UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

MADE BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 18 JANUARY 2011

MR DAVID DAVIS AND MR JACK STRAW

DR STELLA CREASY AND JUSTIN TOMLINSON

MR MICHAEL MEACHER, CAROLINE LUCAS AND DR SARAH WOLLASTON

YVONNE FOVARGUE

ELIZABETH TRUSS AND DR THÉRÈSE COFFEY

ANDREA LEADSOM

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Made before the Backbench Business Committee

on Tuesday 18 January 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Philip Davies

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Mr David Davis, Mr Jack Straw, Dr Stella Creasy, Justin Tomlinson, Mr Michael Meacher, Caroline Lucas, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Yvonne Fovargue, Elizabeth Truss, Dr Thérèse Coffey and Andrea Leadsom made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. I know David Davis has been here before, but for the benefit of the others, I should explain that we’re looking for representations from you all about the subject that you want to have debated, where you want to have it debated-we have slots in Westminster Hall and in the main Chamber-whether you want a votable motion and how much time, specifically, you want to be allocated. I have to tell you now that we don’t have a slot in the Chamber next week, but we hope for one the week after and possibly another one before the February recess. We have two slots in Westminster Hall, but from your-

Mr Davis: Chairman, in day terms, that would be early February, yes?

Q2 Chair: Yes, that’s right. So would you like to start?

Mr Straw: Thank you very much, Chair. We present apologies on behalf of Dominic Raab for his absence due to family reasons, because he is the lead on this. We set out our case in the form that we submitted.

In terms of the mechanics, where would we like the debate? On the Floor of the House. The issue has already been the subject of debate in Westminster Hall. We would like it to be debated on a votable motion. In fact, the matter has been aired often enough that there would be no purpose to the debate unless there was an opportunity for the House to divide on the issue and come to a conclusion. In terms of time, given the parliamentary and public interest in the matter, a day is what we seek.

I think colleagues around the table are well aware of this issue. It had been the settled policy of Parliament that convicted and sentenced prisoners should not be able to vote while serving their sentences. From time to time, that was looked at by parliamentarians. The last time was in 2000, under one of my many Home Office Bills, when we slightly tweaked the law, but there was no pressure whatever at this end for any change in the substance of the law. There was no pressure within the parties. The two main parties were absolutely convinced against giving prisoners the right to vote. I think the Liberal Democrats took a different view, and although it is for them to say this, I’m not aware that this was a high-profile issue for them.

So that’s where the issue lay. Then this prisoner, Mr Hirst, took the British Government to court, saying that his human rights had been denied. The matter went to the Law Lords, now the Supreme Court, in the United Kingdom. They said that there was no breach of this man’s convention rights and that the denial of the right to vote was proportionate and consistent with the convention on human rights. He then, as it were, appealed against that decision to Strasbourg, and in 2006, in its judgment by a majority, the Strasbourg Court said that the so-called blanket ban was disproportionate. One of the things it said-

Q3 Chair: Jack, rather than rehearsing the whole of the debate, what we want is to know what the subject matter is and why it should be debated now.

Mr Straw: Sure. The issue is about prisoner voting. I’ll explain why it should be debated now. I ran two consultations as Justice Secretary. We did not come to a conclusion before the election.

Secretary Clarke has now announced a conclusion, which is to change the law, although it is unclear exactly how he proposes to do that. As we set out in the form, paragraph 79 of the Strasbourg Court judgment said that Parliament had not had "any substantive debate" on this issue. It is our view that there should be a substantive debate. We have framed the motion in a way that is respectful of our treaty obligations, but which gives Parliament, the elected House, an opportunity outside legislation-that is really important-to set down its opinions in a safe way. I don’t know whether David wants to add anything.

Mr Davis: Yes, a couple of things. First, I am sorry that Dominic is not here, because he is an expert on this subject, and he was the leader on this.

