UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 2010

GORDON BANKS, NIC DAKIN, MR. FRANK FIELD, SHEILA GILMORE, KATE GREEN, ROBERT HALFON, DUNCAN HAMES, FIONA MACTAGGART, MR. GEOFFREY ROBINSON, BOB RUSSELL, OWEN SMITH, NICHOLAS SOAMES and CHRIS WILLIAMSON

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Wednesday 15 September 2010

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Alison Seabeck

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Gordon Banks, Nic Dakin, Mr. Frank Field, Sheila Gilmore, Kate Green, Robert Halfon, Duncan Hames, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson, Bob Russell, Owen Smith, Nicholas Soames, and Chris Williamson made representations.

Chair: Thank you all very much for coming. This is our first meeting, so I will avoid laboratory and experimentation analogies and restrict myself to calling you trailblazers. You will have to bear with us for a while. This is not about us; it is about Back Benchers bringing us ideas about how to use the time that we have been allocated by the Government to use for Back-Bench business.

This sitting is about 14 October, which is when we next have time on the Floor of the House, but it is not only about that. We want to hear lots of ideas, and we want to hear specifically about the subjects that you want to debate. We do not want the details of the subject, because, hopefully, we will hear that in the debate. Perhaps you will give us a quick headline.

We also want to find out how much time you think the debate needs. We have a day, which represents six hours, and we then have smaller portions. The key is how many other Members you think would be involved in a debate. We do not want a debate that is of interest to very few people. We want as many Back Benchers as possible to be involved in the debate, but we also want to reach outside. If you have other interest groups, parties or constituents who are interested, we would like to hear about that.

The other key thing that we want to hear from you is what other avenues you have tried-have you put in for Adjournment debates, is this strictly speaking a parliamentary question, or is it something that really warrants a six-hour debate?

The only other thing I want to say is that this is not an opportunity for Government Back Benchers to find a subject on which they want to have a go at the Opposition, and it is not an opportunity for the Opposition to get a lot of Back Benchers together to do a bit of Government bashing. There are avenues for that. The Government have their own time, and the Opposition have their own time. This is about Back Benchers identifying time that they may use to debate Back-Bench issues.

I have talked for quite a long time. Perhaps you will be as brief as possible so that we can get through as many people as possible. After that, we will go into private deliberation. Anything on which we deliberate will be put on our website, which is accessible through the Committee page of the Parliament website. We will give reasons why we think one subject has greater merit than another. If a subject is not chosen, that does not mean that it will never be chosen. It just means that it has been parked somewhere. This is not about once and forever holding your peace; it is about really having a go. Thank you, Sir Nicholas Soames and Frank Field for being the first to do so. Perhaps we could hear your pitch, please.

Nicholas Soames: Thank you, Miss Engel, for allowing Mr Field and I to appear before the Committee together. We would like to have a debate on immigration. We believe that the topicality is clear, and that it is one of the most important issues facing the country, the Government and the Opposition. Secondly, we believe that it is important to have a full public debate on the Floor of the House. There has never been a debate solely on immigration, which is a very important matter, and it’s important that the House has a chance to express its view. There is substantial interest in the whole question of immigration; it is very much at the top of the political agenda. Frank will deal with why we feel we should have a debate on the Floor of the House, but we would be very grateful to have the chance to table a substantive motion, and I have handed you a copy of one that would form the basis of what we would like to say.

Mr Field: What I would like to add to what Nicholas has said is that we have not come here without having done quite a lot of work beforehand. Nicholas and I formed a cross-party group on balanced migration so that we could raise the subject in Parliament. We wanted to do that so that Members felt they could contribute to this debate in a constructive way and not be accused of being racist for raising the issue. I think we have now reached a stage where people can more honestly talk about this issue, which is one of the major issues that their constituents raise with them, in a proper manner, without being thought to have a hidden agenda.

