Chair: For us, it is more a matter of when we have time, when we have slots, and where we put things. We can schedule stuff in the Chamber that doesn’t have a vote, and we have done so.

John Glen: We didn’t come to you to try and bring some controversy or seek artificially to bring it to that level at this stage, given that the report came out only last month and that it is so diffuse and covers so many areas.

Damian Hinds: On the question of whether there are proposals in the report that could be voted on, yes there are-probably around the question of definitions of poverty and how it is measured. However, I echo John’s view entirely; I would be hesitant to close the debate because in many ways we want to open it into all sorts of avenues. Otherwise, we would get sidetracked into that specific question.

Chair: That’s grand. Does anyone else have any questions? No.

Thank you very much.

Matthew Hancock: I am here to bid for some of the time allocated by your Committee to discuss the future of the horse racing levy. It is of interest to people across party, including-dare I say it?-one of the members of your Committee. It’s also an issue on which divisions over future policy cross party lines-for instance, between me and one of the members of your Committee. That is why I thought it was worth bringing to your Committee: it is an issue in which some Back Benchers have very strong interests, there’s a lot of debate about it, and it crosses party lines.

I have written to you with some of the details of the background. Basically, every year the Secretary of State has to set a levy amount for transfer between the gambling industry and the racing industry. For racing in Britain, that is absolutely critical to providing for its financing. There are calls from across the spectrum for that system to be changed. The problem is that each year the Secretary of State himself has to sign off on an amount to pass between those industries to compensate racing for putting on the product on which the gambling is based. It’s a very bureaucratic system, brought in during the ’60s. The Government have indicated that they are looking to modernise the system, but there hasn’t been much debate on that in Parliament.

I secured a 10-minute slot in the Adjournment debate at the end of term. There was lots of interest in the Chamber and several people intervened. Although it was one speech, there was a series of interventions. That demonstrated some of the support for further debate on the issue. That is why I’m here. I think the issue is very important. It’s the sort of thing on which there could well be a strong motion, on which there would be a vote, which would indicate to Ministers, who are currently making decisions about this year and about potential modernisation in the future, the level of support on both sides in Parliament. A debate on the matter could have an influence on Executive behaviour.

Q6 Chair: Have you had any thoughts about what such a motion would say-what people would be voting on?

Matthew Hancock: As a new Member, I would be looking for guidance on that, but there are a number of different proposals out there as to how the system should be modernised in the future. I think if there were to be a motion, it would be on the future structure of the levy, rather than on this year’s deliberation, which is just a matter of coming out with a number. I’m very happy to talk about what that would look like.

Q7 Chair: You were saying that there’s a large group of people-

Matthew Hancock: Largeish, not 650.

Q8 Chair: Well, people are very interested in the issue. You have four supporting Members. For us, once business is scheduled in the House, we need to be confident that there will be enough speakers to ensure that the debate doesn’t collapse. That means a bit of work on the part of the Member who’s proposing the debate in order to get round people and ensure that they attend. Do you have an idea of how many people, apart from your four supporting Members, would take part in such a debate?

Matthew Hancock: I know that those I have mentioned would want to-the ones I’ve mentioned before. Philip. I know that there’s a larger group of Members who are interested, who have discussions on this issue. There is also the all-party group, which has a very large membership. Obviously, I would work to make sure that there would be speakers available.

Q9 Jane Ellison: I was watching when you made your speech in the Adjournment debate, so I saw the number of interventions. There was quite a lively to and fro. What about interest across the House in terms of an actual debate? What is the cross-party level of interest?

Matthew Hancock: In the all-party group, there’s cross-party interest. Most of the conversations that I’ve had have been on the Government side, but that’s partly because I know more people on that side. The issues split people across parties and I am sure there are lots of people who have strong interests on the other side.

Q10 Mr Bone: On our application form, you put down a 60 or 90 minute debate. Is that how I am reading that?

Matthew Hancock: Yes.

Q11 Mr Bone: I don’t think we have ever done one as short as that. If we were to vote on it, I would have thought it would probably need to be a bit longer than that for the arguments on both sides. I get the impression that you are saying that the Government do not want to do something, and you and some colleagues would like to push them to do something.

Matthew Hancock: The Government have said in a broad sense that they would like to modernise, but they have not allowed time. They have made clear they do not want to allow time for a debate in Parliament. That is what they will not do.

Q12 Mr Bone: You would like time in Parliament, in the Chamber, and then at the end of it, something to do with the structure that is votable on.

Matthew Hancock: If that is appropriate, yes. I asked for 60 to 90 minutes because I know that there are lots of calls on your time. Maybe I should be less modest in future.

Q13 Chair: It is really what is appropriate to the subject.

Matthew Hancock: The other reason I asked for 60 to 90 minutes is that I am confident that there would be speakers to fill that. If I had asked for three hours and you had looked me in the eye and said, "Are you 100% confident that you could fill three hours?", I would have had to say, "No, because I haven’t spoken to enough people about it." I wanted to make sure that it did not go off half cocked.

Q14 Philip Davies: I will certainly help make sure it would last for three hours, if there were a debate. I don’t feel there is any need to cut your cloth. From your perspective, would you be happy with a three-hour debate?

Matthew Hancock: If you are there, Philip, I would be happy to have a three-hour debate.

Q15 Philip Davies: It was just your reasonableness that prevented you putting it down-the fact that you didn’t want to cut into other people’s opportunities.

Matthew Hancock: Yes.

