CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACK BENCH DEBATES

MONDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2010

ADAM AFRIYE, MR BACON, MR BRADY, ANNETTE BROOKE, LORELY BURT, ANN CLWYD, MIKE FREER, ANDREW GEORGE, STEPHEN GILBERT, TONY LLOYD, JOHN MANN, BOB RUSSELL, DR WHITEFORD, MR WINNICK AND DR WOLLASTON

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Monday 15 November 2010

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Examination of Witnesses

Adam Afriye, Mr Bacon, Mr Brady, Annette Brooke, Lorely Burt, Ann Clwyd, Mike Freer, Andrew George, Stephen Gilbert, Tony Lloyd, John Mann, Bob Russell, Dr Whiteford, Mr Winnick and Dr Wollaston made representations.

Chair: We start with Adam Afriyie; he asked whether we can take him early. He has come with several Members. I hand over to Peter Bone.

Q1 Mr Bone: I remind everyone that our meeting is being broadcast.

Adam, would you briefly say what you seek and why it is important to do it now?

Adam Afriyie: I seek a debate, specifically in Back-Bench time, on a motion that would give party leaders and the Government an opportunity to step back and allow Parliament to reach a judgment on our remuneration and payments to MPs, and how the bureaucracy of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority works. There is a lot of support, as you will have seen from the many representations that you have received from those who would like to see the matter debated.

The reason that timing is important is that to put any changes into place, let’s say for 1 April next year, perhaps through a statutory instrument-or another form of new scheme prepared by IPSA, even if that does not go as far as legislation-something would need to happen this side of Christmas or we will miss an entire financial year. There is an imperative on time purely because one cannot change these things in two weeks. You’re looking at perhaps four weeks for a scheme to be prepared and then perhaps eight weeks for a statutory instrument to be laid. That is quite a long time.

Q2 Mr Bone: As you know, we don’t decide which days we have in the Chamber; they are granted to us by the Government. We’ve now been told that the next available day in the Chamber is Tuesday 30 November. Is that correct? I’m looking at the Clerk because he’s looking daggers at me. I’m now told we don’t know for definite; that may be the day we get. What I’m trying to say is, would you be available for that debate?

Adam Afriyie: If it was any date before the end of November, I would make absolutely certain that everything was prepared and ready for that date, because the imperative here is timing. If we were going to do this in January or February, there wouldn’t be the prospect that things could change before, say, April of the following year-2012. That would be far too long a time for it to have any impact in the medium term.

Q3 Mr Bone: I notice from the paper that has been submitted that you have 40 Members of Parliament of different political parties supporting this.

Mr Winnick: Could you speak up?

Q4 Mr Bone: There are 40 names of MPs on the list I’ve been given who support this. Is that correct?

Adam Afriyie: It may be more now, but these 40 names are of MPs who support the idea of having a debate. There are far more names of MPs who would wish to participate in the debate and there are more still who would, as we all know, like to see a change but are not quite sure how to bring that change about.

Q5 Mr Bone: How many people in the audience today are here to support Mr Afriyie’s Bill?

Adam Afriyie: All bar one.

Q6 Mr Bone: About 20 then, I think. I notice we have the leader of the parliamentary Labour party, the chairman of the 1922 committee and the leader of the Liberal Democrat group.

Lorely Burt: I chair the Liberal Democrat parliamentary party.

Q7 Mr Bone: So we have the three chairmen. What is your view on whether the debate is correct and whether it should be held now?

Tony Lloyd: As a matter of practical fact, IPSA is in the process of launching its own review of its operations, which will include, of course, formal consultation of the wider public and, of course, consultation of Members of Parliament. I’m not quite sure whether these are yet public fact, but it’s clear that in terms of a meaningful review, it makes sense, working back from Adam Afriyie’s own thought-through timetable, that if we want this to begin for the new financial year, we need to make sure that any debate takes place, roughly speaking, around the time that you’ve indicated. Perhaps we are talking about the next Back-Bench session in the Commons. Were it to be significantly later than that-for example, in the new year-frankly we would be missing the opportunity to have material influence on the deliberations, for example, of IPSA itself.

Q8 Mr Bone: Would you say the majority of your members support a debate?

Tony Lloyd: It’s not possible for me to say that I have done any form of systematic survey. What I can say is this. Adam’s motion is Adam’s motion, but the concept of having a debate on the operation of IPSA so far and the need for some form of revision of the rules is timely and would be supported by the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs.

Mr Brady: The 1922 committee has engaged in some consultation of its members. We haven’t specifically asked for support for Adam’s proposals. What we have done is ask very widely for people’s views about the operation of the existing system, and it’s very clear from the response that there is a strong view that the existing arrangements are not working as they should and are impacting on hon. Members’ ability to serve constituents as we would wish to. There is a strong view, therefore, that a debate is very much needed and that Adam Afriyie’s proposed Bill and the proposal for a debate that he is putting to this Committee may be the way to have it.

