UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 29 MARCH 2011

MR ADRIAN BAILEY, BILL ESTERSON and CHRIS EVANS

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 – 19

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of representations made in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 29 March 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mr George Mudie

Mr Adrian Bailey, Bill Esterson and Chris Evans made representations.

Q1 Chair: Bill Esterton, you have been here many times before.

Bill Esterson: Yes, a couple of times, but this is about a different debate, which came from the one on the coastguard, which you gave us and which we had last week. The issue is the lack of risk assessment in some of the changes that are going through. It was a real concern for a number of Members in the coastguard debate. It has also been a big concern for Members, given some of the changes in the fire service and the police. It goes across many Departments, so it’s not easily dealt with unless we have a forum where the Government have an opportunity to respond across Departments. So I thought that the Backbench Business Committee was the right place to bring it.

What I am after is a debate on the impact of the cuts on public safety where they relate to the emergency services. Obviously, I am referring to the four emergency services, although somebody pointed out to me that the British Transport Police is almost an additional one. This has an impact on a number of different Departments. So I’d like to put in a bid.

I have not been able to rally support from colleagues across the House, because I haven’t been here, but the brief conversations that I’ve had certainly show that there is quite a lot of interest. As I said, that comes from Thursday’s debate on the coastguard and discussions on both police and fire.

Q2 Chair: This is basically a general debate.

Bill Esterson: Yes. I think that would be helpful.

Chair: On the rescue services generally.

Bill Esterson: Yes, that’s right. I think that something in Westminster Hall on the impact on safety would be a logical approach.

Q3 Chair: Thank you. Has anyone got any questions for Bill? I think that we are all quite clear about what the debate is about, and you have been very clear about why you want it, so thank you very much.

Adrian, you have not been to the Committee before, have you?

Mr Bailey: No, I haven’t.

Q4 Chair: Are you here as Chair of the BIS Select Committee?

Mr Bailey: I am really here-I was going to declare an interest as a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament-pushing for a debate on co-ops and mutuality; but obviously, as Chair of the BIS Select Committee, I have a specific business interest in that as well.

I am pushing for a debate on this subject because, first, co-operation and mutuality as an issue is acknowledged as being relevant to the development of policy across the party political spectrum. On the Labour side, there is a long association between these principles in business; but latterly, there has been a recognition across all parties in the House, following the problems that we have had in the banking sector and the importance that mutual organisations played as a counterweight to the problems in the proprietary sector, that this has great potential. Of course, we have had the subsequent debate about Northern Rock and whether it should become a mutual. So there is a huge element of topicality about the relevance of the issue in the development of our financial services provision. But over and above that, it is recognised by the coalition in the concept of the big society that the co-operative and mutual sector could be a very important model to developing specific policy agendas.

Co-operative representatives and others have had a number of debates in Westminster Hall and so on-I think that there have been EDMs-but it is felt that this issue is rapidly becoming so important that it would justify a full Backbench debate to enable politicians on both sides to explore the relevance of this model in the development of policies on a much wider scale. So that’s what we are really looking for, and it just so happens that there will be co-operative fortnight-25 June to 9 July-so it would fit very nicely in that, subject, of course, to your Committee agreeing with that assessment.

Chris Evans: I concur with everything that Adrian said, and a Bill comes to mind straightaway-the Postal Services Bill-and there was talk of Post Office Ltd being run on a co-operative model, which is something very important that we can debate on the Floor of the House as well. Furthermore, this wide-ranging topic cuts across so many Departments, as Adrian has touched upon. Whenever we have had Westminster Hall debates where we’ve talked about mutual models-such as Northern Rock, with Gareth Thomas recently, and I remember the football governance debate, led by Steve Rotheram-they were very well attended, but we now have an opportunity to discuss how co-operatives fit into future models and, in particular, with the future of Northern Rock.

Mr Bailey: May I add-I admitted this-that while we are both Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament, there is cross-party support for this motion and subject? Jesse Norman and others from the Government side have supported us.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Who are the others? We’ve got Jesse Norman’s name down, but who else is there?

Mr Bailey: Who is the other one that we have?

Chris Evans: Jesse Norman is the only one that we’ve got at the moment.

Mr Bailey: I thought that there was somebody else, but the name escapes me. It came through in an e-mail, I think, late last night.

Chris Evans: I can’t remember, to be honest.

Q6 Mr Hollobone: I am sure that this is a very important topic, but I don’t think that you have demonstrated that there is cross-party support for debating this issue. I speak for myself, not for others, but if you were able to demonstrate that there was a wider interest across the House, that might strengthen your case, especially given that you have quite some time until the target date that you’d like the debate to be held on.

