Transcript of representations made on Tuesday 7 February 2012

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT   

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 7 FEBRUARY 2012

JULIE HILLING, DAME JOAN RUDDOCK, FIONA MACTAGGART and AMBER RUDD

MR ELFYN LLWYD and PAUL MURPHY

JACK LOPRESTI

ALUN CAIRNS

JIM SHERIDAN

DR JULIAN HUPPERT

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 41

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

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

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 7 February 2012

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mr George Mudie

Julie Hilling, Dame Joan Ruddock, Fiona Mactaggart and Amber Rudd made representations.

Q1 Chair: I want to make it clear before we start that we have a grand total of a three-hour slot in Westminster Hall on 23 February to allocate; we have nothing else at the moment. The Government are being very reserved about giving us time, simply because they are waiting for their legislation to come back from the House of Lords. The only day that we have already allocated is 20 February; beyond that, only after the recess-from 20 February onwards-we will know whether we have any time to allocate, so today is really just about putting things on our list; you should be aware of that.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you, Chair. Our request is for the time slot that you are talking about, because the request is time-sensitive. It is for an international women’s day debate as close as possible to international women’s day, which is on 8 March. The request is supported by 13 Members from five political parties; that indicates the breadth of cross-party support that it has. The debate has happened almost every year since 1994, but not every single year; in years in which there were general elections and so on, it was omitted. It has proved a really important opportunity to make sure that issues that particularly affect women are debated. In this Parliament, which has more women in it than any previous Parliament, it is important that that tradition is built on and continued.

Q2Chair: You were saying that you were specifically thinking about the Westminster Hall slot on 23 February.

Fiona Mactaggart: No. We would much prefer something closer to 8 March, which is international women’s day. Our anxiety is that if we held the debate on 23 February, that would be too early; it would not have the connection to the day, when there will be a whole lot of events taking place around the country. Oxfam, for example, is arranging events in communities to highlight its work as part of international women’s day.

Q3 John Hemming: For clarity, we have not got any other time. If we were to offer you that day, would you turn it down?

Fiona Mactaggart: I have not consulted. I do not think that date does the trick.

Dame Joan Ruddock: It is something that we would have to gamble on.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yes. You are asking us to gamble, and that would be difficult.

Q4 Chair: It is a similar gamble for us; that is the problem.

Fiona Mactaggart: I absolutely understand that.

Amber Rudd: What is the likelihood, if I may ask, of getting something at the beginning of March?

Q5 Chair: We have absolutely no idea. In fact, I am not sure whether the Government have any idea, either, given the state of the legislative programme; it is all dependent on that. There is also the Budget and the end of the Session. I would say that it is more uncertain now than it was before.

Julie Hilling: The Leader of the House said on Thursday, in response to a question from me, that he would attempt to free up time around then, which is helpful.

Chair: It was a legitimate question, though.

Q6 Mr Hollobone: I do not know how we could make it any clearer: we have only half a day to allocate, on 23 February. We have 14 other worthy subjects on our list. That is all we have, and there is no guarantee that we will get any other days at all. We will probably get some, but we do not know when, and we may not. The question really is: if we offered you 23 February, would you take it?

Fiona Mactaggart: I think we should wait. This is genuinely not a conversation that we have had before, but I think that all of us feel that we would want an international women’s day debate to be in March; that is our strong feeling.

Q7 Jane Ellison: It is worth saying, on the question of time, that as we have now had more days than we were, strictly speaking, allotted-

Mr Bone: There is some debate about that.

Jane Ellison: If you will let me finish, we have been in an ongoing debate about the length of the Session, which is why we have always argued for more time. That is why we are in an even more difficult negotiating position than ever. We are very short of time, and if we cannot allocate time for certain debates in the next few weeks, it will not be because we do not think that some of the cases are worth while or whatever; we are just really up against it, time-wise. It is important to say that.

