CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT    

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2011

MR TOM CLARKE, TONY BALDRY and IAN MURRAY

MR DENIS MACSHANE and MR DOUGLAS CARSWELL

CHARLIE ELPHICKE, HAZEL BLEARS and CHARLOTTE LESLIE

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 15 February 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Tom Clarke, Tony Baldry, Ian Murray, Mr Denis MacShane, Mr Douglas Carswell, Charlie Elphicke, Hazel Blears and Charlotte Leslie made representations.

Q1 Chair: May we have Tom Clarke? Your submission came in first. Some other people have come in on the back of your submission.

Mr Clarke: I have with me a number of colleagues: Tony Baldry, Mark Durkan, Anas Sarwar, Ian Murray and Paul Goggins.

Q2 Chair: Fantastic. I don’t know whether any of you have been to the Committee before. Tom, I think that you filled in one of the pro-formas. I’ll explain what we are looking for. We have a definite Chamber day, which is six hours of debate time, on Monday 28 February that we need to fill. We want you to tell us a very small amount about the topic for debate. We don’t want to go through the debate itself; we just want to hear what the topic is. We would also like you to tell us why the subject is topical-why it needs to be debated now-whether you want the debate in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, whether you have a voteable motion and so on. If you run through that, we’ll ask some questions at the end of your submission. Would you like to kick off?

Mr Clarke: Natascha, I haven’t consulted my colleagues on this, but 28 February wouldn’t be suitable for me. Is that the only date that we’re discussing?

Q3 Chair: The issue is that the Government give us days in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, so we have no choice about when we schedule days. The next day that we have available to us for definite is 28 February-the first day back from the recess. The debate doesn’t have to be on that day. You can make a bid for another day if you want to do so.

Mr Clarke: Okay. First, may I declare an interest? I am the chair of the all-party friends of CAFOD group and CAFOD gives me administrative support. CAFOD and most of the other non-governmental organisations with which I and most of my colleagues work are very supportive of the need for the debate that we’re seeking.

Why do we need a debate on Sudan and why should it take place on the Floor of the House? We recognise the significance of debates in Westminster Hall, but our view is that particularly after the referendum in Sudan, the case for a debate in the Chamber is profound. We know that this is a very difficult time for Sudan, notwithstanding the fact that 99 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum voted for independence, but we have to consider Britain’s role in terms of the comprehensive peace agreement and the link that we have in a bilateral sense and through the UN and the European Union, where so many discussions are taking place. We also have to consider the challenges: humanitarian challenges such as what is happening to the returnees, the problem of the Lord’s Resistance Army, the problem in Abyei and the problem of debt, which is ongoing. For all those reasons and many more, we think that this is the right time-there is all-party support for the proposal-to have a debate on the Floor of the House. Many people in the House have not had an opportunity to discuss the issue because, for example, they’re not members of the Select Committee on International Development-it has been doing a very good job on the issue-or of other committees. A debate would give them a chance to speak or to intervene. For those reasons, I certainly commend the suggestion.

Tony Baldry: Two things are going on in Sudan. There is the independence of southern Sudan-the first new de jure state in Africa for a very long time-and there are the ongoing issues in relation to Darfur. This issue straddles the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development; it goes across Whitehall. The topic is never likely to be debated on an Opposition Supply day and will never be more than the subject of a statement by the Government at best. The House has been concerned with the issue, to my certain knowledge, for 10 years. It has been concerned about Darfur, southern Sudan and the persecution of Christians in southern Sudan-one of the things that brought about the comprehensive peace agreement and has now led to independence. The situation can blow up at any time. It can do so in the south because of the oil-there is the question of who owns the oil and all the other unfinished issues-but there are also the ongoing issues in Darfur. Of course, the whole structure of Sudan came about because it was the UK that originally drew its boundaries. I therefore think that a debate on Sudan would be timely. There is a fair amount of Back-Bench expertise on the issue, which could result in some genuinely worthwhile contributions to such a debate.