What we have failed to do so far is to get a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons. We have used Westminster Hall-the group, in a sense, was born in a debate that Nicholas initiated in Westminster Hall. I went to join him in that debate, and from that point, we decided to make links in this House and the other House to try to influence debate. We want Members to be able to express their views and we want to be able to respond to those views. We’d like the Government and the Opposition to have the opportunity to join us in raising this issue in the place where the main debates take place, which is on the Floor of the House. That will allow us to express our constituents’ concern and to begin to map out what the next policy steps should be in the best interests of the country.

Q1 Chair: Can you remember more or less how many people were at the Westminster Hall debate?

Nicholas Soames: It was full-it was pretty full.

Mr Field: We were timed to get in to speak.

Q2 Alison Seabeck: When was that? How long was the session? Was it one of the longest sessions?

Nicholas Soames: It was an hour and a half. It was about two years ago.

Mr Field: We had one before that.

Nicholas Soames: We had one before that. The subject had appeared in another debate, but we did have a debate of an hour and a half.

Q3 Mr Bone: The difference between Westminster Hall and the Chamber is that you can have a substantive motion and a vote in the Chamber. Is that one reason why you think we should debate this on the Floor of the House?

Mr Field: No, the main aim is to have a debate on this subject, which our electorates feel strongly about, in the main Chamber.

Q4 Chair: Thank you very much for that. I just wanted to ask whether anybody else at the back has come with an issue related to this or in any way connected to immigration. No? Brilliant. Thank you very much for opening this up for us.

Bob Russell was the next person who contacted us. I’m sorry about the random nature of this. Bob Russell has written to us to ask to have a debate on child poverty. Is anybody else here for child poverty? No? Bob.

Bob Russell: Thank you very much indeed. I welcome the fact that we now have this new system, and I hope it works. The issue of child poverty goes across parties. Obviously, all of us in public life have a deep interest in poverty issues, and when children are involved, the issues are even more poignant in a way. I had a debate in Westminster Hall in June. It was for 30 minutes, which was sufficient to raise the issue, but we really ought to have a debate on the Floor of the House so that people across the political divide can join the debate. I have every confidence that six hours would be filled. Numerous charities are involved with child poverty, not least the Child Poverty Action Group. There’s also Barnardo’s, Save the Children and so on. When I had that debate back in June, I had so much material, it was difficult to keep my speech down to 15 minutes.

Q5 Chair: When you had the debate in Westminster Hall, and when you have been generally talking to colleagues, how much support have you had? We have to take that into consideration. We can schedule debates on the Floor of the House for six hours, but we need confirmation that people will come and take part in those debates. Do you have a cross-party list of Members who would participate in such a debate?

Bob Russell: I was not anticipating being asked that, and, to be honest, I thought that we were looking at three hours. Based on the plethora of background briefings that I received in the space of 72 hours when word got round that I had that Westminster Hall debate, I am confident that people will be in touch. Across Parliament, it is difficult to find an MP who does not have child poverty of one sort or another on their radar.

There was another debate in Westminster Hall yesterday-it was a 90-minute debate that had been secured by Karen Buck-which was more on the wide subject of disadvantaged families, and I spoke for eight minutes on the narrow aspect of child poverty. Those of you who were in the Chamber on Monday will know that the subject formed part of my question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that this is a big issue. According to official figures, 3.9 million children are living below the poverty line. I am concerned that the measures that are being taken, or may be taken, could make the situation worse, and I am anxious that that does not happen.

Chair: That is great, Bob.

Q6 Jane Ellison: That leads on to another question, which is what sort of angle are you coming in on? Clearly, everyone agrees it is a bad thing. What will be the substance of the debate? Will you be seeking to explore different ways and approaches?

Bob Russell: Barnardo’s has come forward with proposals, which, it says, could go a long way towards alleviating child poverty without necessarily adding to public expenditure. I am trying to work out which charity it was that said that the cost to the public purse of doing nothing, over time, runs into billions of pounds. The consequences of child poverty, as those young people feed into their teens and adult life, mean that the financial cost to the public purse runs into billions of pounds. Dealing with the issue when they are children actually saves the public purse. That is putting to one side the quality of life and all the other aspects.