On the subject of the debate, and getting away from the issue of the particular day, in this Parliament, since the rules changed, we have been quite resistant to the argument that because something has happened every year, it should happen this year; otherwise, we would have really struggled to allocate time on a range of subjects. I took part in last year’s debate, and I thought it was very good, but can you elaborate on the way in which this year’s debate might take a different tack, and what it might do that is distinctive from last year’s debate?

Fiona Mactaggart: A number of campaigns have been developing, such as the female genital mutilation campaign. The debate has the capacity to include those kinds of campaigns. There is also the work that Claire Perry has been doing on sexual exploitation and the internet. This debate gives us the opportunity to focus on a number of issues. In the last debate, we looked at human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Again, it provides a broad framework allowing us to look at a number of things, both domestically and internationally, because it is international women’s day.

Dame Joan Ruddock: To add to that, the other very significant developments that have taken place over the past 12 months are those associated with the Arab spring. Women often led in those great demonstrations, and they then tried to do things, many of which have failed. It is endemic to the role of women that they are out there at the beginning, but then find it very difficult to get themselves embedded in new structures. There is a very interesting debate to be had around the role of women in those kinds of moves towards democracy in the wider world.

Q8 Mr Bone: I take a slightly different view from Jane. The Wright Committee said that we should have a day a week, on average, for Back-Bench business. The fact that we have a two-year Session should not mean that we have only 35 days. If we had stuck to the idea of a day a week, we would have no problem saying that you could have a debate. That is something that I would like to see more Members argue in business questions; that would be helpful.

Obviously, we would love to put the debate on, and clearly it is an interesting issue, but it would help the Committee enormously if some of the sub-issues-say, the Arab spring, genital mutilation and human trafficking-were mentioned in the motion, so that the debate is not just about international women’s day, but relates to those issues. That would allow more people to say, "I perhaps would not have come to a debate on international women’s day, but I would come to a debate about the Arab spring", for instance. Obviously, we cannot allocate a day today because of the situation, so you might want to think about that and come back.

Fiona Mactaggart: We would be perfectly content to try to make the motion wide-ranging, and I would be happy to arrange consultation with Members of all parties about things that they would want to include in it.

Q9 Mr Hollobone: The point about the difference between a Session and a year is quite important, because it restricts the amount of time that this Committee can allocate to subjects. You have already had a debate this Session on those issues, and we are constrained by the number of days that we can allocate. If you do not get your debate, just reflect on the fact that we are allocated days per Session, not per year.

Fiona Mactaggart: We understand that, and that is exactly why we have been pressing, in business questions, for the Government to make time for this. We understand the pressure that you are under. International women’s day happens every year. It is grist to your mill, in your negotiations with Government, that you have had this debate this Session, but not this year, or in connection with this international women’s day. It assists you in that conversation with Government.

Chair: Thank you very much for coming.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd and Paul Murphy made representations.

Q10 Chair: Could we have the Members who are here about the Wales debate, please?

Paul Murphy: The Wales team, who did not do so badly on Saturday. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and colleagues. I start by giving my apologies for two things. First, there was some confusion on my part; I think that we should have been with you last week. Secondly, our colleagues-Glyn Davies from the Conservative party, and Roger Williams from the Liberal Democrats-would normally have been with us, but they are both in mid-Wales, and for health and other reasons cannot be here today. We tried to get substitutes from those two parties, but the Welsh Affairs Committee is in mid-Wales-they are all in mid-Wales today-so you have Elfyn Llwyd and me. We speak, I hasten to add, for every single Welsh Member of Parliament without exception, whatever their party. That is 26 Labour Members of Parliament, three from Plaid Cymru, three from the Liberal Democrats, and six from the Conservative party.

As you know, we came before you twice last year to argue the case for a St David’s day debate, in which to discuss Welsh issues on the Floor of the House. This year, St David’s day falls on Thursday 1 March. Of course, that phenomenon takes place only once in every seven years, and it is happening this year.