Adam Afriyie: I would just add that the Leader of the House made a very clear statement last Thursday during business questions; I asked him whether he thought it was better that the Government should have that debate in their time or that the Backbench Business Committee should have it, and he was very clear that he was comfortable that it should be the Committee.

Lorely Burt: I haven’t had the opportunity to discuss the debate specifically with my colleagues, but I can certainly echo what has been said about the dissatisfaction and the difficulty. I know that Members from all over feel more or less the same as we do. I suppose that my anxiety is about whether this is the right way to go about it, because from people outside might think, "Ah, it’s those MPs. They’re just whingeing. Why don’t they just get on with the job." That is my personal anxiety about having a debate.

Q9 Mr Bone: So, you wouldn’t want a debate?

Lorely Burt: I am just speaking for myself, and I have that anxiety about the way it will be perceived, because of what we have all been through in the last Parliament.

Q10 Mr Bone: Finally, can you just take us through the motion, because it appears to me that it actually says that the Government should allow time for the debate, but the Leader of the House says that the Government won’t allow time?

Adam Afriyie: There are two substantive parts to the motion. First, there is recognition that there potentially might be a need for a change in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009-it does not state that there will be, but that there potentially might be, because of the repercussions of this. Secondly, it asks the Government and party leaders to allow Parliament-the Back Benchers-to put forward and debate measures and come to conclusions, provided that they don’t cost any more to the public purse. The motion doesn’t actually ask for Government time, but in effect asks that the Government do not stand in the way of it. I am trying to provide the party leaders with an opportunity, which for the last 100 years Parliament hasn’t provided, to just step back, allow calm contemplation to take place and then veto measures only if they will cost the taxpayer more.

Q11 Mr Bone: I’m sorry-I am very rude-but Mr Russell was sitting there. As a Liberal Democrat, do you also take the view that we should have a debate?

Bob Russell: Totally, and I think that it would be good for Parliament if those MPs who think that IPSA is doing a good job had an opportunity to say so, and I would hope that there would be a vote on this. I am aware of only one MP who thinks that IPSA is doing a good job-that person might not be alone-but I think that it would be important for Parliament. I should declare that I am one of the five Members who sit on the IPSA Committee, for want of a better description, but I am desperately trying to get it to reconvene, as it has been a considerable time since we last met.

I support the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Windsor. He has put a lot of work into it. What has not been said is that it is our staff who are really feeling the brunt of the IPSA regime. I have to say-I have said this on the public record-that IPSA is the most incompetent organisation I have come across in nearly 40 years in public life, and that includes the Child Support Agency. We are talking seriously here.

I must also point out that it has been estimated that around 100 full-time job equivalents do nothing other than process expenses claims at our end, to the extent that sometimes claiming for a journey actually takes longer than the journey itself. There are in excess of 80 staff at IPSA HQ, which is one for every 8 MPs. It has three communications officers. Who are they communicating with?

Q12 Chair: Quite a few people want to come in. We are spending a lot more time on this than we would on normal subjects, but I think that it is important, given the number of people who have come to us and how much of an issue it is. David Winnick, Jane Ellison and Philip Hollobone would like to speak.

Mr Winnick: Colleagues may know that I had a Westminster Hall debate on IPSA on 16 June, which was certainly well attended. As for sympathy, don’t expect any. There will be no protest demonstrations, even if our salary was cut by half. If we worked on that basis, we wouldn’t make any progress at all. The fact of the matter is that IPSA continues to be a running sore. That has not been said just by us; that is the interpretation.

I have a secretary. If I want to give her a modest bonus, as I’ve done in previous years, I am prevented from doing so at the end of the year. Should IPSA really be in a position to decide that? As I remember, it was never the subject of any abuse whatsoever, apart from the Conway position. As I have said, if we want to try and reward hard-working and dedicated staff with a modest bonus, the answer is no. There are other issues, of course, that have not gone away, but there has been some improvement.

The letter sent by the Chief Executive-

Chair: David, we don’t really want to go into the substance of the debate. We are discussing whether or not we want to schedule a debate. Once the debate has been scheduled, we can start exploring the issues around it.

Mr Winnick: My view is that it’s a running sore, and it is one of the very few issues that ignites all Members of Parliament, because it adversely affects our work, including our staff. I don’t believe that we should be hesitant in having these debates because it might be misunderstood outside. As has been said, that’s not really the issue.

Even if we are not going to get public sympathy, if we believe that something is wrong, and it is affecting our work as Members of Parliament and the work that we give our constituents, in my view we should have enough courage to say, "This is a subject we should debate, and not just at Question Time." There is hardly a single Question Time where the issue hasn’t been raised. We should debate it because we believe that it is right and proper in carrying out our duties as Members of Parliament. I hope that the Committee that decides this will understand the feelings of so many of us that there should be a debate in the near future.