Chair: I do not want to go into the details of the debate, because we will have those during the three hours. I am more keen on finding out what you are thinking about in terms of the motion-whether it is voteable or non-voteable-and the amount of time that you need. I will just bring in Philip Hollobone.

Q7 Mr Hollobone: Are you seeking a general debate, a debate about a specific aspect of child poverty or a debate around the substantive motion?

Bob Russell: It is to deal with child poverty. I recognise that children have parents and thus the family are living in child poverty. We need to tackle that generation, so that we are not repeating the pattern through further generations. The object of the exercise is to try to break the cycle.

Chair: Thank you. May we have Robert Halfon next?

Robert Halfon: From one Essex MP to another. I should like to thank the Committee for seeing me today. I think that this is a fantastic innovation of Parliament and I am pleased that it is occurring. As the Chair knows, I wrote to her before the summer recess about an issue that I, and a number of other people, feel very strongly about. I have termed it the privatised surveillance society, but what I am talking about is the advancement of internet technology and individual privacy. This follows the revelation that Google has mapped people’s personal wi-fis up and down the country. In a number of other countries right across the world, there are legal challenges to Google and police investigations. I believe that we need a debate and an inquiry into the role of the internet and how it is used and how we can protect people’s privacy. I have the backing of three organisations-Big Brother Watch, representatives of which are in the public gallery today, Privacy International and No2ID. I tabled two early-day motions on the subject before the summer recess. One was signed by 25 MPs and the other by 11. I also have up to 11 or 12 MPs who have said that they would be willing to contribute to a debate.

Q8 Chair: What kind of debate are you looking for? Are you looking for a debate on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall? How many hours?

Robert Halfon: I believe that this is an issue of incredible importance and it should be debated on the Floor of the House. I have been putting in for Westminster Hall debates for many weeks, but have not yet obtained one. That was before this innovation took place. I believe that a major debate is needed in Parliament and in our society about the role of the internet and the rights of individual privacy.

Q9 John Hemming: Would two hours do? Would three hours do?

Robert Halfon: I think a three-hour debate would be perfectly adequate.

Q10 Chair: Thank you, Robert. Could we now have Gordon Banks? Before I go on, could you just chip in if someone is making a contribution and it’s related to what you want to bring to us? Feel free just to chip in. Gordon wants to talk about looped blind cords.

Gordon Banks: I am grateful for the opportunity to try to sell my wares on looped blind cords. People might scratch their heads and say, "What does the guy mean about looped blind cords?" Looped blind cords are in everyone’s house. They might well be in this room-no, they are not. But they kill people; they kill children. Quite simply and bluntly, that is the case.

By way of background, I should say that I became involved in this issue in 2008, when a two-and-a-half-year-old toddler was killed in my constituency. She was strangled in the cords of a blind in a bedroom. Since being involved, I have come to understand that these things might sound as though they are terrible freakish accidents, but there are two to three deaths a year in the United Kingdom of toddlers who are strangled by looped blind cords in their houses. What normally happens is that a toddler will fall into the looped blind cord and be strangled.

I have been campaigning since 2008 for a change in the operating mechanisms of blinds to eradicate the need for cords. I have used parliamentary processes: I have used questions, early-day motions and Westminster Hall in 2008.

Q11 Chair: Have you a cross-party group of MPs or a number of MPs who are also interested in this issue?

Gordon Banks: I have had early-day motions that have been signed by 85 MPs. There are deaths because of looped blind cords across the length and breadth of the UK, which motivates the individual MPs for those areas. There is a significant number of campaign groups now growing and they are working towards eradication of looped blind cords.

Q12 Chair: What kind of time are you talking about?

Gordon Banks: Three hours.

Q13 Chair: On the Floor of the House?

Gordon Banks: Yes, on the Floor of the House and with a vote, because my objective is to have the mechanisms changed-outlawed. We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and we have to move forward. We can’t retrospectively change what’s in your house, my house, Peter’s house or whatever the case may be. If we never take that decision, we are never standing up to the mark, and for decades to come toddlers will be in danger. I do not know whether I should have done this, but I have prepared one side of A4 on this issue, which I can leave with you.