Q4 Chair: I assume that over the years you have had a Westminster Hall debate on Sudan. Is that the case?

Tony Baldry: My recollection is that Sudan has cropped up from time to time as the subject of Adjournment debates on the Floor of the House.

Mr Clarke: Some time ago-about two years ago, I think-we had a debate in Westminster Hall, but most of the things that we were saying are already out of date.

Q5 Mr Bone: This is obviously a very important subject.

My only question is this: you want three hours, and that is quite proper for such a debate, but I guess that most Members will be saying the same thing-that there is not going to be great division on the subject.

Mr Clarke: With great respect, Peter, we doubt that. You will already have heard that Tony and I say entirely different things, much as I support everything that he has said. I believe that the focus on international development itself and the DFID side of things is increasing. I think that people are asking-I do not complain-what happens to the £145.6 million a year that we are spending in Sudan. From many perspectives, we will get many different views. Nevertheless, there is unity within the House about the humanitarian aspects. I hope that the results of the referendum on independence will lead to the kind of peace that, sadly, Sudan has not experienced.

Q6 Mr Bone: I have a second question. One of the problems is that we can be told at fairly short notice that we have a day in the House, in the Chamber. However, we can have statements on those days, and if we have scheduled two debates, you suddenly finish with less than three hours, and that sometimes obviously does not do justice to the debate. However, if we have a Westminster Hall debate-we may know about it further in advance-we can guarantee you three hours. That is a bit of a trade-off, and sometimes it may be better to have the three hours, because you’re not going to have a substantive motion and there is no vote. I wonder what your view would be if we suggested Westminster Hall.

Mr Clarke: If there is a choice, we would clearly prefer the Chamber, not least because there are more Lobby correspondents around and so on. I know that both the Chamber and Westminster Hall are televised, but I believe that more people pay attention to television coverage of the Chamber. If there is no choice, then we would obviously accept Westminster Hall, but we have a strong preference for the Chamber.

Q7Jane Ellison: In some ways, you have just answered my question. I was going to ask you to expand on the fact that you’re looking for a Chamber debate because you feel that, in a way, it accords greater significance to the issue and that it is likely to be given more prominence and attention. I suspect that what Peter was driving at, which we sometimes try to draw out at these sittings, was whether something that we put in the Chamber will be subject to the to and fro of debate. If I understand him correctly, he wasn’t saying that you all have the same point of view, but simply that, as you said yourself, there will be no division in the sense that there will be no vote at the end of the debate. As I understand it, your main argument is that it is an important issue and that it deserves the prominence and attention gained from being held in the Chamber.

Mr Clarke: I think that that is right. We deliberately merely suggested "Sudan" as a title for the debate. It is true that there are very few differences on the subject; I haven’t noticed any between those on both sides of the House. I take the view that this would show the House at its best, and at the same time focus on a hugely important issue. Those are other reasons for having such a debate in the Chamber.

Tony Baldry: If I was in court, Tom, I would say, "I’ll take the three hours in Westminster Hall. No order as to costs, and liberty to apply. Thank you very much."

Q8 Chair: Our other question is always about topicality. Is there a time limit? Is there a reason why the debate has to be held now? We have a slot on 28 February for definite, but anything that comes beyond that is not definite. At some point there will be Westminster Hall slots that are three hours long, but we are already scheduled up to the end of March. We may not have anything in Westminster Hall until April time. Would that be a problem? Is there a reason why the debate has to be held now, or would you be quite happy to have it scheduled that far in advance?

Mr Clarke: We were keen to have the debate as soon as we could after the results of the referendum were known. As you know, independence will be gained on 9 July, but I don’t know that we would want to wait quite as long as that. We think that within the next few weeks, and certainly very soon after the February recess, could be the right time for the debate.

Q9 Jane Ellison: I just want, through you Madam Chairman, to pick up on what Peter said. We often have full days when a motion that the House was dividing on has gone first, and then sometimes a motion on which there was perhaps more consensus-as Peter says, a take-note motion-has followed. That rarely has the full half-day that we might envisage, but in our experience it has rarely gone below two hours. Just to get a feel, so that we have the best possible understanding of what you’re after, if that sort of slot became available in the Chamber-essentially a slot that might be anywhere between one a half and three hours, coming after another debate-would it be attractive to you?

