UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 10 MAY 2011

RORY ST EWART, MR JAMES ARBUTHNOT , MA RK RECKLESS and JIM SHANNON

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 31

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of representations taken 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 representations they may in due course give to the Committee.

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 10 May 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Rory Stewart, Mr James Arbuthnot, Mark Reckless and Jim Shannon made representations.

Q1 Chair: If we could make a start, it would be good. Can you please introduce yourself?

Rory Stewart: Hello. I am Rory Stewart.

Q2 Chair: Thank you. I cannot remember-have you been before the Committee before?

Rory Stewart: I haven’t, I am afraid.

Q3 Chair: What we are looking for, as you saw in your pro forma, is a very brief outline of the topic for debate for the sake of the record; we have it on your application. Also, please let us know what the relevance of the debate is, why it is topical, why you want it, where you want it, and for how many hours.

Rory Stewart: Thank you for the opportunity to make this request. Rural broadband and mobile is one of the Government’s top priorities. They have set a target to have the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015 and have committed quite a lot of money to it. But we are at a crunch point at the moment, because the Ofcom consultation closes at the end of this month, which will define the rural coverage obligation for mobile telephone providers. So there is an opportunity to push that from the 95% target to a higher number. That would totally change the kind of access that rural communities can get to broadband and mobile, which has benefits for public services such as health and education, for businesses and for community life generally. That is the reason for the debate, and also why it would be great to have it sooner than the end of the consultation.

As for the length, we had a short, half-hour debate in Westminster Hall in which there were 19 interventions. There is a huge push and enthusiasm for the subject, particularly from rural MPs. We have had a certain amount of cross-party support. Pamela Nash, Tony Cunningham, Duncan Hames and Tristram Hunt are all supportive, so we have a certain amount of Labour and Lib Dem support. Obviously we also have the support of a lot of rural Conservative MPs.

Chair: And James Arbuthnot.

Rory Stewart: And James. I have had e-mails of support from Thérèse Coffey, Richard Bacon, Julian Smith, Andrew Bingham, Pamela Nash, Jesse Norman, Eric Ollerenshaw, Jason McCartney, Graham Stuart, Anne Marie Morris and George Freeman. They are mostly rural MPs.

Q4 Chair: Are you looking to have a voteable motion, or is it a general debate that you are after?

Rory Stewart:I am proposing a voteable motion. The proposed text is, "That this House recognises that rural businesses and rural communities across the UK are isolated and undermined by slow broadband and lack of mobile coverage, and calls on the Government to increase the pace and scale of investment in superfast broadband and mobile phone coverage."

Mr Bone: I think you are ticking a lot of the boxes, and you have a substantive motion, which of course would be amendable. I can’t find any fault with it. I am trying very hard.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Who is going to vote against that motion? One of the difficulties that we have is that we are not allocated enough time by the Government, and we have to be ruthless about making sure that the time is used effectively. Time in the Chamber can be used to debate and vote on a motion, and time in Westminster Hall can be used to debate something on which there is no subsequent vote. I absolutely get how important the issue is, but I am asking myself: what are the arguments for not having a Westminster Hall debate, but a Chamber debate?

Rory Stewart:The biggest hurdle is that there is considerable opposition to this proposal from the Treasury and Ofcom. There is a particular view of economics that states that there should be no market interference whatsoever and that the only aim of the mobile auction should be to maximise revenue. We are against conventional wisdom here. Conventional wisdom holds that there should be no attempt in the auction to change the rural coverage obligation and it is almost certain at the moment that the Government will mount an argument against all this, saying that it should be left up to the mobile telephone companies to determine how much mobile coverage they provide and the market will sort it out. So we will have strong objection from a particular group of free-market economists, led by the Treasury, and the Government themselves will probably be very resistant, particularly to the mobile element.

Ian Mearns: I have a lot of sympathy for this and I have been peripherally connected with a proposal for Alston, within Rory’s constituency, which would have used the Gateshead super-broadband service as a hub, but that was stopped because of a loss of Government grant. I am concerned about that. There is an interdependence between town and city and the rural community from this perspective, but also from the perspective of consumers who want to use the services which are available in the countryside, but about which they do not know. It is a very interesting proposal and I am certainly minded towards it.

Q6 John Hemming: I agree with Philip that the motion itself is one that probably the Government would not be against, because it is not specifically driving them. Therefore, there is a possibility that those Members who wish to speak on this issue could apply to put in for the pre-recess Adjournment debate, whereby you would get a few people effectively having a small debate on rural broadband as part of that and get a Government response. Everyone would say, "Let us try to do this", but the proposal is not specific enough to oppose, because doing a bit would still satisfy the terms of the motion.