Mr Bailey: I think that’s a very good point. We recognise that if the names are coming in-I believe that they are, but I was only asked to do this yesterday evening-we will present them to you.

Q7 Chair: The motion that you’ve tabled is quite general. What we have experienced, certainly in the recent past, is that we are allocated Chamber time by the Government that is then quite quickly withdrawn. The time that we have available to us that is almost certain, and that we can guarantee a full three hours of uninterrupted debate in, is Westminster Hall time. Is there any reason why this debate can’t happen in that fortnight in Westminster Hall?

Chris Evans: As I touched on in my submission, with all due respect-I have been to Westminster Hall and the quality of debate there is absolutely fantastic whenever I have been involved-but these issues have been debated enough in Westminster Hall. We have gone to the end of the line there. A lot of issues around co-operative and financial mutuals have already been debated there, and we think that the debate needs to be held in the House. Also, I think co-operatives are generally seen as part of the Government’s big society strategy, and it would be a good idea to debate issues around the big society as well.

Q8 Chair: I am not sure where a vote on this motion would advance you to. It notes that there are 50 million co-operative members and so on. It is quite general. I do not know what a vote in the Chamber would do to advance your campaign.

Mr Bailey: Could I make two points? First, we would like a Backbench Business Committee debate in the Chamber because the Committee gives such debates a certain profile, standing and importance that Westminster Hall debates do not have, and I mean no disrespect to some of the very important and good debates that we have in Westminster Hall. It is also a more effective way of bringing influence on the Government to deliver on a particular agenda.

You asked where the motion will take us. It will raise the level of awareness of the contribution that co-operatives and mutuals make. I know from my long association with the movement that there is still a residual perception of its being made up of sandal-wearing, bearded, muesli-eating, middle-class idealists, and although I have the beard I don’t conform to any of those other ideas-I occasionally have muesli. There is a perception issue that the motion will help to address, and it will show that co-operatives and mutuals are a vital part of our economy and have demonstrated resilience and public confidence that some other parts have not. The motion could be a little more specific; it has been framed in a general way to ensure that we are not too narrowly policy focused, which could arouse opposition.

Q9 John Hemming: There are timing issues. Westminster Hall is just as much the Commons as the Chamber. I was pleased that the Backbench Business Committee gave me a debate in Westminster Hall, and there was a lot of attention for the issues outside Parliament. Hence I think it a mistake to see Westminster Hall as a second-rate Chamber. For a debating centre it is just as good as the Chamber. Would you prefer to wait, say, three or four months and have a debate in the Chamber, or have one straight away in Westminster Hall?

Chris Evans: We are looking at June anyway, so that would be three months. We want to give publicity to co-operatives fortnight. I am not denigrating Westminster Hall at all-as I said, the quality of debate is fantastic.

Chair: There is no guarantee that we will be having a Chamber day in those two weeks, but there is almost a guarantee that we will have a day in Westminster Hall, so it may be that we completely miss co-operatives fortnight because you are holding out for a Chamber day. We, as a Committee, need to weigh up the merits of the debate against what is available to us.

Jane Ellison: There is also the question of what might come forward before then, because it is a long time away. As events in the last few months have shown, things can move very rapidly, and we lost one of our Chamber days for exactly that reason. International events move so swiftly that we lost a day of debate back to Government time.

Q10 Chair: We are very clear about your pitch, and we might ask you to come back nearer the time with more names. Thank you very much.

Sarah Newton?

Sarah Newton: It will be no surprise that I have come back to talk to you about another debate on the coastguards. As you know, we had a Westminster Hall debate on Thursday afternoon-the graveyard shift by any definition-when 22 people spoke and a number of Members were unable to speak because we simply ran out of time. Many Members’ contributions were curtailed because we had to exercise time restraints. I was very grateful to the Committee for saying that, following the second Westminster Hall debate, I could come back and ask for your consideration for a debate in the main Chamber.

Although other colleagues are not here, we still have the support of all nine parties, as the sheer numbers of people from across the parties who have spoken in both debates indicates. It is very much our desire to have a debate in the main Chamber on a substantive motion. As you know, the Government have moved considerably in welcoming alternative proposals on the future of the coastguard, and the consultation period has been extended into May to enable those considerations to take place. If you do have Chamber time on 28 April-

Chair: We don’t.

Sarah Newton: You don’t?

Chair: No. Provisionally, but almost certainly, we have 5 May.

Sarah Newton: That would be absolutely perfect because the end of the extended consultation is 2 May, and the Minister has committed to publishing all the alternative proposals, and welcomes debate and discussion on them.