Q13 Jane Ellison: I have two queries. The first is to pick up on the point just made about this affecting all Members of Parliament. Mr Afriyie, arguably, this isn’t something that affects only Back Benchers. In fact, it affects everybody in their capacity as a Member of Parliament in their constituency work and in employing staff. That is why, in Back-Bench time, it is something that affects all Members of Parliament on the Front or Back Benches. Perhaps you could respond on that point.

My second question is to Mr Russell. Is it your view that the mechanisms that exist-the Committee that you sit on and all those other mechanisms-are not up to the job of doing what you want them to do? Do we need to go up a level and actually have a debate?

Adam Afriyie: On the first point, the reason that this is parliamentary business rather than Government business is because it affects all MPs. Parliament exists to hold the Executive, the monarchy and the Government to account, and not the other way round. If the Government are not allowing time, I think it would be the duty-or responsibility-perhaps of the Backbench Committee, but certainly of Back Benchers and Parliament, to ensure that the message gets through that Members of Parliament must be able to do their work unimpeded by systems that are clearly not working. Most MPs, including Government Ministers, would acknowledge that. Bizarrely, I actually agree with the Government that it is for Back Benchers to put forward measures, and ultimately, if it does impact on the public purse, the Government must take a view.

Bob Russell: Unfortunately, the Act that went through the last Parliament was done in such a way that I am not sure who drafted it and how it got agreed on in the manner in which it did. I think that the three party leaders at the time were each outdoing themselves as to who could be the most upfront in dealing with MPs’ second-home expenses. Here we are not talking about MPs’ second-home expenses; primarily, we are talking about office costs and our staff. The mechanism that the Act lays down does little more than sanction IPSA to continue year by year with a budget. We have had one open session with IPSA that was a total disaster, bearing out what Lorely Burt was saying. The media were only interested in every negativity that could be found. We had one closed-door session with the IPSA hierarchy, which was productive but only as far as it went. In the meantime, my entreaties from August onwards to get the Committee to meet again have so far not been successful.

Q14 Mr Hollobone: To carry on this point about the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA, and to play devil’s advocate, Mr Russell may have been unsuccessful in getting the Committee to reconvene, but why should there be a parliamentary debate to make up for the shortfall in the Committee’s workings?

Bob Russell: It’s a question of another avenue having to be created if other avenues are not being gone down. Adam has come forward with a new avenue, which I think gives an opportunity for every Member of Parliament to speak-I hope that there will be a vote to see the strength-and for MPs who think that IPSA is a good thing to express their views. I would love to know what it is that IPSA is doing so well for them that it is not doing so well for everybody else.

Q15 Mr Hollobone: The other point to make is that IPSA is going through its own consultation. The system hasn’t yet been running for a year. What would the Members before us say to members of the public out there who say, "For goodness’ sake, the system is only just up and running, it hasn’t even done 12 months, and here they are debating the whole thing at this early stage."?

Adam Afriyie: I think that part of the problem with the original system that grew up over the last 100 years is exactly that: when MPs clearly saw the problems arising, when party leaders and Prime Ministers clearly didn’t want the public exposure of increasing any salaries, everyone went quiet. I am hoping that the Backbench Business Committee is constitutionally the first opportunity for Back Benchers to assert themselves and say, "Let’s talk about this now, before another scandal arises, with receipts being published again; before we have people leaving Parliament who are less well off because they can’t afford to subsidise the taxpayer, like many others can; before people with families decide to flee the place." I can’t understand why anybody in this place would not wish to talk about it, other than for fear of public exposure. Is that why we are here, or are we here to serve without fear or favour?

Chair: I think we have got the point. Three others want to speak and we have already spent 20 minutes on this matter, when we are normally looking for five minutes.

Adam Afriyie: We’re having a debate.

Chair: Absolutely, we’re having a debate, but what we’re looking at is whether to schedule the debate.

Mr Bacon: I would like to make two points on why I would like to see a debate. First, my constituency work has been affected in the most direct way: I have had to cancel meetings with constituents because I need to spend more time with my staff on IPSA. I am interested to know how many other Members are in that position. A debate seems to be one of the best ways of finding that out. Secondly, in this era of financial retrenchment, when everybody is having to save money, it seems that if there is a proposal on the table that would save £4 million a year-and there is from Adam Afriyie-it should be debated.

Chair: Thank you for being so brief.

Tony Lloyd: I hope I can be equally brief. In answer to Philip Hollobone’s question, the reason the debate is timely is that it is in our constituents’ interests to know that the present system does not allow Members of Parliament to function properly in the way that they would want, as Richard Bacon said. That is why it is important that, whether the debate is done by IPSA or through Parliament, we have the reforms that allow Members of Parliament to function in the interests of their constituents.