Mr Clarke: We would leave that to your judgment. Obviously, if a statement was made, we would have to live with the consequences, but we would certainly have enough people to speak in a debate of say two hours or whatever; we do know that these problems can arise.

Ian Murray: As a new Member, may I make an observation? I have been struck by how little of important international affairs are discussed in the main Chamber. Although Westminster Hall debates are very valuable, in nearly a year I cannot recall important international events being discussed on the Floor of the House. A significant event is happening in Sudan that could have consequences for the whole of Africa-it also borders Egypt, which is also incredibly important at the moment-and a debate on the Floor of the House would be well deserved.

Chair: That is an important point. We shall take everything that has been said into consideration. Thank you very much.

May we hear from Denis MacShane and Douglas Carswell next? Even though it is not the same debate, it’s sort of related. I hope you don’t mind.

Mr MacShane: Thank you very much, Natasha. I agree with that last point. The reason that we are here is that I keep raising a business question on the need for more time on foreign policy and international affairs, but George Young gently and politely wafts me and all who raise the subject off in your direction. We have lost the bi-annual pre-European Council debate. We did have a statement on Afghanistan, which was welcome, but we have had no substantive debate on Afghanistan. Sir Peter Tapsell was complaining to me about that today, and he said, "I can’t do this in simple questions. I need to make a speech."

We propose having a debate on the first Monday back on an important motion that narrows down on the fact that we are about to name a raft of key ambassadors, including the most senior one in the British ranking of overseas diplomatic representatives-namely, our representative to the EU, which is now technically the most senior diplomatic post. Paris, Berlin, Washington and other posts are also coming up, as well as changes to other international representation, so this is very timely.

This motion calls for a significant extension of the House of Commons’ authority by bringing in confirmation hearings for senior posts, to be held by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and votes. It also calls for twice-yearly debates in Government time on a substantive motion-it is a voteable motion-on foreign affairs. The motion "That this House approves the conduct of foreign policy" would be quite sufficient.

I have noticed exactly the same as Tom, Tony and Ian-that we just aren’t doing that-we are not discussing foreign affairs much in the Chamber. We have single-issue debates-I mean no disrespect to any colleague-but you could make one or two powerful speeches on Sudan within the context of the motion that I propose.

Q10 Chair: May I just stop you there for a second? You propose a motion, which is really helpful. I assume that a diplomatic appointment is happening right now which will make the debate topical.

Mr Carswell: As Denis said, in the motion we focus on all senior diplomatic posts and positions representing the UK in international bodies being subject to a confirmation hearing. I have in mind the next head of UKRep. I believe that we should have the 28 February slot, that there should be a motion and that it should be in the main Chamber for the following reasons. The appointment of the next head of UKRep is pending. I have tried repeatedly, through parliamentary questions and freedom of information requests, to find out more details about this. We know that the incumbent will be out of the job by July. The Foreign Office refuses to disclose more detail and information. In response to freedom of information requests, the only thing that I have is hints, through leaked newspaper reports in the News of the World, that the Executive are not disclosing any details.

Q11 Chair: This is the ambassador to Europe?

Mr Carswell: Yes, the next head of UKRep. At the Westminster Hall debate on modernisation, I wanted to discuss this issue and talk about modernising Parliament so that we could have some oversight. As you know, it was a very well-attended debate. Unfortunately, there just was not the time during the lengthy debate for me to get in on that, so we have considered that option and exhausted it. It is fair to say that there is a strong feeling about this among those on both sides of the House. Keith Vaz, who could not be here, supports this idea, as does Parliament First. Many colleagues support the idea that such appointments should be debated and voted on, but I also know of a number of colleagues who are fiercely against it; they don’t think that the legislature has any business in deciding these things. Surely, though, that is the whole point; we would have a good debate.