There are two reasons why it is worth while putting before you the case for the debate, which has been held for 60 years; I first took part in 1988. First, it is an opportunity for Members who are not Welsh Members of Parliament to speak about the relationships between Wales and the United Kingdom, and about those relationships in the United Kingdom. Our motion, if it is to be a motion, would be the widest possible, so that there is, as there has traditionally been for six decades, a debate on Welsh issues. Secondly, the time is absolutely right to talk about Wales, because of what is happening to this Parliament. The point we made last year, which I shall repeat, is that I belong to a British Parliament, not an English one. Given the impending referendum on Scottish independence, the commission on West Lothian, the commission on powers for the Welsh Assembly, and the changes in Northern Ireland, it is very important to talk about where we are in Wales. The debate gives the chance to debate the issue not just to Welsh Members of Parliament, but to Members of the United Kingdom Parliament in general.

Finally, to my knowledge-this needs to be checked-in well over two years, there has been only one debate on the Floor of the House of Commons on Welsh matters, and that was on the Silk commission some months ago. I do not think that is enough, given the importance of the issues. I now hand over to Elfyn.

Mr Llwyd: Paul has done justice to the case. This is an important opportunity to discuss these matters. What is going on throughout the UK has huge constitutional repercussions. I agree with Paul that it is only right that other Members, not just Welsh Members, should be able to participate in that debate. From an historical point of view, virtually every Welsh Member would wish to put in for some time in the debate.

I do not want to repeat what Paul has said. The debate is important. It is supported by every political party in Wales. I know that Glyn was passionate about it, but he is having surgery today. For once, there is opportunity to have the St David’s day debate on that day. As I recall, there were some burning issues last year, and there may be even more important issues this year in terms of constitutional affairs and where next for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I can only add to what Paul has said and fully support his remarks. Consensus has broken out.

Q11 Chair: Although 1 March is a Thursday, we have not been allocated that day. So far, we have been allocated only 23 February in Westminster Hall, so that is not something that we have the power to do.

Paul Murphy: We understand that. I listened very carefully to the preceding session and what was said about the Committee’s difficulties in terms of pressure of time, and so on. Much as I would like to, I cannot change the calendar of saints. St David’s day is 1 March and that is traditionally when the debate is held. It is for us too, as well as the Committee, to argue the case with the Government. There is a strong case for the Government to allocate a day, but your good offices, in discussion with the Government, might persuade them to do that. Nevertheless, we come to you as Members of Parliament, because it is your business to deal with these issues.

Q12 John Hemming: I assume that if you were offered 23 February in Westminster Hall, you would turn it down.

Paul Murphy: As I think my colleagues said previously, it just would not do the trick.

John Hemming: Yes, it just makes it easier for us to decide.

Mr Llwyd: I would not wish to appear ungracious, but that does not quite do the trick.

John Hemming: It is only to assist the Committee.

Chair: There is a fundamental problem with the Committee having absolutely no input on the arrangement of the parliamentary calendar. Since, as you say, saints’ days fall on particular days and we have no control over that, it makes it very difficult.

Q13 Mr Bone: Given that we have an international women’s day debate bid for virtually the same day as yours, should we give it to international women’s day or to you?

Paul Murphy: We are arguing for a St David’s day debate on behalf of all Welsh Members of Parliament.

Mr Bone: Including women, of course.

Paul Murphy: Including women members. I do not want for one second to denigrate in any way the importance of international women’s day, which it is vital that the House should debate, but I think it was mentioned, although I could be wrong, that international women’s day is on 8 March, which is one week later. If a magic wand could be applied, that would suit both us and our women colleagues.

Mr Llwyd: I understand that one of the qualifications that this Committee has is the judgment of Solomon, so I would leave it to you.

Mr Bone: Yes, you’ve got it.