Rory Stewart: Just two thoughts on that. One is that, as I say, when we had a Westminster Hall debate, it was so over-subscribed that we fitted in 19 interventions in half an hour to try to cram everyone in, so there is huge demand for more time on this. The other thing is that I am not sure how the Committee operates. I would certainly be open to tightening up the motion, making it more aggressive and specific.

Q7 John Hemming: The only thought I have is that it all depends-there were 19 interventions, but the interventions would not have been that long. The question then is, what is it that people need to say that takes more than four minutes to say? If the debate was held as part of the pre-recess Adjournment debate, that is probably the time that they would get.

Chair: That is a judgment we have to make. It is a very clear indication that it is a very popular subject.

Q8 Mr Bone: Rory, you absolutely have a substantive motion. It is a little weak and I have certainly heard the Chancellor speak against what you are saying, but I have also heard you being more specific in the past, saying that, instead of going for 95% coverage, it should be 98%. If that was in the motion, I think we would really have a proper debate and, of course, if you won that motion, you would have won your argument.

Rory Stewart: Fantastic. Is it procedurally possible, Chairman?

Chair: The way it works is that we try to look at the substance of the debate, at the topic generally, and compare it with all the other requests that are brought before the Committee. We have one slot at the moment, which is 19 May, we have six hours in the Chamber; we do not have a Westminster Hall day to fill at the moment. We will be looking at all the other requests that have come to us. If we then say, yes, this is topical, this is the thing that we really need to have debated, at that point, you would be talking to the Clerks about what kind of motion it would be and what the motion would say.

Rory Stewart: To answer John, Peter and Philip, if you do want us to tighten that up, I am very keen.

Q9 Mr Bone: You would be happy to put 98% in?

Rory Stewart: Very.

Chair: Thank you very much, Rory.

Q10 Mr Arbuthnot: I have no motion. At some stage I will come to you to ask for a debate on a report that we, as the Defence Committee, are doing on the strategic defence and security review. At some stage I will also come to you to ask for a debate on Afghanistan, but again, this is not that occasion. In the previous Parliament and in all Parliaments in which I have served, I think there have been five defence day debates on the Floor of the House. It only came to our notice in the spring of this year, thanks to your Clerk, that we needed, as a Committee, to apply for Defence days as Backbench business. I think that it would be appropriate to have a debate on the armed forces in general, or on defence in general.

In previous years, rather artificial distinctions have been made between the armed forces and defence in the world, defence equipment, and all of that sort of stuff. It never really worked, and people tried to skew their speeches in a very artificial way. I think, however, that since defence is the most important duty of Government, it would be appropriate to have a general debate fairly soon. At some stage, perhaps in July-perhaps on Bastille day-we would like to apply for a debate on alliances, but this is not that occasion, and now that I see how the Committee works, I shall be a regular attendee.

Chair: You will be very welcome.

Q11 Mr Hollobone: For what it’s worth, I do not think that there is merit in having a general debate on defence. One of the first debates that the Committee considered was a motion on our involvement in Afghanistan. I think that there has been a subsequent debate ahead of the strategic defence review.

Mr Arbuthnot: There have been two, so far.

Mr Hollobone: And of course we will have the Armed Forces Bill going through. One of the big constraints on the Committee is that, in the past we had all of these set days-for things like Wales, defence, and all of the rest of it-and if we simply adopted all of those old days in this new programme, that is basically all we would have. We are not given enough time by the Government. My personal view is that if you were to come to the Committee and say, "I want to propose a motion from our report on this; the motion says this, because it asks the Government to do this," we could then have a real ding-dong of debate in the Chamber, and we could arrive at a motion that we could all vote on. I think that that is far more attractive than just having a general discussion about defence when you would get all of the usual suspects-all of the same people-saying the same things.

My view is that the Committee is trying to say that we want to do things differently. Time in the Chamber is very precious. You can have motions in the Chamber, and where possible-though not always-it is not the place for general debates when we could actually make a difference by passing motions on something that would get something done.

Mr Bone: To give an example of what Philip said, we used to have debates on Europe. All of the Eurosceptics would turn up, we would make the same speeches each year, and nothing really happened. If, for instance, someone came forward and said, "We’d like to debate a motion that there should be another strategic defence review because of the changes in the world," which would, therefore, be a voteable motion, that is the sort of thing that we’re looking for. In more specific terms we’d think, "That’s a really important issue, something the Government will never put on." It might be something that the Opposition will never call, but there is a lot interest among Backbenchers, across the different parties.