Why should this debate not take place in Westminster Hall? I am here to pitch not for a bigger debating chamber, but for the opportunity to hold the Executive to account on this issue and to push the issue that we, who are elected by the people, have some right to oversee-

Q12 Mr Bone: Can I just stop you? Because you have a substantive motion, Westminster Hall is out, and we are quite happy with that. This is a wonderful presentation; it ticks all the boxes. Sometimes we look at a motion when we go in private and then come back afterwards and say, "This is a good idea but perhaps you would like to look at one or two things." I am a bit surprised that there is an order here that states the Government have to conduct a debate in Government time. I am not sure-and we would look at this in private-whether we have the authority to do that. The first thing is that it is really exciting and interesting. It is topical, you have people who express both sides of the argument and it is substantive. I am sure that you will get lots of people, and of course you did try to get in in the Westminster Hall debate.

Mr MacShane: May I add a rider? I am very happy to look at wording, but my initial inspiration was not just exclusively on the question of confirmation hearings, which would be an advance for democracy in Parliament. After serving eight years in the Foreign Office, I can also think of serious reasons why that could be objected to. It is important that we demand more serious considered time, other than just one-line or two-line points that we can make in statements on foreign affairs, so the second half of the motion is really quite important.

Q13 John Hemming: I wonder whether we could have two motions tabled, because we can debate them both at the time and then vote on them separately. Would you have a problem with that?

Mr Carswell: No.

John Hemming: They do not seem to be completely bound to each other.

Q14 Mr Bone: One of the things that the Backbench Business Committee is considering is putting on motions. You may want motions on foreign policy twice a year. We will put them on when there is a demand for them; we will not limit ourselves to two. We put on the first ever debate on Afghanistan. I am rather unhappy about bouncing it back for the Government to decide; I would rather like to keep it under our control.

Mr Carswell: I don’t take issue with any of the things you have said. If you were to look at this as two motions married into one, and if you were to try to decouple them, I would just emphasise that the first bit has a topicality and an urgency to it, given that the Executive are lining up to make these announcements without any say-so from the people’s tribunes.

Chair: And there is the wider issue about confirmation hearings. We have got that. Thank you very much for coming in and bringing that to us.

Q15 Jane Ellison: Just a quick question. I am playing devil’s advocate. You said that it would attract wide interest from across the House, but quite a lot of debates about details, particularly of European matters, don’t attract such a wide interest. They tend to attract deep and very well-informed interest from a relatively narrow group of people from both sides of the Chamber. I am just pushing you a bit. Do you think it will go beyond the people who normally attend debates, such as the one last week?

Mr MacShane: I very much hope so. It is a tricky, believe me. I have been a foreign affairs and Euro bore ever since I came here 17 years ago. I accept that point, but there are people who have interesting and important things to say about the synoptic conduct of foreign policy and how it interrelates between the Foreign Office, DFID, the agencies, the MOD, what we are doing in different parts of our work and our relationships with Europe and America. That’s what I want to see more discussed, rather than just single-issue questions on the European Court of Human Rights, Sudan, Egypt, Israel or Palestine. That’s why I would, with due respect to Peter, urge that one invites the Government to do so. It is a very unusual Government-I don’t think any other democracy does this-in that they do not allow a broader debate in their own time, or subject to their own organisation, once or twice a year on what we want out of foreign policy.

Mr Carswell: If I could respond to your point, Jane, which is a valid one, this is emphatically not about having another Europe-centred debate. It’s about a broader issue-getting the legislature off its knees. There was once a time in this country when in parliamentary elections, there were public debates about the nature of British foreign policy which galvanised public opinion. There was a fierce debate involving the public as to what the Foreign Office should stand for and do. I would suggest that we no longer have such debates because the people elected by the voters no longer have the oversight. This is about giving democratic oversight of foreign policy. It’s not about trying to say, "Foreign policy should be this, or that."

Chair: Thank you.