Q14 Jane Ellison: I have two questions. You floated the possibility there of it being quite an appropriate moment to have a constitutional debate in terms of what is happening. Would you look to frame a motion that pointed Members in that direction, perhaps with a view to drawing non-Welsh Members in to debate future constitutional arrangements, or would you keep it very general?

Paul Murphy: The more general the better, because the relationships between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom are not confined to the constitutional issues, although I rather fancy that a large number of Members would want to touch on those issues. The issues of the economy are absolutely critical. For example, what is a Welsh Government doing in trying to deal with the recession in Wales? Are there lessons to be learned from that by the British Government, and vice versa? Scottish and Northern Ireland Members could participate too. It should not be confined to constitutional issues, although they would play an important role in many Members’ speeches, I am sure.

Q15 Jane Ellison: My second questions concerns time. I apologise, but I have not located your form. In the event that we have only one day in and around St David’s day or international women’s day, would you consider a half-day’s debate?

Paul Murphy: I am sure that would not be a problem. People would have to have shorter speeches in their portfolio.

Chair: That was very clear, thank you. Just to put this into some kind of context, we have not only the debates that have come to us today, but a list of about 20 debates, including a debate on assisted dying that we have already promised, and one on immigration. We also have three outstanding e-petitions that have reached 100,000 signatures, and a big debate on social care, with a Select Committee report coming out in the middle of February that we want to tag to it. If only we could control the Government. We need the grid; that would solve everything.

Jack Lopresti made representations.

Q16 Chair: Welcome. Have you been here before?

Jack Lopresti: No, this is the first time. It is very exciting.

Q17 Chair: We are very excited that you are here. You have a debate on UK cyber security. We would like you to tell us whether you want a debate in Westminster Hall or in the main Chamber, and whether you have a votable motion, or whether this is a general debate. We are looking for cross-party support and for the number of hours that you think the debate would require. Remember that at the moment we have only 23 February in Westminster Hall to allocate.

Jack Lopresti: I am sure that everyone who comes along wants to have their debate in the main Chamber, but obviously, if that is not available I would consider Westminster Hall. I was going to say two hours, but I have just thought about what you have said, and perhaps an hour’s debate in Westminster Hall would work. There is cross-party support. I am on the all-party group for international security. I have spoken to Patrick Mercer, the chairman, and he said that all the members would be very interested in contributing to the debate.

Q18 Mr Hollobone: We have the power to grant what is called a topical debate, which is limited to 90 minutes, which can be slotted in on a day that otherwise might be Government time. If we were to put that to you, is that something that you would take?

Jack Lopresti: Very much so, yes. I would be very grateful.

Q19 Chair: Would you read out the subject of the debate for us?

Jack Lopresti: Basically, more and more of our lives depend on cyber technology, and the risk to security is increasing vastly, with 23% of UK business now being done online. The Government’s own figures suggest that in 2010, £27 billion was lost as a result of cyber crime. Only yesterday in the Daily Mail, there was a report of a new cyber attack on people’s bank accounts. It is becoming more and more relevant, and that is not even considering the international development of state-sponsored cyber attacks. There is a general understanding that we have not done as much as other countries in raising people’s awareness and taking steps to counter an ever-increasing threat.

Q20 Jane Ellison: Your form lists mostly Government Members. Do you have supporting Members from the official Opposition?

Jack Lopresti: I have spoken to people who have an interest in these things, and yes, I do.

Q21 Jane Ellison: So you could supply some extra names. We do not want a debate that dies out or does not go back and forth; it would be useful to get different views.

Jack Lopresti: I am confident that I could come back with some names. I sent round an e-mail, and the names that I have came back pretty instantly. I have some Labour friends and some contacts in this field, and I have no doubt whatever that they will contribute.

Q22 Mr Hollobone: As we are talking about a debate of an hour or an hour and a half, there is another consideration that you might want to think about. Were all the people listed here to apply through the Speaker’s Office for an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall of an hour and a half, the chances are that one of you would come up trumps. That might be another way of securing the parliamentary time.