Ann Clwyd: I am in my 26th year in the House and I have never been so frustrated as I have been during the period in which IPSA has been responsible. I and my staff spend an inordinate time on these issues. The original receipts that we are required to send get lost-IPSA has lost three lots of receipts from my office. It is totally frustrating. This is the only opportunity to have a debate in Parliament, where we can hear collectively the views of Members of Parliament. We all know what individuals say, and we know that IPSA is a talking point nearly every time we sit down in the Tea Room. There is something wrong and it is right that we should ask you to give us this opportunity to air it again in public.

Chair: I think we have the long and the short of it. There is a big difference between having a debate about IPSA and voting on it. As a Committee, we need to think very carefully-this is completely different from any other kind of debate that people have brought to us, so we need to take quite a lot of care in our deliberations. But thank you very much for coming, again, and for bringing so many people along to support you in making your case.

Annette Brooke is next. I am going to declare an interest. I am heavily involved in the park homes all-party group, so I am going to hand over to Philip Hollobone.

Q16 Mr Hollobone: Mrs Brooke, can you tell us what you would like a debate on; why; where you would like the debate; how long you would like it to be; whether it should be as a motion or as a general debate; and how many Members you anticipate would take part in it?

Annette Brooke: The reason for requesting a debate through this mechanism is that there have actually been a large number of Adjournment debates on park homes over the years, and it has to be said that we have made very little progress in Parliament in improving the protection for some of our most vulnerable people-obviously not the most affluent-living in park homes. Hence there is the need to raise the profile of the issues.

We had a lobby just a fortnight ago where people came from all parts of the country, regardless of the expense. There were about 120 people packed into Committee Room 10. What was striking was that the same problems were being raised from all over the country, which suggests that there are issues here that need to be tackled on a national basis. But we also need to make sure that we pick up on how we could review current legislation to give protection to these people in a better way.

The other point about the lobby was people feeling helpless-feeling that we, as parliamentarians, had let them down, because they had raised these points over and over again, probably for the past 20 years and certainly for 10 years. In contrast to what we have been discussing, this is not self-interest: this is actually about protecting the most vulnerable people in our society.

Q17 Mr Hollobone: So, would you like a debate in the main Chamber?

Annette Brooke: That would be desirable.

Q18 Mr Hollobone: How long would you like the debate to be?

Annette Brooke: I think it needs to be longer than an hour and a half, by the very fact that Adjournment debates in the past have not really moved the agenda on significantly.

Q19 Mr Hollobone: How many Members do you anticipate taking part?

Annette Brooke: I would hope that we will be talking about at least 15 to 20.

Q20 Mr Hollobone: Would they come from all across the House?

Annette Brooke: We had predominantly, I have to say, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs coming to the lobby-but I do have Dennis Skinner on my list of supporters-partly because it tends to be the more rural constituencies. I can’t really solve this problem entirely for you, and say there will be an equal number.

Q21 Mr Hollobone: But you have had a series of debates in the past-when was the last debate on this?

Annette Brooke: The last main Adjournment debate was held by Richard Younger-Ross, which was probably 2008-09. This got us to the point where there were going to be two statutory instruments in April, which actually got cancelled. The Government have said that they will pick up on one of the statutory instruments, but it still hasn’t happened. I have had a parliamentary delegation to the Minister for Housing, but his view is, "Oh, we’ll get this one thing through and review it." In other words, everything’s being kicked into the long grass while the most terrible things are happening.

Q22 Mr Hollobone: The difference between an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall and a debate on the Floor of the main Chamber is that in the main Chamber you can table a substantive motion. Given that one of your main complaints is that nothing is happening to address the issue, would it be your intention to table a motion which, if passed, would have the effect of kick-starting the process?

Annette Brooke: That is exactly why we are asking for a Back-Bench debate. We need something to happen. From this big lobby, during which dozens of MPs came in and out, that is what came as a recommendation from both the park home owners and other MPs.

Q23 Mr Hollobone: But your intention is to table a motion that would be voted on.

Annette Brooke: Yes, essentially calling for a review and urgent action.

Q24 Jane Ellison: In terms of a debate in the main Chamber, do you think that there is a debate in the sense of a number of different points of view, or is this essentially about profile raising and setting the agenda?

Annette Brooke: It’s really important profile raising. We need to have a balanced debate, because one of the difficulties is that every constituency that has a large number of these sites will have one that has a rogue site owner. So, we are balancing that against the number of good site owners in the country, and Governments keep ducking out of doing anything because they’re frightened that it’s going to be too oppressive. But I can only tell you that what is happening to people is so awful that I think we have a responsibility to do something in this Parliament. I don’t know whether my colleagues would like to chip in.

Dr Wollaston: I’d like to endorse that. I’m Sarah Wollaston, the new Member for Totness, and I have been deeply shocked by some of the stories that I’ve been hearing of severe intimidation and outright fraud. This is a group of very vulnerable-usually elderly and unwell-people, who are unable to fight their corner adequately. If there was ever a case for Parliament stepping in and protecting this particularly vulnerable group, this is it.

