UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 17 JANUARY 2012

MRS ANNE MAIN, DR THÉRÈSE COFFEY and BEN GUMMER

SARAH NEWTON and NICOLA BLACKWOOD

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Mrs Anne Main, Dr Thérèse Coffey and Ben Gummer made representations.

Q1 Chair: Welcome back to the Committee. Before we start, let me say that we have a full day in the Chamber on 26 January and a protected three hours in Westminster Hall on 2 February. That is all we have available. Thank you very much for your application. You have been here before, so would you like to make a start?

Mrs Main: I am the Member of Parliament for St Albans and I would like a debate on Network Rail, as would other colleagues here and the 27 colleagues who signed the application. We have cross-party support for this.

I have serious concerns about the operation of Network Rail. I have asked on the Floor of the House for a statement on it. I have written to the Minister asking for a statement and I have applied for Back-Bench Westminster Hall debates and been unlucky in the ballot.

As a group, we accept that there are serious concerns and that Network Rail is under the Office of Rail Regulation, and I have submitted some information with the application. I believe that Network Rail is generally unaccountable. We have not had a debate on Network Rail, although we have had debates on HS2. The McNulty report, which was recently published, deals with the way forward, but again, it does not tackle Network Rail. On my line, which is First Capital Connect-the "Bed-Pan line"-67% of all failures in signalling and poor performance are directly attributable to Network Rail. Many colleagues say the same. However, other colleagues have expressed extreme concern about the infrastructure that is Network Rail, which means that we cannot hold it to account.

A three-hour uninterrupted debate in Westminster Hall would be a way forward, given the number of colleagues who have expressed an interest in speaking in the debate.

Network Rail is currently under the Office of Rail Regulation and is in breach of its licence. It has two enforcement orders against it and it is supposed to be developing new plans to recover its performance, yet it is already indicated that anything that it puts through will miss the target.

Chair: That’s fine, but we are getting into the detail of the debate.

Dr Thérèse Coffey: A breach happened on 19 December, so a debate now would be timely.

Mrs Main: I have just had a reply to my recent letter to the Department for Transport, saying, "We are currently working up reforms to make it more accountable." Given the topicality, we need to have the debate.

Chair: That’s great. That is very clear. Has anyone any questions?

Q2 Ian Mearns: Have you had any additional thoughts about including the British Rail residuary body in the debate because the relationship between it and Network Rail sometimes makes the land issues involved quite complex?

Dr Coffey: Ian, to be fair, we have kept the debate fairly broad, but we are clear that it is about Network Rail. However, if any Member, including you, wants to make that point in the debate, they are more than welcome to do so. A lot of us are concerned about line performance, and there are other issues about stations and similar matters.

Q3 Ian Mearns: Do you see it being a contentious debate? Do you imagine many Members leaping to their feet to defend Network Rail’s record?

Mrs Main: Two colleagues who have signed the application are happy with Network Rail’s performance; it operates differently in other parts of the country. That would broaden the debate because where there is good practice, we would like to hear about it. Where there is bad practice-I must say that that is more prevalent than the good-that should be aired. Generally speaking, out of the 27 names-there are other colleagues who, because of their positions were unfortunately not allowed to add their names-most probably want to have a bash because of dissatisfaction. However, to be fair, there are some colleagues, whom I could name, who are not unhappy with Network Rail.

Chair: That is an important point.

Q4 Mr Hollobone: I completely understand that it is an important issue. Network Rail is of serious interest to many constituents throughout the country. I absolutely get that. One of the things that we look for in tabling a debate is cross-party interest. You have many names on the submission, but I can see only two Labour names. What evidence do you have that Opposition Members as well as Government Members will attend the debate?

Dr Coffey: It is fair to say that we discussed this only last week, so we have cobbled together names at short notice. In our area of England, there are only two Labour Members and only three Liberal Democrats, one of whom is a PPS. We have tried to do the best we can in a short time, and have met extra people in the Division Lobbies and elsewhere. We have not approached everybody. For example, I was about to approach John Woodcock, but I realised he was a Front-Bench spokesman, so I couldn’t.

Mrs Main: Before Christmas, I learnt that Network Rail was under the Office of Rail Regulation and that it was being monitored over Christmas and the new year. As of yesterday, my constituents had experienced another set of delays totalling 60 minutes. We have had a very short space of time to go for this since the Christmas recess, so it has not been easy to talk to colleagues, but I have to say, talking anecdotally, that a lot of people have said, "Don’t put in my name, because you can’t, but I would really like to see the debate," and I believe that, with Labour, there would be a significant amount of support.

Chair: Thank you. That is very clear.

Sarah Newton and Nicola Blackwood made representations.

Sarah Newton: Barbara Keeley sends her apologies, as do Daniel Poulter and Margot James, who also wanted to come along in person to give support, and I am very pleased that Nicola Blackwood has joined me this afternoon.

You have received my proposal, submitted before Christmas, for a debate on the topic, "The Future of Social Care". We would like to have the debate in the main Chamber with a votable motion. I have drafted a votable motion, although I would say that it is a fast-moving area. Every day we are reading in the newspapers about new developments that the Government are undertaking. Cross-party negotiations are ongoing. So we would want to reserve the right to alter the motion right up until a day or so before the debate in the main Chamber, if we were fortunate enough to secure one. I will circulate the motion.

Q5 Chair: Do you have an idea of the kind of motion that you would be tabling?

Sarah Newton: Yes. I have drafted one, if you would like to read it. We had a really well-attended Westminster Hall debate; Mr Bone was in the Chair for part of it, and the Leader of the House did us the great honour of joining us, although he didn’t speak. We had about 17 speakers on that occasion and there were colleagues who could not join in. I have a list here, which was attached to the application, of 37 people who indicated that they would like to speak, with very good cross-party representation.

Q6 Chair: Was that a one and a half hour debate?

Sarah Newton: No, it was a three-hour debate. We know that the allocation of the days in the main Chamber is out of your hands, but if a day was made available in February, especially the first part of February, we think that would be ideal because the Health Committee is undertaking an inquiry at the moment into the future of social care post-Dilnot, and it is due to report during the first week of February. It would be an ideal opportunity to include the findings of the Select Committee in the discussions, as well as to reflect upon the progress that has been made in the all-party talks and various Government initiatives.

Q7 Chair: Could you read out the motion for the record?

Sarah Newton: I will do my best to get my teeth around it:

"That this House believes there is an urgent need to reform the current system of providing and paying for the care of adults in England and Wales; recognises that social care, unlike the NHS, has never been free at the point of need irrespective of income; notes the central role of informal carers in the provision of care; welcomes the Coalition Agreement pledge to reform and legislation; welcomes the plans to integrate adult social care services provided by local authorities with the NHS; welcomes the extension of personal budgets; urges the Government to ensure that fairness is central to reform, including access to advice, advocacy, assessment of need, care services as well as funding options; recognises the need to ensure assessments are transferable; urges the Government to include a Bill in the next session of Parliament."

Chair: Brilliant. Thank you. The motion is very clear and you have been before, and obviously the issue is in the media a lot. Unless anybody wants to ask any questions, that is all. That was a very clear representation, so thank you very much.