Jack Lopresti: That is very helpful.

Q23 Chair: Have you put in for an Adjournment debate?

Jack Lopresti: No. This is my first port of call.

Chair: I would go from here to the Speaker’s Office and put in for an Adjournment debate. If you do it straight away, there is a chance of that coming up.

Jack Lopresti: And then come back with some specific Labour and other names.

Chair: That would be great. Thank you very much.

Jack Lopresti: No problem. Thank you.

Alun Cairns made representations.

Q24 Chair: Have you been here before?

Alun Cairns: No, I have not.

Q25 Chair: You heard what we said.

Alun Cairns: I did.

Q26 Chair: You have put in a form, but could you give us an outline of what it is you are asking for? That would be helpful.

Alun Cairns: The Committee will be well aware of a debate that Rory Stewart led on some time ago on Ofcom’s consultation on 4G mobile broadband coverage rising from 95% to 98%. That was extremely well attended. People from all parties supported the drive to 98%. I am delighted that the Government and Ofcom responded positively to that debate, but we are now taking it to the next degree. Ofcom on 12 January launched a consultation on how that 98% should be achieved. It has generally outlined two options, and there are some technical issues around how it should pursue it. One offers greater guarantees, the other offers better opportunities. Therefore, I am asking for, say, 90 minutes of Westminster Hall debate. The 23rd would be ideal, but any other date between now and 22 March would be suitable, in order to tease out the detail and tie in something on which we have not had a debate, which is the £150 million that the Government announced for the mobile investment project, which dovetails perfectly with the Ofcom consultation.

Q27 Chair: You have put on your form that you have considerable interest, with a list of supporting Members "to follow". Have we had that?

Alun Cairns: I have not forwarded that to you, but I have a list of 12 Members in front of me, across two parties, but many others have said to me verbally, "Yes, I support that."

Q28 Chair: What are the two parties?

Alun Cairns: The Lib Dems and the Conservatives, but many Labour Members have raised this with me and said, "Yes, I’m interested in that debate," so I could easily provide those on another occasion.

Chair: We would like to see such a list, because so far they are both Government parties. That would be really helpful. Thank you.

Jim Sheridan made representations.

Q29 Chair: We have one copy of your paper submission, which has only just arrived; that is my fault. You have heard what we have said to the others. We have only a three-hour slot in Westminster Hall on 23 February. We are keeping our fingers crossed for something else, but will you take us through what you are after?

Jim Sheridan: First of all, I apologise; I was unaware of the procedure, otherwise I would have had co-sponsors with me. I might even have brought along some redundant manufacturing workers. That is the basis of the debate. As we know, manufacturing in Britain is suffering badly, as is the construction industry. We are looking for the Government to inject some life into manufacturing and construction through their procurement processes. A number of colleagues have expressed their frustration that contracts have been lost to foreign countries and we have tried to find a reason for that. We know that European rules sometimes prohibit the Government from giving contracts to a British company, but for some reason other European countries seem to find a way round those, although we cannot. Some major contracts have been lost recently and some are in the process of being lost. We want to make a plea for help for manufacturing and construction to try to give it a boost, so that it gets out of the current situation.

Q30 Chair: Are you asking for a debate on a votable motion in the Chamber, or for three hours in Westminster Hall?

Jim Sheridan: I am at your mercy, Chair. It is a debate that needs to get out there in the open. Whatever is available; I am at your mercy.

Q31 Jane Ellison: We recently scheduled two debates with broadly the same theme. One was slightly more specific to BAE, and the other was a half day on UK manufacturing. Was that not an opportunity to raise some of those points? A similar case was made by a range of Members at the time. Is that a debate that you took part in? Did you feel the debate ran out of time? That was quite recent; it was only a couple of months ago.

Jim Sheridan: Unfortunately, I could not make that debate, but having read Hansard, I know that it was a very well attended debate. This debate is specifically on Government procurement, and we are asking the Government to listen to us on that.