Q14 Chair: That is very helpful; thank you. Duncan Hames is next. This section is on the Cancun climate change conference.

Duncan Hames: I am joined by Charlotte Leslie, from Bristol North West. The next United Nations climate change conference is in Cancun, from 29 November to 10 December. Last week at business questions, I asked whether we could have a debate in Back-Bench time before that conference, so that the whole House could discuss the Government’s objectives for the conference. I was encouraged by the Leader of the House to come to this Committee today and make the case for that now.

Last year, a month before the Copenhagen conference, there was a debate in the House of Commons, in which over 30 Members of Parliament took part and which lasted for over five hours. However, the particular point that I would like to make to you in considering having a debate this time is that over a third of the House of Commons is newly elected. Of those Members, nearly 50 are under 35 years old and might reasonably expect still to be around in 2050, when many of the targets that we are talking about will need to have been met. Only two of those Members were present in the last Parliament, and with that in mind, when seeking support for the debate I turn to new MPs from across the political parties.

Q15 Chair: Did you have a lot of support from new MPs?

Duncan Hames: In very quick time. I won’t give you a long list, but I will briefly mention to you-

Q16 Chair: Just give us the general numbers and what they are across the parties. That would be really helpful.

Duncan Hames: I will give you an illustrative sample of seven MPs-myself, Charlotte Leslie, Rachel Reeves and Gavin Shuker for Labour, Rory Stewart for the Conservatives Simon Wright for the Liberal Democrats and Caroline Lucas for the Green Party. There is cross-party support. Those are all new Members of Parliament and many of them, as I have said, reflect the younger group of new MPs that we now have in the House-no offence intended.

Q17 Chair: Thank you. What amount of time are you talking about? Are you talking about the Floor of the House or Westminster Hall?

Duncan Hames: As you will see, there was plenty of demand for a lengthy debate this time last year. I am sure that there will be a lot of demand from colleagues to speak in a debate prior to Cancun. I don’t really think that 90 minutes in Westminster Hall is going to do it. Given the number of days allocated to this Committee, there should be another opportunity to allocate a debate prior to the conference but subsequent to the date of 14 October that is being considered today. In the interests of seeking to have long enough to debate the issue properly, I hope that we might be able to show a degree of flexibility in the date that is chosen.

Chair: This is not about the 14 October and then never again. We are hoping to meet every single week when Parliament sits, and to have this kind of conversation every week. Perhaps I can bring in Peter and then Philip.

Q18 Mr Bone: I get the flavour that you are talking about a general debate, not one on a specific motion wanting the Government to do something.

Duncan Hames: That is correct. I think that would be appropriate. I have successfully tabled an oral question to the Department of Energy and Climate Change for tomorrow, asking the Government to set out their objectives for the conference. I hope that we will have illuminated the debate prior to it taking place to some degree, with the terms of the Government’s objectives to allow some focus for that debate. Otherwise, it could be a little unwieldy, couldn’t it?

Q19 Mr Hollobone: As you are calling this debate ahead of a major international conference, you could table a substantive motion calling on the Government to do something at that conference. Is that something that you have thought about?

Duncan Hames: I can see the advantage of doing so, and I would be happy to liaise with this Committee about doing just that. I did not want to restrict support for the debate by having too narrow an agenda at this stage.

Q20 Chair: Thank you very much. Can we have Owen Smith and Geoffrey Robinson?

Owen Smith: Thank you. It is nice to be here. It feels like being in front of the parliamentary version of Dragons’ Den. Our very straightforward plea is for a debate on the support for families who have been infected or bereaved as a result of treatment with contaminated NHS blood products during the 1970s and 1980s. We are calling for a substantive motion to be debated on the Floor of the House-the substantive motion being that the Government should implement in full the findings of the Archer inquiry, which was a non-statutory public inquiry that was conducted in 2007-08 and reported in February last year. It looked into this long-running issue.

The background to this is that around 4,500 people were infected across the UK in the ‘70s and ‘80s as a result of being treated with clotting agents. Those were principally haemophiliacs. Approximately 1,500 of those people have died subsequently as a result of either HIV, hepatitis C or liver cancer, all directly attributable to the blood products. What has happened thus far is that the Government have not admitted or accepted any culpability or liability for that; however, various funds have been established to make ex gratia payments to those people.