Stephen Gilbert: I’m Steve Gilbert from St Austell and Newquay. I did a survey of the 1,200 park home residents in my constituency recently, and there were 800 responses, more than 80% of which raised concerns about harassment, fees charged for utilities that are out of keeping with what should be charged, and the panoply of issues associated with bad practice in park homes, with which, Chair, you will be very familiar. We really do have a group of people here who are among the most vulnerable in our community, and I think that we should be acting as advocates for them.

Q25 Chair: Thank you for making your presentation on that.

We’ve now got fisheries. I did get that the wrong way round. To give just a bit of history to this, it used to be that the Government scheduled a debate before the Fisheries Council, and this has now fallen into Back-Bench time. We’re asking everybody, even for those debates that used to be quite standard and used always to be scheduled, whether they could make representation to us and tell us why it’s important to continue scheduling those debates. So, we’re very grateful to you for coming.

Dr Whiteford: I’m here on behalf of Margaret Ritchie who, I believe, tabled this with you but can’t be here today. I’m disappointed that the Government have not scheduled a set time for this debate, but in coming to present to you why I think it’s very important that such a debate goes ahead, it’s important to understand that the sea-fishing industry is an industry that, compared to comparable industries, is very much a politically-managed industry. The whole parameters of the industry are set by political actors who set the fishing opportunity for the industry and to a large extent determine its health, not just the health of the industry itself and the attendant industries of food processing, but also that of the coastal communities that depend on fisheries. It is an industry that tends to be concentrated in particular areas.

I’m sure that the Committee will also be aware that many aspects of fishing are devolved to the nations and regions of the UK-to the devolved Assemblies-however, the most important decisions are very much still reserved, and they include the negotiations that take place on an annual basis to set total allowable catches and other matters relating to the common fisheries policy. Obviously, this is not the time to rehearse the problems with the common fisheries policy; needless to say, it’s been a disaster for coastal communities around the UK. It has undermined the health and financial viability of our fishing industry, but has also undermined the health of the seas. As a conservation policy, it has been a complete disaster.

At the present time, the common fisheries policy is up for review, which makes this year’s negotiations just as acute as in the past, but with the added dimension that talks are going on about the future of the CFP. In that respect, I think it’s very important that Members of Parliament who represent coastal communities and the processing sector have the opportunity to debate, preferably on the Floor of the House, with the Government to determine what negotiating positions the Government intend to take and to hold them accountable. That is essentially why it’s very important that we have a fisheries debate in advance of these talks in early December. Otherwise, it’s an issue that goes completely unscrutinised.

Q26 Jane Ellison: You just asked whether one of the questions was going to be on timing. From that point of view, is it pretty critical for you to be ahead of these negotiations?

Dr Whiteford: I think so, yes. I think the December decision making is always a very fraught affair-long, all-night sessions and so on. I think a parliamentary debate in this House to inform those negotiations would be very welcome.

Q27 Jane Ellison: It is mid-November now, and that window is closing considerably on those time scales. Were people perhaps unaware that there wasn’t a debate scheduled as usual this year? Is this something, perhaps, that MPs from fishing communities have just become aware of?

Dr Whiteford: I suspect that’s the case. It’s certainly the case in my own case, but I suspect that’s also partly because I’m a new Member, so I wasn’t on previous e-mail circulation lists. What I would say, though, is that the all-party group on fisheries has a large number of Members-I believe around 70-so I would expect that there would be interest and participation from right across the House and from all around the coasts of the UK on this issue.

Q28 Jane Ellison: I’ve had representations from another Member for a fishing area, but that Member wasn’t aware that someone was coming here to put the case and was talking about coming to a future Committee to put the case. How many other people in the group were aware that somebody was coming today? Obviously, it would be useful to see a bit of a spread.

Dr Whiteford: I was made aware of this by colleagues from Northern Ireland who couldn’t be here because of other travel issues. They asked if I would be prepared to come and speak to their request today. I think we’ve all been trying to get our heads around a new process and a new system.

Q29 Jane Ellison: This is my last question, but you may not know the answer to this because, like me, you are a new Member. Do you have any idea how many people participated in previous debates?

Dr Whiteford: I’m afraid I don’t know the answer to that.

Q30 Mr Hollobone: You’re asking for a debate in the Chamber, on the Floor of the House, but the big difference between a debate on the Floor of the House and a debate, say, in Westminster Hall is that in the Chamber, you can table a motion, which can be voted on if necessary. In calling for a general debate, wouldn’t it be more suitable to have three hours, for example, in Westminster Hall, when all those MPs who are interested in this very important issue would be able to attend, with a Minister in attendance, but there’s no need for a motion? Wouldn’t that be a better use of Parliament’s time than taking up Chamber time?