Chair: There is not entire agreement in the Committee on this, because we have scheduled general debates as well. We had the first debate on a voteable motion and the second debate without a vote. In terms of defence, I think that it is arguably more important than it was in the last Parliament; it is certainly right at the forefront.

I think everyone does agree, though, that we look at things on a case-by-case basis. You have brought us a pitch for a general debate on defence or the armed forces. We will have to consider that, because that is what you are asking for. We look at it case-by-case, rather than saying, "Right, we will set aside five days for debating matters of defence," because that takes the topicality out of it. You have, however, brought before us a very topical matter, so it will obviously be considered.

Q12 John Hemming: The request we had just prior to yours was for two to three hours in the main chamber with a motion, which then leaves us with three to four hours after that potentially without a motion. Is that something that you would accept, for instance?

Mr Arbuthnot: It would be better than nothing.

Q13 John Hemming: Would it be better than three hours or six hours in Westminster Hall?

Mr Arbuthnot: It would certainly be better than that, because, with Defence issues, there is a certain element of how it is perceived outside as well as how it actually happens on the Floor of the Chamber. If it were perceived outside that Defence issues were no longer worthy of the Floor of the Chamber, as opposed to being put into Westminster Hall, I do not think that that would be well perceived.

Q14 John Hemming: I would make the point that Westminster Hall can get a lot of press, depending on what you are talking about.

Mr Arbuthnot: Yes, I know that it can, and some of the debates in Westminster Hall that I have taken part in have been far better than debates on the Floor of the House. That is certainly true. It is just a question of perception.

Mr Hollobone: The other point to make about Westminster Hall is that that time is guaranteed. If we were to allocate an afternoon in Westminster Hall, you would have three hours with no problems at all. One of the problems of allocating time in the Chamber, particularly with half-days, is that if the Government bring on statements, it can eat into that time. The other route open to you is to persuade the Liaison Committee to give you time in Westminster Hall as well. This is not the only route through which you need to apply for debates.

Q15 Chair: Thank you. You have definitely applied for time in the Chamber for a general debate on Defence or the armed forces, so we will consider that when we go into private session. As I said before, we only have 19 May at the moment, and we then go into the Whitsun recess after that.

Mr Arbuthnot: Sadly, the Defence Committee is going to Headley Court on 19 May, so that would not work for us. I am sorry that that is the only day that you have available.

Q16 Chair: That is the only day that we have. After that, it would be after Whitsun.

Mr Arbuthnot: It would have to be after Whitsun. I recognise that.

Q17 Chair: Is this your first time at the Committee?

Mark Reckless: It is.

Q18 Chair: You have seen how we work, and it is really just about you giving us a very short outline of what your proposal is, including the topic, why you want it debated, how many hours, why it is topical and whether you have a vote or a motion.

Mark Reckless: The topic that I am proposing is to debate the use of our money for Euro bail-outs. I have Jim Shannon from the DUP here in support, and I also have a letter from Keith Vaz and Kelvin Hopkins, who are on somewhat different sides of the European perspective within Labour. The particular reason why I am asking for this debate is that there was essentially no parliamentary scrutiny at the time of the set-up of the Euro bail-out fund, because of the formation of the coalition. We have had a full-day debate on the bilateral loan to Ireland, but we are now potentially in hock for larger sums through the EU bail-outs than we are through that bilateral loan.

It is also very topical for 19 May, because we have ECOFIN on 17 May, which is likely to confirm the Portuguese bail-out. We are also beginning to see that the loans that went to Greece are not really loans and are not going to be paid back. The other issue is that, when the bail-outs were set up, we saw a facility of £440 billion for the eurozone, but only £60 billion for the EU, so it was some eighth of the total, but actually all these bail-outs were seeing the EU element, which we have to contribute to, accounting for a third, and there has been no parliamentary scrutiny of that. We have seen that the European Scrutiny Committee has looked at it, and it has said that it is concerned that it is illegal, but there has been no debate about that.

I would particularly like to table a voteable motion that would require the Government to challenge the legality of the bail-outs, because the treaties have a no-bail-out clause, and Article 122 says that such bail-outs should only be for natural disasters or other exceptional circumstances beyond member states’ control. Whatever the arguments we have with Ireland, that simply does not apply to Portugal. There is very strong interest in the House on this subject and I ask for a debate.

Chair: Thank you.