Q21 Chair: We have had a number of letters on this issue and I think in terms of constituency campaigning this is quite strong. Have you got together with other MPs from different parties?

Owen Smith: I have.

Q22 Chair: Have you put in for a Westminster Hall debate?

Owen Smith: No. I contacted various MPs who were interested in the issue yesterday, and already more than 20 MPs from across the party divides have expressed an interest. I have not raised it yet as a subject for an Adjournment debate. I think it is such a complicated subject, and such a long-running subject, that a full debate on the Floor of the House would be required to air the full complexities.

Q23 Chair: And what kind of time were you thinking about?

Owen Smith: Well, if our options are three hours or a full day, I suggest we would need a full day to do it absolute justice.

Q24 Mr Bone: I think the real issue is that you need it on the Floor of the House because you want a substantive motion that the House can divide on. That’s why Westminster Hall would not do.

Owen Smith: Absolutely.

Mr Robinson: It really is not a party political issue; it is across parties. Infected blood recognises no political distinction whatsoever. A gentleman who has been coming to see me for several years now is most disappointed that the previous Government did not grip it and opposed the High Court ruling that has been accepted now by the present Government. He unfortunately fears he is entering the terminal stages now, following HIV, or it may be liver cancer; it really is a very sad case. I have been following this, and it has not had the profile and attention in the House that it should have had, so I am entirely in support of what Owen has said. Indeed, I think many Members right across the parties will take part in a debate if we can secure it.

Q25 John Hemming: Do you have a draft substantive motion?

Owen Smith: Yes. It would be that the Government should implement in full the findings of the Archer inquiry.

Mr Robinson: Archer has compensation as a central element.

Owen Smith: I would add one further point, if I may. I think that there is an urgency to getting greater attention for the issue As Geoffrey said, we have constituents who are dying. I have two constituents affected, one of whom died recently and another of whom is entering the terminal stages of the disease, and they deserve our attention.

Q26 Chair: Thank you. Thanks for coming in.

I am taking people whom I have on my list, because they have written in to us; so can we have Kate Green? This is on housing benefit.

Kate Green: I am proposing that we allocate time for a discussion in the Chamber on housing benefit reform. It is obviously a subject that affects hundreds of thousands of families across the country. I can say, first, that the wish for such a discussion comes from Members not just across the different parties but also across geographical areas; I have had indications of support from Members in the north of Scotland and the south-east of England. This has wide geographic as well as cross-party importance and significance.

We have had a number of debates, since the Queen’s Speech in May, in Westminster Hall, which have been related to the subject, but it is clear that more time specifically on it would be desirable because a very large number of Members are concerned about the issue. In addition, a substantial number of external lobby groups, representing both tenants’ and landlords’ interests, have expressed concerns on the subject.

It is topical. We obviously have proposals for reforms, which would begin to come in from next year, and the Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, is conducting a short inquiry, and will be taking oral evidence, I think, at the end of October on the subject; but it is obvious, too, that there are wider issues that should be discussed than simply the current reforms that the Government are proposing, because there are a range of other possibilities and issues for longer-term housing benefit reform, which have not yet appeared in the mix. I think that there is substantial interest in the subject and a wish to see it given the profile that a debate in the Chamber would allow, particularly given the very significant number of concerns that a number of Members have about its impact in the medium term.

Chair: Thank you very much, Kate. Are there any questions?

Q27 Jane Ellison: Just a quick one. I read the Westminster Hall debate, and, in terms of the time, how do you see yourself framing the debate to sustain a really interesting debate back and forth? Would you go wider that just focusing on the current proposals and try to address it more widely to keep a substantial debate going over a period of time?

Kate Green: I think that is really essential, we have some very specific proposals, and, obviously, in a sense, we have the forum for discussion of those and to vote on them. The issue is that radical change has not really been properly explored and people would like to talk about the consequences of what is coming immediately and about a much broader and more imaginative approach to housing benefit, in the context of the welfare reform White Paper and the broader housing policy that we might seek to develop over the coming years.