Q11 Mr Bone: This is exactly what we hoped would happen with the Westminster Hall debates. It is rather like when we had the one on prisoners’ votes, and then we were able to move it up to the Chamber. I just wanted to go back to your answer to the Chair about 5 May. Are you sure if you hold a debate on that day you will get Members there?

Chair: It is the day of the referendum and local and devolved elections.

Sarah Newton: That is a very good point.

Q12 Mr Bone: It may well be that we could put you on 5 May. If it was a general debate without a motion, that would be quite possible. You will be a better judge than I whether Members will come, if the issue is that important.

Sarah Newton: There is such strength of feeling about this issue. It is a shame that colleagues from other parts of the country are not here to pass comment. In the west country we don’t have elections, but we obviously have the referendum.

Q13 Mr Bone: But Scotland and Wales have national elections.

Sarah Newton: Yes, obviously, in Scotland and Wales where this is a very big issue, there will be issues about 5 May. Do you know when there will be another day after 5 May?

Chair: You now have more personal experience of our scheduling problems in the Chamber than anybody.

Sarah Newton: I have deep sympathy.

Q14 Chair: We have no idea. We thought that we had 28 April, but now we don’t, and now we have 5 May. I am almost certain that we will have that because no one else wants it, but beyond that we have absolutely no idea. I suspect that when you ask your colleagues they will decline 5 May, and when we go into private session we will have a discussion about it, but I am sure that if you all thought 5 May was a good day to have a debate, we would be open to that suggestion. I am sure we would look favourably on it. We will discuss it in private session, if that is all right.

Sarah Newton: Absolutely. In terms of your consideration as to the appropriateness of a later date, I reassure you that the Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into the existing proposals from the MCA, and the Minister confirmed on Thursday that he would take no action until the Select Committee had completed its work.

Q15 Chair: When will that be?

Sarah Newton: Although the Select Committee Chairman was at the debate, she could not confirm when they would complete. Of course, no Select Committee Chairman can ever give a guarantee because it depends on the Committee coming to a settled view on their final report at the end of their inquiry. But she did say to the Minister that given the urgency of the situation, she would ask the Select Committee to prioritise that inquiry and expedite their work on it as quickly as possible. There will be a period after 5 May when the Select Committee report is published and the alternative proposals are being worked on, costed and considered within the Ministry and with the MCA, so we could have a debate at the end of May. It would still be incredibly valuable to debate what came out in the inquiry and the alternative proposals. I am sure that we would have no shortage of speakers and would be able to have a substantive motion.

Q16 Jane Ellison: What length of time are you looking for in the Chamber? As you know, sometimes we split the day.

Sarah Newton: We would like the full debate. We have more than demonstrated the need. In the three-hour debate people were really shortening their speeches, and of course by then we will have alternative proposals as well as the inquiry into the current proposals. We would not have a problem; this is such a substantial issue, and I remind the Committee that it affects the whole of the UK.

Q17 Mr Bone: Parliament has to realise that we are sitting on 5 May. It is a parliamentary day, and local elections should not have any bearing on what Members of Parliament are doing. They should be here in the Chamber, debating. Might I lead by suggesting that if I were you I would have bitten off the Committee’s hand when we suggested 5 May? I fear that if you don’t have the debate on 5 May, other bids might have priority for a future day in the Chamber. If you can think of enough people who would be here, I would quite like to have your view on that before we go into private session.

Sarah Newton: I would take any day that we could possibly get because this is such an incredibly important subject. I will leave it to the Committee to decide.

Q18 Chair: Quite a lot of Back-Bench time has been given to this, but ultimately this is a Government consultation, and there has to be a point at which the Government have to take responsibility for the debate. In your conversations with the Minister-obviously you have had quite a few-what reasons are the Government giving for not having this debate in their time? This seems to me now something that should be debated in Government time, not in Back-Bench time.

Sarah Newton: It is my personal view, although the Minister also mentioned something along these lines during the debate, that in this new Parliament we have this wonderful thing of the Backbench Business Committee and the Backbench business time. It is part of the new politics in this place. The Government have said that this is something of UK-wide importance and have welcomed the new ideas and proposals coming forward. This could be a great example of the power of Back-Benchers of all parties coming together to influence Government policy, and we should see it positively in those terms. There is no lack of commitment on the Government’s part to take these alternative proposals, which we have all had the opportunity to shape, into their future plans.

Q19 Chair: There is also no lack of commitment by the Government to use our time instead of their own, and we have very little, so we have to take that into consideration. This is the legislative process. If the Government are reluctant for some reason to do something about an issue, then we look at it, and we have done that during the consultation process. I think we need to ask that question.

We are very clear about what you have come with, again. Thank you very much for taking the time to come here.