Q19 John Hemming: This issue was referred to the European Scrutiny Committee-if I remember rightly, there was a Division in the House. There is the question of whether you can challenge the legality, but to what extent can it affect reality?

Mark Reckless: One significant development since then is that the official Labour party position has changed. Ed Balls has specifically opposed the Portuguese bail-out as proposed. We are seeing the EU element going from 8% to 33% of the bail-outs, and we are seeing in Greece that it is not a loan and it will be written off.

Q20 John Hemming: The point being that that was agreed by the Labour party as its last act in Government after the election. Would you table a voteable motion on that in a two or three-hour debate in the Chamber?

Mark Reckless: I would pitch for a full day’s debate, but work pressure and the quality of other submissions might mean you are minded to give half a day to one of those. I would be grateful for half a day. I think having a voteable motion is important, because I think this is a key area to test opinion.

Q21 Chair: This sounds pretty straightforward. We would have to work on what the wording of the voteable motion would be, but that’s fine.

Q22 Mr Bone: It seems pretty obvious to me that there would be different views within different political parties, which is one of the things that we are looking for. There would be quite a lot of interest. There would be people from different parties saying different things, so that is very positive. Could you say again, Mark, why you mentioned a date?

Mark Reckless: There is an ECOFIN meeting on 17 May and it is scheduled to approve a bail-out for Portugal using, ostensibly, a third of the EU fund when it was meant to be only 8% of it, setting very different terms of interest rates-

Q23 Mr Bone: Can I interrupt? Am I right in thinking we have never actually discussed this, because this happened when we were in recess?

Mark Reckless: It was the formation of the coalition-

Q24 John Hemming: The fund was agreed by the previous Government after the election, before the new Government took office.

Q25 Mr Bone: Am I right in thinking we never discussed Portugal, because it came up during the recess? I remember asking for Parliament to be recalled to discuss it, and we haven’t discussed it.

Mark Reckless: There has been no discussion. I spoke to the Treasury Minister, Mark Hoban, at 1 am when we were sitting very late last week after this had been announced, and he knew nothing of the proposal or that we were in it for a third through this EU element. I think scrutiny of that is appropriate.

Q26 Jane Ellison: A slight devil’s advocate question. We have one and a half hour slots on a Wednesday quite regularly, often on EU issues. As a casual observer, they seem to attract a very dedicated group of speakers, but generally the same group of speakers. If we were looking to put it on an interesting day in the Chamber, why do you think it tends to attract a narrow group of speakers? Do you think a whole day’s debate could attract a sufficient range of broad and new speakers to sustain a day’s debate?

Mark Reckless: I believe that it would in this case. First, and very importantly, the official Labour position has switched, and I do not think any of these one and a half hour debates have actually attracted both sides of the House in that way. Secondly, there is the amount of money that is involved and the link into the general Treasury deficit reduction. We debated the bilateral loan to Ireland, but there has been no follow-up on that. There is now a suggestion that the terms of that should be changed. We have a new Irish Government. I am not sure whether you have anything to add, Jim, on that issue and the relevance of Ireland.

Jim Shannon: Just one thing on the relevance. Many of us feel that perhaps Ireland has not used the money that it got for the purposes for which it was given. Perhaps it has disadvantaged the economy of Northern Ireland. Certainly, there is some indication that that has happened. I have some concern about what the money has been used for-what it was asked for and what it has ended up being used for. If we have been good enough to bail out the Republic of Ireland, I feel that any disadvantage turned against the people of Northern Ireland and their economy is unfair. Would that happen elsewhere? It possibly could. I think the debate is an important one to have in the Chamber. Members of the Committee have indicated that from their own comments.

Q27 Chair: The question is more would it attract a wider group of people than the usual people who take part in Europe-type debates.

Q28 John Hemming: Obviously this is not cash paid out by a contingent liability. Is your motion going to be about the Government challenging the legality in the European Court of Justice or something like that? Would you have any objection if the debate was phrased in such a way as to look at other contingent liabilities, not just the contingent liability that arises from this particular fund?

Mark Reckless: Yes, there is also an accounting issue of how these things are accounted.

Q29 John Hemming: There was another one yesterday on a statutory instrument, where contingent liability went up for the UK. No cash was paid.

Q30 Chair: We are getting into the substance of the debate. If we schedule it, we can explore those issues.

Q31 Ian Mearns: I want to be certain that there is no intention whatever to have a debate on this issue from the Government’s perspective.

Mark Reckless: The Government are desperate to avoid a debate on this issue.

Chair: Thank you very much for that. We will go into private session and discuss the topics that have been brought to us. Thanks for coming.