There are two substantive issues here; one is policy and the other is constitutional. In my 20-odd years here, I have never known an issue that has seized the imagination of the House of Commons more than this one or an issue that has caused such annoyance and concern. The idea of allowing the people who break the law to make the law seems to go against common sense and has caused concern to a very large number of people. There is no doubt about that, and you can see why-nearly 6,000 violent offenders, nearly 2,000 rapists and more than 4,000 drug dealers would be allowed to vote.

The second issue is that it is for Parliament to decide this balance of rights. I yield to no one in my view on human rights. It is for Parliament to decide this, which brings me to the constitutional issue. There is a big constitutional issue here. This is a very respectful motion, and the European Court of Human Rights is entirely within its rights to clip Governments around the ear and to tell Jack Straw, as Home Secretary, that he cannot do this or that. What is being countenanced in the Court’s present proposal, however, is a restriction of Parliament’s ability to make a decision, which is very different.

I will not go through the detail, but if you look at the minority report, the five judges say, "We are not legislators. It is not for us to do this." It is important that Parliament, rather than the Government, comes to a substantive decision on this.

Q4 Chair: Thank you very much for that. Do you have a motion with you?

Mr Straw: Yes.

Mr Davis: We do.

Q5 Chair: Could you read it out for us?

Mr Straw: Yes. It says, "That this House, noting that the ECHR commented in Hirst v. the United Kingdom that ‘it cannot be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification in light of modern day penal policy and of current human rights standards for maintaining such a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote’, and conscious of the treaty obligations of the UK, is of the opinion that (a) legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically elected lawmakers and (b) that on the merits of the issue, the current policy by which no sentenced prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand, is confirmed."

Chair: Do you have a copy of that which you can give us? I am going to bring some of my colleagues in to ask a few questions.

Q6 Philip Davies: I should make it clear at the outset that I was at the Westminster Hall debate that we had last week. It was Philip Hollobone’s debate, and it was clearly well attended. On every possible point, you tick all the boxes that we look for. The one outstanding issue for me is that, at some point, the Government will introduce their proposals, which will be subject to a full debate and a vote at the end. I want to explore why we need a full day’s debate and a vote now, when the Government will introduce their proposals for Back Benchers to speak and vote on.

Mr Davis: The Court, in its ruling, conflates Government with Parliament. Their responsibilities and powers are different. As I said, the Court is quite right to clip Government around the ear, and it has done a number of times. We don’t always agree with the judgments, but that is the right thing for the Court to do. The point of having a parliamentary debate and vote, separate from Government proceedings, is to allow Parliament to express its view. In the event that the vote is carried, the debate’s usefulness to the Government is actually reinforced because they can turn round to the European Court and say, "This is Parliament’s view, and your own judges say you should not overrule a Parliament."

Mr Straw: Philip, could I just say that, on Hirst, the Court was clear by a majority that it regarded the blanket ban as unlawful. It was unclear about what we should do in its place. My view is that in trying to accommodate the Court, the Government are likely to end up going too far in terms of the kind of prisoner who could be given the vote. An early decision by Parliament, as David says, will be very helpful in ensuring that the minimum concession is made to Strasbourg and in strengthening the hand of Ministers here in arguing with Strasbourg.

Q7 Philip Davies: I don’t particularly disagree, but to play devil’s advocate: whether it is a Back-Bench or a Government motion, it would still be Parliament voting on it. I would vote against prisoners having the vote whether it was a Government motion, a Back-Bench motion or a whoever-it-is motion.

Mr Straw: I understand that. When I was Secretary of State, one reason why I did not include this in legislation was that it was very clear that we would not win. The whole Conservative party would vote against it and, whether or not we had a whipped vote, half the Labour party would have done. The dynamics have slightly changed because Ken Clarke speaks for the Government and has indicated that he will have the Whips in for the change. My view, based on a lot of experience, is that if you leave it until there is a specific legislative proposal before the House, it will be much more difficult to get that change. I am clear about that.