Q16 Jane Ellison: As well as a motion urging someone to do something, would you contemplate another thing worth thinking about, and that is something that puts in place a timetable? I remember a Back Bench discussion on the subject of contaminated blood, where the motion was defeated on the day. However, what came out of that-and funnily enough it is happening today-was a commitment to address the issue in a certain time frame, which I suspect was probably a bit quicker than intended. That is the other thing that a motion can do, and sometimes it is about providing a sense of urgency and a timetable as much as action, especially if it is difficult to frame words around a particular course of action.

Q17 Chair: We will be making a decision today anyway and will get back to you. If we need to work on a motion, or whatever else, we will work with you on that.

Matthew Hancock: Thank you.

John Hemming: Colleagues will remember that I previously referred the Committee to two issues that concern me greatly. The first motion I would like to put to the House on 20 January is that the matters of Andrew France, and Nusrat and Maserat Parveen, be referred to the Standards and Privileges Committee. That is where constituents are bullied to stop them talking to Members of Parliament about very serious situations. My experience of these matters includes dealing with a contempt of Parliament issue in January last year. You would expect the Leader of the House and the Opposition shadow Leader of the House to speak, and there may be a few other people. It could be settled in something like half an hour quite readily.

The second thing I would like to put-and it can be slotted possibly into a shorter period, because it would establish a Committee-is a motion to the effect that, "This House is concerned as to the accountability of processes that lead to citizens of the United Kingdom having their liberty constrained in secret; that the House wishes to obtain information as to the details of what events lead to these conclusions and, therefore, appoints a Committee to review cases of secret imprisonment. The Committee must not in any way prejudice any police inquiry or potential criminal proceedings; the Committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records, to report from time to time, and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House. The Committee consists of the following five members: John Hemming, Karl McCartney, Helen Goodman and Steve Baker."

That is actually four Members. I think I had a fifth Member. I e-mailed round the House asking who was interested in this Committee. Tom Brake, for instance, said, "Yes, I’m interested but not if there’s a time constraint on it." Paul Flynn showed great enthusiasm for it although not for sitting on the Committee. There are hon. Members who wish to sit on the Committee. My feeling is that if we table a motion, perhaps other people will come out of the woodwork during the process and show an interest in sitting on the Committee. This point is particularly interesting because it establishes a parliamentary inquiry into specific issues and it is done through the Back-Bench processes.

Q18 Chair: Do you have a copy of that motion to leave with us?

John Hemming: Yes. I will give it to Andrew in a bit.

Q19 Chair: You are asking for a half-hour debate?

John Hemming: I would say that half an hour would get through it. The point is whether Parliament should establish what is, in local government terms, a task and finish scrutiny committee-a committee to look at an issue. The difficulty you have with secret prisoners is that often the Official Solicitor is appointed. In the case of Noreen Akhtar, the Official Solicitor was appointed to represent her and make decisions on her behalf. However, the Official Solicitor will not answer any questions. I write letters to the Official Solicitor and they say to me, "I’m not going to tell you anything because I’m not accountable to Parliament." Under the Bill of Rights, everybody is accountable to Parliament. It is very dangerous to have people imprisoned when no explanation is given. When you write to the Care Quality Commission, which is supposed to look at such things, it does not produce any information either. I know a lot about that particular case, and I know that there are a lot of very wrong things about it such as her being drugged to keep her quiet, and the issue of mental capacity.

Q20 Chair: You have been through that. We’re interested in how much time your debate needs.

John Hemming: I would have thought that half an hour would do the job. It may even be less-it depends. I know that I generally have the support of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House on the contempt of Parliament issue, but I haven’t checked it out with the Government. I haven’t spoken to the Government about their view on the issue. That is proper. If Parliament is going to establish an inquiry, we should discuss as Parliament about that inquiry.

Chair: Leave the motion with us, but you won’t be able to take part in the discussion that we have in private session.

John Hemming: I understand that.

Chair: Leave that with us. We are pretty clear about what it is.

Q21 Mr Bone: Rather like the previous witness, I don’t want you to do yourself down on this. Would it not be better to allocate these motions to be first on if a general debate was running afterwards? You would let Parliament decide, to a certain extent, how long people wanted to talk about it. These are issues that, I have to say, I don’t understand at this stage. It may be that this debate will need some time to take off and I wouldn’t really want to have to cut it off after half an hour. If there was a general debate on something following-

John Hemming: For me, that is the ideal solution. These are important issues. They are not necessarily urgent, they do not have to be done on 20 January. They are important issues, and it is important for Parliament to establish its identity. On the contempt of Parliament issue, I already have the support of 58 hon. Members and I am going round collecting signatures on a petition. A petition has an advantage in that Government Ministers have already signed it. I’ve got support from across the House on both of these issues. You’re right that it should be put on at the start, and the length of the debate should be determined by Parliament. The two issues are very important to Parliament because they are about Parliament itself-not the Government-acting to protect constituents. That’s why both issues are very important.

Q22 Jane Ellison: Just to back Peter up on the half-hour point. When Margaret Hodge presented her report, the half hour went in an instant. It was far too little time. People who hadn’t expected to be interested by the subject thought, "Actually, I do have something to say", and a number of people raised related casework issues and things like that. We should learn a lesson from that because after that debate, everyone said, "Really good innovation but way too short a time." We probably should not do that again.

John Hemming: I think Peter’s proposal is actually right-put it on at the start and, to some extent, see how people respond. I’ve got three other hon. Members collecting signatures on the petition. There’s substantial support for action being taken. This is on the first one. They’re quite likely to want to speak, but at the same time, if the only way of getting it in is a short debate, then I’d rather get it in with a short debate. If, however, we can do it at the start and let it go its natural course, that would be very good. But I’m relaxed about that. I just want to see it put on so that people can vote on it.

Chair: Thank you very much, John.