Sorry to keep our next colleagues waiting, but having sat there, you have an idea of what we’re after. We are after topicality, what it is that you’re after, how many hours and how many people you have-top to bottom. We will ask you questions to supplement what you say to us. So please kick off.

Charlie Elphicke: Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your advice, guidance and encouragement to come here today. I come here, as everyone knows, with Hazel Blears and Charlotte Leslie.

There needs to be a debate on the big society because we now have a storm raging in the fourth estate-all over the front pages of newspapers and on our TVs. Yet in Parliament, we hear silence. I think Parliament should debate and discuss this matter and have a chance to have a proper debate on the agreements and the differences between the parties. Hazel will speak about the good society, I will speak about the big society and Charlotte is an ambassador for the big society, no less; we are in esteemed company. For that reason, it is highly relevant and topical, and the moment is now for Parliament to have a proper, main Chamber debate on the matter. There have already been debates-Hazel will talk further about them-in Westminster Hall and on Adjournments, but now is the right time to have the debate and discussion.

Jane will recall that we had a meeting last night of all of our new intake, and all of those on our side of the aisle, about 50 or 60 of them, signed something to say, "Yes, we want a debate on the big society." I have been collecting signatures on my own, and I have about 33 from all parties, so the debate will be greatly supported, and will easily be oversubscribed for the full three hours. It needs to be the subject of a main Chamber debate now, and we have a voteable motion.

Q16 Mr Bone: Did you say three hours?

Charlie Elphicke: My submission would be for a debate of up to three hours, but I think the amount of interest from colleagues of all parties will be immense, partly because of the division on what the big or good society is about and partly because many colleagues will want to talk about projects in their constituencies, and that attracts interest. It’s important to have a voteable motion that can be amended if people so decide, and so a Division of the House could be called to get the proper opinion of Parliament and the House of Commons.

Q17 Chair: We’ll talk through the amount of time, because if it’s in the Chamber, we have up to six hours available, so don’t feel that you are necessarily restricted to three hours. Could you add to that, Hazel?

Hazel Blears: I am supporting Charlie in this because at the moment, the big society is either something that people know precious little about, or it is all things to all people. The Prime Minister has described it as his passion, and if it is the Prime Minister’s passion, Parliament ought to be debating it and having a say. It’s also one of those issues that runs right across every single Department, so it is quite difficult to get a handle on accountability and on how we are going to call people to account.

There have been debates around the subject, for example the recent debate in Westminster Hall on community cohesion went absolutely to the heart of the big society. There have also been debates on each of the Second Readings of major Bills-the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, the Localism Bill and the Health and Social Care Bill-when issues about community empowerment, expressions of interest for local groups to take over the running of services, the development of social enterprise and mutuals were all discussed. Those issues were discussed in those separate legislative arenas, but, as yet, there has been no opportunity to have a full debate about the big society.

Yesterday, Lord Wei, who is one of the ambassadors for this issue, said, "one day we will each encounter it in our daily lives wherever we live, and work, and play-at which point we will instinctively say ‘That’s Big Society!’" If that is where we are, I think that we, as a House, need to have the time and the opportunity to drill down and to ensure that we have a chance to debate the principles and the practicalities of the major sums of public money that we will spend-the big society bank is going to have £600 million-and how this is going to work. I have set the Government three tests, in three or four speeches, about funding, a proper framework and fairness. At the moment, I have to say, Charlie, that they are not doing too well on each of those tests, but, nevertheless, I am prepared to be persuaded. I think it would be a great debate.

Q18 Chair: Brilliant. Do you want to add anything to that, Charlotte?

Charlotte Leslie: No, things have been pretty much covered, but it’s interesting, and the public are interested in it politically, because of the recent media coverage, and practically as well. So I think it ticks all the boxes. As Charlie says, the fact that Parliament is silent, when the conversation is raging outside, makes Parliament conspicuous by its silence.

Q19 John Hemming: There is a Chamber day on the first day that we come back after the recess. Seeing as the recess starts quite soon, do you actually have a substantive motion for that?

Hazel Blears: It would be very difficult to do the debate on the 28th.