Philip Davies: This will give a clearer view of the House’s attitude.

Chair: Thank you. Very briefly, John, because we’ve got lots of other people to make representations.

Q8 John Hemming: I think the interesting aspect is whether the resolution could settle the issue. Do you have a legal opinion on that?

Mr Davis: It might. This is why I said that I was sorry that we haven’t got Dominic here. He has worked with both of us in the past and he’s an expert-he’s a Foreign Office lawyer. His view is that this would bring to a head what is very important generally with the European Court of Human Rights. It has been behaving like a Supreme Court, but without the checks and balances to go with it. It is impossible to change the convention. This will raise an issue bigger than the substantive issue, and that is worth doing in its own right.

Mr Straw: Legal opinion differs. The bulk of legal opinion that I received was that we are obliged to change the law substantively, but that is not a universal opinion. The nature of our treaty obligations, which is crucial, is complicated. To underline David’s point, there is bubbling concern among many people in the judiciary in this country and abroad about what Lord Hoffmann, a very distinguished former Law Lord, said was the fact that the Strasbourg Court has not taken nearly far enough the margin of appreciation-that is, the latitude-of individual countries. He issued an extraordinarily powerful criticism of how the Court was operating. As David said, my view is that this issue is not about telling me, as Home Secretary, that I can’t deport this person-you don’t like it, but you respect it and you don’t do it. It is not about overruling an Executive act, which is fine. This is about a Court, without the checks and balances of a Supreme Court, telling a democratically elected Parliament and parliamentarians what to think. This is a really important issue for us.

Mr Davis: The Lord Chief Justice commented too, as have several other very liberal lawyers.

Chair: Thank you very much for that. Unless there is anything else-

Q9 Mr Mudie: Can I interrupt? I’m not sure, Jack and David, whether you’re asking us to do something for the convenience of the Government and Ken Clarke. I’m new to the Committee, but what I’ve picked up is that the Back-Bench days are very small in number and very much sought after. Topics should come from the Back Benchers.

Are you saying that when the Bill goes through, and this is included in the Bill, that would not satisfy Strasbourg in terms of its being discussed as the legislation goes through? If so, Strasbourg is satisfied. That seems to be the basis on which you are bringing this before us. Because Strasbourg has made this point, here is an easy way to settle it-it will be discussed in the House in a full day. I don’t think the Back Benchers are clambering for it above all the other things they are clambering for, so what is it? Is it for the convenience of the Government or the convenience of Back Benchers?

Mr Straw: George, I can only speak for the Labour party. I am absolutely certain that it’s not for the convenience of the Conservatives in government. Also, had this been put forward when we were in government, I can just imagine the reaction of some of the senior Whips, including one G. Mudie.

Mr Davis: It would have made you unhappy, George.

Mr Mudie: Jack always made me unhappy.

Hon. Members: Ah!

Chair: It’s turned into a pantomime.

Mr Straw: George, as David said, there is a genuinely bigger issue here about the role of the Strasbourg Court.

Mr Davis: And Parliament.

Mr Straw: And domestic Parliaments. That is a very big issue.

Chair: You’ve made that point. The other side of the coin, from what George is saying, is whether this is more appropriate for an Opposition day. We have to be careful that the Backbench Business Committee doesn’t start scheduling business that is only embarrassing to Government, but I think that we have a very good grasp of what it is that you’ve made representations on.

Q10 John Hemming: Who else is here in support of you? Obviously, quite a few people are. A show of hands would be helpful. We only have three names on here.

Chair: Are you here for the purposes of supporting this bid?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

Mr Straw: We didn’t go around canvassing support, but we could have got hundreds.

Q11 John Hemming: I know, but we need to know, because one of the tests is how many people are supporting it.

Mr Davis: John, may I make an important point here? We didn’t seek to canvass support, principally because everybody-I can think of only two Back Benchers who don’t-approves of what we’re doing.