Dr Whiteford: I think the importance of the Chamber is partly symbolic, as well as about the business of the House. People who have watched their industry be destroyed over the last 10 to 20 years by the common fisheries policy believe, in many cases, that they’ve been abandoned by this House and by successive UK Governments. Certainly, in my own constituency, that’s a widely held view. It would be symptomatic of a lack of respect for the industry that fishing debates are now being sidelined from the main Chamber. That’s how I believe it would be perceived in coastal communities around the UK.

Q31 Mr Hollobone: But those 20 years of decline have, of course, been accompanied by annual fisheries debates on the Floor of the main Chamber, which don’t seem to have had much effect on reversing that decline.

Dr Whiteford: I suspect that debates on the Floor of the Chamber are an opportunity to hold Governments to account. Perhaps they have not been as effective as they might have been. Ultimately, UK Governments have to take responsibility for the deals they come home with from Brussels. Nevertheless it is important that Members have the opportunity to debate these matters on the Floor of the House. The issue is very much international, and governed by the common fisheries policy. It is a matter to be regarded seriously because it affects communities whose lifeblood it is.

Q32 Mr Hollobone: Given the importance of the issue, why would you not think about tabling a motion?

Dr Whiteford: I think I would need to discuss the suitability of that with colleagues in the House. You will have to forgive my ignorance, as a new Member, of the protocols and procedures, which I am learning as I go along. It was felt quite strongly among those Members I know who represent fishing communities that a debate in the main Chamber-it has happened in the past; there is no reason why it should necessarily happen in the future-would be the most appropriate way to bring the issues to the attention of the wider public.

Q33 Mr Bone: Following up on that, I have seen the request from Margaret Ritchie, which actually asks for a three-hour debate. Clearly, on a general debate, Westminster Hall would serve the purpose. You are almost certain to get it, because we have the time available. Your arguments are powerful. If you had then gone on to say, "We want to bring a motion to do with the issue"-pull out of the fisheries, or something like that, a substantive motion-then I think there would be more argument for having it on the Floor of the House. However, if it is just a general debate, and you can get three hours anyway-and the other Members have only asked for three hours-then why not Westminster Hall? I just wondered whether it might be something that you might want to take away and discuss. Perhaps someone could come back next Monday.

Q34 Dr Whiteford: I would certainly be happy to do that. I would not want to speak for others, particularly when I am representing others who are not here, but from my point of view a motion would be an equally acceptable way to air the issues and ensure that the Government hear them.

Q35 Jane Ellison: On a similar point-it is more about sustaining debate in the main Chamber-if, for example, given the geographical nature of the constituencies, a general debate was scheduled for, say, a Thursday, what sort of level of confidence do you have that enough Members would be present, if it was not whipped on all sides, to sustain a meaningful debate and use up that time?

Dr Whiteford: I think given the geographical concentration of the fishing industry, which is two thirds in Scotland with a significant portion in Northern Ireland, Thursday would be a challenge, it is fair to say. Nevertheless, for those Members who represent strong community interests, it would be the kind of issue that would absolutely be a priority, and we would endeavour to be here.

Q36 Chair: Mr Andrew George has joined us to support your representation. Fisheries was one of the normal annual debates that the Government would usually schedule before the summit. Because of the establishment of this Committee, it has now fallen to us to schedule that debate, and we have made a decision-because there’s quite a lot of time that is for standard annual debates-that we wanted to make sure that everybody comes to see us to make a case for why those debates needed to be scheduled.

We have written to absolutely everybody, by email, and I have certainly followed up a lot of it by phone calls, but I think this first time round it’s going to take some getting used to-the fact that it’s the Backbench Business Committee that is scheduling it and not the Government. There is an issue with that, as well; people are not entirely happy with it. Given that, it might be a good case for saying you have been here today, and following that up for next week. I presume that making a decision next week would not be too late for the debate itself, would it?

Andrew George: By its very nature the fishing industry is represented, as has already been argued, by MPs whose constituencies are a long distance from London-as is mine; it is a six-hour journey to get here. Therefore the Backbench Business Committee is quite difficult for some of us to get to London for, in addition to the point about the problem of a Thursday debate. Those who have taken part in the annual fisheries debates over many years have never known them to be under-subscribed, no matter how much time has been allotted to it. Fishery debates never run short; they have always been over-subscribed, and often there has had to be negotiation among Back Benchers to allow everyone to speak, often having two-minute slots at the end to fit everyone in.

It is a significant issue. Of course-how can I put it diplomatically-it is a pleasure to argue the case to this Committee, but many fishing communities would consider it offensive that the Government do not consider the subject significantly important to allot it Government time rather than Back-Bench time. I certainly support the strong case not only for the debate be retained, but for the Backbench Committee to argue the case with the Government that it should be allotted Government time.