Q28 John Hemming: Are you saying, in a sense, that welfare reform should be a wider debate? The specific changes that are coming through will come through in legislation, which will be debated at that time, so are you looking for a wider debate on welfare reform?

Kate Green: With a specific housing focus. The problem we have, if I may say, is timing, because we have some immediate and short-term things that are coming now. Then we will have a welfare reform White Paper, which will paint the big picture, as you said, and, as a result, we may lose the moment to put properly a broader debate about housing policy and benefit strategy at the appropriate moment. In a sense, we need to flag it up now if we are to inform the welfare reform debate in its broadest sense.

Q29 Mr Hollobone: What would you say to someone who said, "Well, it’s a fantastic subject but wouldn’t there be more weight if, for example, you were to wait for the DWP short inquiry to take place and then have a debate on the recommendations of that Committee?"

Kate Green: I have thought about that. As I said, I have found the timing the most tricky thing in my thinking. The issue is that because the reforms are coming in very quickly and because the inquiry is very narrow in its focus, it seems that hooking it around that issue is not getting at all the issues that we will want to bring out. Obviously, if we are not allocated 14 October for the debate, we will have had the oral sessions of the Select Committee inquiry in any event by the time of next date for Back-Bench business.

Q30 Chair: So you are making a specific bid for 14 October?

Kate Green: I think that we could have a very purposeful debate on 14 October. If not, that does not mean that the debate becomes irrelevant, but it would have a very particular focus, and there might be a shorter debate on 14 October or a longer one if it were after that.

Q31 Chair: That’s very helpful to know. You wanted to come in?

Sheila Gilmore: From a Scottish perspective, one of the important things here is that it is a UK-wide benefit. It has a lot of relevance to how housing policy develops. For example, I was at the launch of a report this morning that was talking about new options for housing policy. If you don’t tie that into how housing benefit works, there can be all the kinds of pitfalls, both in housing benefit reform and in housing policy. Over the last 20 years or so, various changes in housing policy have had adverse consequences for housing benefit bills. It would be useful to tease some of that out in the round. It isn’t just about some very specific changes, but about how we use, fund and subsidise our housing policy.

Chair: I think, Sheila, we have also been debating about how best to ensure that all countries and regions of the UK are well represented in Back-Bench time, so that is very helpful to know. Is there anyone else?

Q32 Mr Bone: Kate, how many Tories do you think would speak? Change that: how many Government Members?

Kate Green: Government Members-a substantial number. Only yesterday in the Westminster Hall debate, to which Bob Russell referred earlier, on the effect of the Budget announcements on low-income families, there were a relatively small number of speakers, but there were both Liberal Democrat and Conservative speakers. I think that it’s partly that Conservatives, whose constituencies are constituencies where high-cost housing is going to be an issue, would particularly like to join in the debate. That is quite a substantial number in the south-west and south-east.

Q33 Mr Bone: And, Kate, would you have a motion for the Government to do something in particular or would it just be a general debate?

Kate Green: I think that might depend on the timing in that if we were looking at a more strategic, longer-term debate, it might be more about putting the issues on the table, rather than a substantive motion. If we were looking at something very immediate, there might be some specific proposal that could be put down in relation to the reforms that the Government are currently thinking of.

Q34 Mr Hollobone: So if it were 14 October, would it be your intention to table a substantive motion for that debate?

Kate Green: I think it would be worth looking at doing that, but it would be narrower in its terms.

Chair: That is helpful. Thank you very much. We have a lot of people who want to contribute. Could we have Chris Heaton-Harris? I’ve been told he’s not here. Chris Williamson.

Chris Williamson: Thank you for giving us this opportunity. We would like the Backbench Committee to agree a debate to address a gross injustice that has been done to around 1,000 ex-service personnel, who were subject to nuclear tests in the South Pacific and Australia in the 1950s. There is a degree of urgency on the issue, because according to the information I have received, those veterans are dying at a rate of three people per week. As I understand it, every other country that had service personnel witnessing nuclear testing at that time has paid compensation. The UK is the only country left that has not done so. I believe that Parliament-Back-Bench Members-should have the opportunity to debate that issue. Following an e-mail I sent out, I have had a substantial response from across the political spectrum.