Q32 John Hemming: My point is exactly the same as Jane’s. The issue that you raise is very important. Given the limitations on time, the Committee has to make a judgment on why we should have an additional one. Dave Watts has put in a similar application. I am sure that you have worked quite closely with him.

Jim Sheridan: I have not spoken to him.

Q33 John Hemming: He has put in an application for a debate on Government procuring support for UK manufacturing. There is no difficulty there?

Jim Sheridan: The more the merrier.

Q34 John Hemming: The more the merrier. If we were considering dividing the time in Westminster Hall on 23 February into two debates, would you accept half of that?

Jim Sheridan: Absolutely. I am not precious about this. The more people who attend and make a contribution, the better. There is cross-party support for it as well.

Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much.

Dr Julian Huppert made representations.

Q35 Chair: Have you been to the Committee before?

Dr Huppert: No, this is my first experience. I have been following it so far.

Q36 Chair: Just so that you are under no illusions, I should say that we have only 23 February in Westminster Hall.

Dr Huppert: I have learned that very clearly.

Q37 Chair: Will you just take us through your bid?

Dr Huppert: Cycling is an issue that has not been discussed very significantly within the House. I had an Adjournment debate on it about a year ago. The last debate that I could find was in 2007. It is a very serious issue and it is particularly topical at the moment because there has been a lot of interest, after a number of deaths, with The Times’ "Cities fit for cycling" campaign, which fairly quickly had more than 20,000 signatures. There is a serious issue. There have been a large number of deaths. In the past 10 years, 27,000 cyclists have been killed or seriously injured. Generally, road safety in this country is improving, but it is not improving at the same pace for cyclists. There has been an increase in the number of cyclist casualties. Many MPs are interested in the issue. I apologise for the fact that Ian Austin and Sarah Wollaston could not be with me today, but I chair the all-party cycling group with Ian, and 18 Members of Parliament are members of that, so they at least have an interest. Members would be interested in debating the subject and I have been approached more recently about The Times’ campaign. One slightly controversial aspect is that not everyone has exactly the same views on how we should be promoting cycling. There has been some discussion around the Chamber.

Ideally-like everybody else, I suspect-I would like three hours in the main Chamber. I have drafted a motion from an early-day motion that I recently tabled. I was interested in the suggestion of a topical 90-minute debate. I am not sure how that works. I am in your hands when it comes to guidance on what is and is not possible.

Q38 Chair: Is this a votable motion?

Dr Huppert: I would ideally like it to be a votable motion, partly to give emphasis to the call to improve the infrastructure. As I say, there is some controversy over whether it is a priority, and I would like to give those who disagree a chance to say so rather than just intervene.

Q39 Chair: You have Sarah Wollaston’s support as well, so that is one Conservative.

Dr Huppert: Yes, there are three of us from the three main parties who are supportive. Caroline Lucas is also very supportive and an active member of the group. We do an annual reception and an annual parliamentary bike ride. We get a large number of MPs for that. As I say, we have 18 Members from-I hesitate to guess exactly how many parties, but a large number of parties.

Q40 John Hemming: The eternal question: if we offered you half of the time available in Westminster Hall on 23 February, would you accept it?

Dr Huppert: I suspect that we would accept it, given the timeliness of The Times’ campaign. That campaign means it is timely to have it very soon, otherwise there is not quite the same urgency. If it was not soon, I would rather wait until we had a chance for the main Chamber.

Q41 Mr Bone: I had better declare my interest, in that I have tried to introduce a private Member’s Bill to make it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets. You highlight a really important issue. There is a motion, but it is fairly bland. You could probably cover all the points in Westminster Hall. For instance, you are not bringing in a motion to make it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets, which would perhaps have needed the Chamber. If you thought Westminster Hall on the 23rd was acceptable, I think three hours would be about right.

Dr Huppert: I would be very happy to accept that.

Chair: Thank you very much.