Q20 John Hemming: Why would that be?

Hazel Blears: It is short notice in terms of people being able to come.

Q21 John Hemming: The difficulty is that we don’t often get Chamber days, and, in practice, if you want a substantive motion, that is a possibility. Are you are saying no to it under all circumstances?

Hazel Blears: My difficulty is that it is short notice to arrange for people to be there.

Q22 Chair: We are given days as and when. The next one that we have is 28 February. There will be days after that, but, by that stage, we are looking at perhaps one a week, so it may not be until two weeks hence, which is quite a long way away. In terms of topicality, if the argument is that the debate about it is raging outside, it possibly won’t be raging outside anymore.

Hazel Blears: If it’s the Prime Minister’s passion, I think it’s going to rage for some months.

Mr Bone: I thought that you made a wonderful presentation up until just then. The idea that this is a raging issue that Parliament must discuss and that you’re going to have a motion-let me suggest one-that the big society is a load of rubbish and that it’s just done for spin might attract some media attention.

Jane Ellison: Or something very different.

Mr Bone: We have a Monday when Members are going to be here, and we would really like to have a really good debate. I must say that your debate sounds splendid for that day, but if you say, "Gosh. The 28th is too short notice," I think we have a bit of a problem. I do think that you would have to have a reasonably interesting motion that the House could divide on.

Q23 Jane Ellison: My feelings are very similar to Peter’s and Madam Chairman’s. You have really made a persuasive case, especially with the point that we are not talking in detail about something that everyone else is talking about. It would need a long slot, because, for it to be a substantive debate, it has get a bit beyond the cut and thrust of spending cuts, etcetera. I suspect that, in a full day’s debate, you would hear some really good, substantive nuanced points of view that go beyond that. It is a bit disappointing that we have a day on offer, but it is not one that grabs your attention.

Hazel Blears: I am perhaps being a bit unfair, because Charlie has just brought me in to support him in this presentation, and if it is the Prime Minister’s passion, it is totally my passion, and it has been for the last decade or so. I will be on Select Committee business on that day, so that is my unfortunate dilemma. I wouldn’t ask the Committee to go out of its way for me.

Chair: We can discuss that when we are in private session. We have had this before, where people have brought us debates and those very days offered are ones that they cannot be here, so we will discuss that.

Q24 John Hemming: So even a later debate-if there were two debates on the Monday-would not be possible?

Hazel Blears: No.

Q25 Chair: You’ve brought us the pitch; you’ve brought us the bid for a very interesting debate. We’ll go into private session now; we have lots of other bids that are stacking up as well. Unfortunately, we should have several days a week-that would make it much easier for us to schedule debates. Considering the amount of interesting debates that people bring us, we could certainly fill them. Jane, would you like to ask a question?

Jane Ellison: No-I was just checking through you whether Charlie said he was available.

Charlie Elphicke: Yes, the specific difficulty relates to Hazel, who has very kindly come and supported me and has been a huge supporter throughout, as has Jon Cruddas and Tristram Hunt. David Miliband has been very supportive as well, and there are many others. I did not realise that the only open date was the 28th, and Hazel, who is really desperate to take part, would not be able to do so if the debate were scheduled for that day. It is a difficult one: this is a debate that needs to happen and is highly topical. But I would love Hazel to be part of it, so I find myself conflicted.

Chair: We will think about it, but thank you very much for bringing up this topic because it is a really interesting one. It was a very good presentation as well.

Charlie Elphicke: We do have a voteable motion.

Q26 Mr Bone: As we are still broadcasting, would you like to tell us, before we go into private session, what the draft motion is?

Charlie Elphicke: Yes. "This House believes that the Big Society is a force for good and that public policy should be formulated to advance the ambition of supporting the interests of community and voluntary groups, to allow communities a greater say in shaping their futures and to ensure adequate support is provided to make this a practical reality." I will write it out in a fair copy, so that everyone can read it.

Chair: Thank you. We will go into private session now and talk about it then. Thank you for coming.