Q35 Chair: What is substantial?

Chris Williamson: Thirty responses so far in less than 24 hours-from Liberal Democrat Members, Labour Members and Conservative Members, who all agree the issue is of sufficient urgency to merit a debate. As I say, three individuals are dying per week and many people are suffering the ill effects of the exposure to those tests. It is incumbent on Parliament to debate the issue and what I-and I think most people-would consider to be a moral obligation to those individuals.

Q36 Chair: What kind of debate are you looking for-how long, on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall?

Chris Williamson: We believe it should be on the Floor of the House. We would like to see a vote at the end of the debate, calling on the Government to take a specific course of action, basically to pay the compensation to the individuals concerned. It would not involve a huge sum of money as there are not a large number of the individuals involved left. I understand that something in the order of 1,000 or so people would be the beneficiaries of the compensation. But, as I say, time is running out. We are talking about the 1950s, which is a long time ago. As I have already said, there is a moral obligation on Parliament and the Government to deal with this issue. Time is of the essence and that is why I hope that we can have a debate on the Floor of the House.

In terms of the time, I do not know if there is any flexibility on whether we need to have a full six-hour debate or whether we can have a shorter debate on the Floor of the House. That would give an opportunity to debate some of the other topics, which are very worth while. I agree there should be a debate on all the issues that have been brought before the Committee tonight; they all have their own separate merits. Nic and I think that we could certainly have a debate of two or possibly three hours. Two hours certainly would give the opportunity to air the issue, give Members from across the House the opportunity to have their say on it and, as I say, have a vote at the end.

Chair: Thank you very much. Has anyone else got any questions? Alison.

Q37 Alison Seabeck: Are you confident that you could manage the debate without falling foul of certain sub judice issues?

Chris Williamson: Whether sub judice should be applicable in this case is a moot point in a way. We could be mindful of it and the restrictions that are generated as result of the sub judice issue. Yes, hon. Members could certainly have the debate without falling foul of that. As long as the Chair or the Speaker set out the terms of the debate beforehand, I am sure we could steer clear of that. In any event, if anybody was starting to stray I am sure that Mr. Speaker would call them to order.

Nic Dakin: I am sure that proper care could be taken to meet that concern.

One of the things about these people who have served their country in an extremely distinguished way is that their service and what they have suffered on behalf of everybody here and everybody outside has not even really been recognised. It will be an opportunity to recognise that service in a proper way.

John Hemming: It is just as well. We need to know, so that people can get their teeth into the substantive resolutions. I don’t know what exactly is sub judice. We were told that something is.

Alison Seabeck: Questions have been ruled out, or people have been told not to put down questions because it is sub judice and that Ministers will not answer them.

Chair: This may be a separate issue that we need to discuss later.

John Hemming: That causes a problem for the substantive resolutions, potentially.

Chair: That is an issue. But certainly in terms of the topic-the issue of sub judice is, in a way, intimately related to the topic, I think.

Chris Williamson: It is not an insurmountable problem, though. I know that Parliament has debated issues in spite of the sub judice doctrine, as it were.

Chair: It is something that we must take into consideration when we make the deliberations, but it is not insurmountable.

John Hemming: It is the resolution that is the issue.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Finally, we have Fiona Mactaggart. I’m sorry that you are tucked away there. Thank you very much for coming in.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you very much. I welcome the opportunity to play a role in this procedure.

The subject that I would like to be a subject of Back-Bench debate is international collaboration against human trafficking. I think that it is exactly the right type of issue for a Back-Bench debate, because all parties agree that such collaboration is necessary. There might be disagreements. It was unbeknownst to me when I suggested this issue to you, Chair, that it had been raised in Prime Minister’s questions today and I promise that this is not a fit-up.