Dr Wollaston: In my constituency, Brixham has the largest take of any English port, and there will be astonishment that this debate is not being given Government time, particularly given the crucial timing of the debates on the European Union.

Q37 Mr Hollobone: It is worth making the point that this debate has not been given Government time. That decision is nothing to do with this Committee. Fishermen in Brixham are right to be astonished that it is not given Government time, but that is not our responsibility. All that we can do is to decide whether it is an important topic and to allocate time between the Chamber and Westminster Hall. We have not exactly been knocked over in the rush of MPs representing fisheries constituencies wanting us to schedule such a debate. If you are able to come back next week or the week after, in numbers, to stress this case, that would impress the Committee.

Chair: It is fair to say that people did not realise that.

Andrew George: I didn’t realise it until I picked up my e-mails today. I am so used to us simply having the time, and I was not alerted to the change until today.

Chair: I totally take that point.

Q38 Mr Bone: Mr George, one of the golden opportunities that the Backbench Business Committee offers for Members is to put on debates with motions. Judging by what you say, Members have been frustrated with years of general debate on the fishing industry given that nothing has come of those debates. However, you could bring forward a draft motion to this Committee next week and, if we think it is right, you could actually get it debated on the Floor of the House and allow Parliament to take a view on an issue relating to fisheries. I would certainly encourage you to come back.

Andrew George: On a point of fact, during my years serving in this House the fisheries debate has been debated as an Adjournment debate and debated in Government time without a motion; and it has also been debated on a Government motion with an Opposition amendment, on which the House has divided.

Q39 Chair: We undertake between now and next Monday to raise the issue with other fisheries Members, so that they understand that for whatever reason it is out of our hands. We will continue to negotiate, and perhaps it can be taken in Government time. In a way, it’s really because there is a deadline. We need to ensure that the deadline is hit, whether it’s in Back-Bench time or Government time, and then have that argument. Thank you very much for raising the matter with us today.

Finally, we have Mike Freer and John Mann. I don’t know if either of you have been to one of these sessions before but, as you’ve seen already, it is quite ad hoc. What we are looking for is a pitch for time from you on your chosen subject. I am going to ask Ian Mearns to ask you any specific questions, so if you’d like to just open up.

Q40 Ian Mearns: Good afternoon gentleman, thank you for coming along. In essence, I’ve just got the general title of anti-Semitism. What is it you’re seeking to do and why is it important to do it at the moment?

John Mann: Having heard the previous deliberations, we would want to put a resolution because there has been no resolution of Parliament on this issue. The reason we think this is relevant to Back-Bench business rather than Government business-we think that is very strongly the case-is that the issue of anti-Semitism has attracted cross-party consensus. That has been driven by Back Benchers through the all-party group over the past 10 years, particularly in the last Parliament, to such an extent that we, in fact, formed our own de facto Select Committee, which had 14 Members from four different parties.

We held our own inquiry, Select Committee style, and became the first all-party group to get a Command Paper response from the Government to an all-party inquiry. That model of Parliament rather than Government taking the lead on a cross-party basis has been replicated successfully in the German and the Canadian Parliament. Such a model is about to be set up in January in the Italian Parliament. So we think that there is a strong impetus for the continuation of a cross-party and Back-Bench lead on this issue.

In terms of timing, the Government have responded at the end of each year since the all-party inquiry took place. We’ve had two Government responses and one debate in Government time, which was a three-hour debate. There were two weaknesses to that debate. The first is that it was Government led. Although the Government have an important role to play, their lead rather skewed the tone and level of the debate because the impetus did come from there. In our view, the responsibility for tackling anti-Semitism lies with Parliament. Government are one aspect and they have to take some responsibilities, but we do not think that this issue is one to knock backwards and forwards in terms of what Government do and do not do. That is one small aspect of it, but our work has been well beyond simply relying on Government to take responsibility.

The debate we had was significantly curtailed because so many Members wished to speak. The impact of that was that the quality of the debate became too generalised. In other words, some people-those with a lot of experience, expertise and constituency background-would get to make their main points, but they were confined to five, six, seven minutes, so such comments tended to be generalised. That is one of the weaknesses of trying to get further progress in dealing with a problem such as anti-Semitism. The cross-governmental working group that we managed to get set up incorporated nine Government Departments. That shows the breadth of the issue. Honing in on some of the specifics that are less general and giving some proper time to them, would be a significant step forward.

As a consequence of the previous work in the last Parliament, we hosted in the United Kingdom the first ever parliamentary coalition against anti-Semitism conference. The three main party leaders and Lady Hermon, who sat on our inquiry as a fourth party leader from her party, signed up to the declaration from that conference. That incorporated parliamentarians from 41 countries. Canada has just hosted the second such conference-there were Labour and Conservative Members present-and there were parliamentarians from 51 Parliaments. We have-although we can get many more-15 parliamentarians who have signed up to the suggestion made to your good selves but, if you wish, we can get many more such names.