I think that it would be a great subject to be debated. There are differences in tactics on how we achieve the best international collaboration, but there is a shared ambition between Members from all parties to try to tackle human trafficking. It is the fastest growing international criminal enterprise, it is the second largest form of international criminality and this year there will be the first anti-slavery day on 18 October, as a result of the Bill introduced by the former chair of the all-party group on human trafficking, Anthony Steen. It seems to me that this is a subject that is absolutely appropriate for Back-Bench debate.

I did not circulate anything that tried to seek support from all across the House but I invited officers of the all-party groups, except those who are members of this Committee as I did not want to compromise them in any way. Those officers and some other people have signified that they think that this would be a very useful debate to have. Margot James, Julian Lewis, Peter Bottomley, Elizabeth Truss, Denis MacShane and Bridget Phillipson have all specifically supported this request for a debate on international collaboration against human trafficking.

Q38 Chair: What sort of timing are you talking about? Would this debate be a full six-hour debate, a three-hour debate, or-?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have no idea what days you have got, but it would be utterly wonderful if the debate could connect, in some way, to the anti-slavery day on 18 October. However, it does not need to connect to that day, because the appalling thing about this trade is that it just grows and grows and our efforts to tackle it have been, to date, depressingly ineffectual. That is not me blaming the present Government; it was true of the last Government too.

We have taken steps, there have been police operations and we have got much better at protecting the victims of this trade. Nevertheless, the reason why I specifically want this debate to look at international collaboration is that I think that that type of collaboration is the key to really making a difference. That would be the most useful debate for the House to have on the subject of human trafficking.

Q39 John Hemming: Do you have the wording for a substantive resolution or not?

Fiona Mactaggart: I haven’t drafted one, but in order not to get into the sort of disagreement that could have arisen at questions today, we should simply call on the Government to promulgate the greatest international collaboration possible, rather than ask them to sign up to the EU convention. I would like them to sign up to it, but that might challenge the all-party consensus that you seek. In a way, it might be more sensible to give us an opportunity to fully raise and air the issue, but not necessarily a vote on it, because that would be highly controversial and perhaps not appropriate. We could simply mandate the Government to make the maximum effort to collaborate with other countries.

Q40 Jane Ellison: You have sort of answered one of my points, which was how you stop this becoming a debate about the EU that goes off down a side track and does not focus on the important topic that you’re proposing. We’re trying not to seek cross-party consensus, but to make sure there is the cross-party interest to sustain a valuable and substantive debate and to distinguish it from an Adjournment debate or whatever. That is what we are driving at in looking for interest across the House. What would sustain a meaningful debate that will attract interest from all sides?

Fiona Mactaggart: This was one of the most active issues. There are two all-party groups that deal with it. One is the all-party group on human trafficking, and one of the members of the Committee might tell you in your private session how effective that group is. It is certainly one of the groups that were constantly referred to in Home Office and other debates. As I said, the Chair managed in the last Parliament to push through the Anti-Slavery Day Bill.

The other group, which I chair, is the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade, which also deals with trafficking for sexual exploitation purposes. Both groups have generated huge numbers of members from all parties. They are not like some all-party groups, where you have to say, "Oh go on, sign up so I can meet the rules." These groups are not in that category; they are very much at the centre of debates. When their subjects have been on the Floor of the House, there has been an eagerness to debate them, in my experience. There is little doubt that there is intense Back-Bench interest.

One interesting thing is that this is a subject on which Back Benchers are more expert than Front Benchers. That is one reason why this should be a Back-Bench Committee debate. I’m afraid that Front Benchers-I accuse my party’s Front Benchers of this as well-take briefs from civil servants that aren’t necessarily true, which are ineffectual and which are not based on the facts, which Back Benchers can share with Ministers to improve the quality of decision making and debate.

Chair: I am going to finish off, unless anyone has anything to add. Yvonne, did you want to come in? No? Okay. Unless anybody else specifically wants to make a bid, let me say thank you very much to those who have made a presentation and then stayed. It’s been absolutely brilliant; it’s gone much better than I thought it would, so thank you very much for taking part. We will write to every person who has made a representation to let you know the outcome. Thank you very much for taking part.