Q41 Ian Mearns: What I didn’t get from that, though, is what is the urgency of timetabling?

John Mann: In respect of the urgency of timetabling, we’re pitching-I’m not sure how this Committee works-for our ideal slot, which would be the last one before the Christmas recess. That may not be the most popular with everyone, but the parliamentarians who would want to participate will do so whenever it is. That would be after the third annual Government report, but in advance of the Italian Parliament doing the third comparable report. We think that right at the end of December would be the perfect slot or, if that’s not possible, the beginning of January would be ideal in that context. But if the last slot in December was available, that would be the perfect one for us.

Q42 Ian Mearns: You’ve got a significant history in this regard. There’s already been a three-hour debate in the main Chamber, which was curtailed because it was so general and you’re looking for a large debate in that Chamber with a resolution.

John Mann: Yes.

Q43 Philip Davies: Important though it is, the purpose of a debate is generally that different views are expressed. The only thing that strikes me is that, presumably, everybody will be agreeing with each other in this, so it won’t really be a debate, but will just be people agreeing with each other. Will a debate take place?

John Mann: Certainly, they did take place in the last Parliament. One can be certain from comments made that some parliamentarians who are no longer with us, courtesy of retirement or the electorate, would have taken a contrary point of view. It’s hard to tell whether there will be those who take a contrary point of view in this Parliament. Certainly, in the last Parliament there were those who took such a view. They were a minority, but they make such commentary and they did speak-not in the three-hour debate, but in an Adjournment debate. One hon. Member with a contrary point of view participated and a second one expressed a desire to participate.

Mike Freer: Could I help on that? Apologies, I am new to this. In the debate it would not be so much that people are going to stand up and say, "I believe in anti-Semitism", but would be more about how you deal with the causes. In respect of some of the rise in anti-Semitism in the past few years-whether you believe in a boycott on certain goods, boycotts on universities, holocaust denial or the increasing prevalence of hate speeches on the internet-some people may believe in boycotts and many will believe we shouldn’t hamper free speech on the internet. So there will be debate, not necessarily always about the pure substance, but about how to tackle the root causes. Sometimes it might be useful to flush out people’s disagreements or different views on how to combat anti-Semitism.

Q44 Philip Davies: Therefore would the motion that you wanted to put forward-which you said at the start, John, that you wanted-be along the lines of what measures should be taken to combat it so that there is scope for debate?

John Mann: Yes, we would want a resolution. It is difficult to judge the new Parliament, but, without question, at least two hon. Members in the last Parliament would have spoken vociferously and voted again the kind of resolution that we would want to put forward. There was no question about that.

Q45 Mr Bone: Mr Mann makes a powerful case. This is a new system for hon. Members. We would have liked you to come along with a draft motion. Perhaps you might want to come back next week with one, because that’s the reason for having a debate in the Chamber.

Did you really mean that you wanted the debate in the last slot in December? The last day is available to us, which would mean we would have to do away with the normal recess debates, which would cause some trouble. Were you pitching for that day?

John Mann: I have no idea what days you have available. But the ideal date for us would be Thursday 16 December, if that was available.

Q46 Chair: Nor do we. We have regular slots in Westminster Hall, but Chamber days can also be withdrawn if something more urgent happens, so we don’t know either. We have a pre-recess Adjournment debate, but we touch that at our peril.

Q47 Mr Hollobone: You haven’t asked for this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone does, nearer the time. In January, there is Holocaust memorial day and somebody is bound to come and ask us for time to debate that. I know that there are different issues, but were there to be a debate in January on anti-Semitism, do you think that that would be the most effective and efficient use of parliamentary time, when those who want to speak to your specific suggestion and those with a wider contribution to make might come together?

John Mann: You have helped to raise a point that we didn’t raise, which is that the general debate that has taken place on Holocaust memorial day is so friendly and agreeable that it would be reasonable to say that it is repeated every year. While there are important points to be made and things to be taken forward, we would like to see progress-if there is a general will in Parliament to see progress-on a number of specifics to do with how anti-Semitism is tackled. That is why it would be a more political debate about what should be happening, which would, with the timing we are looking at, allow discussion on what the Government and others do in relation to holocaust memorial to be incorporated.

On timing, debates just before Christmas, even on the final Tuesday, tend to be of little interest for media exposure. There is, of course, one section of society where that is quite different: the Jewish community, which has many activities over the Christmas recess, and whose media, particularly the print media, are probably better read at that period than at any other. Therefore, unusually, there is an added small bonus in terms of the view and voice of Parliament being heard, which wouldn’t happen with other groups.

Q48 Mr Hollobone: I understand that, but were the debate to take place in early or mid-January, that would still fit in with your general aim of having something before-

John Mann: That wouldn’t be a disaster for us.

Chair: Thank you. We are new to this as well, so thanks for helping us out.