Q12 Chair: Thank you very much. We’ve run out of time.

Stella Creasy and Justin Tomlinson have come to make representations for a debate on the Floor of the House. Or is it in Westminster Hall?

Dr Creasy: Yes, for a motion on the Floor of the House.

Q13 Chair: On high interest charges and the cost of credit.

Dr Creasy: Thank you, Chair. I should say that Justin and I are here presenting why we want this, but I want to say thank you to all the colleagues here who have turned up to support the motion. I wonder if you could just stand up if you’re here in support.

Several hon. Members rose-

Dr Creasy: I hope that answers your question about whether there is a Back-Bench clamour for this debate.

Justin Tomlinson: We also submitted, as part of our proposals, a list of names. Quickly, to add to that list, we have Andrew Stephenson, Jessica Lee, Damian Hinds, Christopher Pincher, Steve Barclay, Duncan Hames, Luciana Berger, Hazel Blears, Jenny Chapman, Tom Blenkinsop and Rob-

Dr Creasy: Flello. I think that list reflects the support, Chair.

We want to talk to you about three things today: first, the process by which we came here-and we have come with the support of all our colleagues from across the House-to ask for this particular debate; secondly, why we feel this is an immediate debate that needs to happen within the next eight weeks; and thirdly, what we think the opportunity for a vote on a motion on the Floor of the House offers those of us who are concerned about ending legal loan-sharking in this country. I do not particularly want to talk about the issue.

First, on the process that Justin and I, and many other colleagues in this room, have been through in trying to raise these issues, we have had a number of EDMs tabled on this subject. We have also undertaken an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on this, and I presented a ten-minute rule Bill in the House as well. During the course of all that, the number of MPs who have been involved in debating and discussing the issue has grown exponentially. We have also met with Ministers to discuss this.

What that process has shown is that we have exhausted all other avenues for moving the debate forward, which is why we think that a vote on the Floor of the House on a specific motion, or a particular point of concern for many of us, about how you tackle effectively the high cost of credit for those who aren’t able to access mainstream banking, is required now. We want to give the Government a very strong steer that we want to see a particular set of proposals being brought forward in their credit review. We haven’t been able to get those assurances through any other avenues. We think Parliament needs-and I hope the show of strength for this bid shows how much support there is for this-to have a vote now, to give the Government a guide on this.

Justin Tomlinson: For me, as a Back Bencher, it has very much been a question of learning the ropes in these first eight months. We have tried all the different angles, in terms of EDMs-there are over 200 signatures supporting various EDMs connected to this. There were 21 people who spoke in the Westminster Hall debate. We’re launching an all-party parliamentary group on financial education, which is connected with the challenges faced, and already over 100 people say they’re going to sign up. We have cross-party support.

The one thing we have learned while learning the ropes is that you can secure debates a number of times and have Ministers give you a relatively supportive pat on the head, but actually having debates in the Chamber is the real way to empower Back Benchers, set an agenda and make a real difference. This provides an opportunity to incentivise other Back Benchers to take those other routes. Road-test the argument in Westminster Hall, and through written and oral questions; and then, when you feel that you have gathered cross-party support or have got a case that a Minister should answer, this would be the way to do it.

Dr Creasy: We’ve tabled a motion on a particular point of interest for all of us, which is about how you can regulate the high cost of credit; that is what we would want to debate on the Floor of the House. We are concerned that, without clear guidance from the House on whether that is the kind of issue that we want to support, none of our concerns will be taken forward in the credit review process.

The debate needs to happen in the next eight weeks, partly because of the process of the credit review currently being undertaken by the Government. It would be remiss of the Government to table proposals that do not address those concerns; that is a secondary debate that we would have to have with them, rather than giving a clear steer on what we want to see in the review. We are also very conscious of the rapid rise in the number of people using these forms of unsecured lending. Without action or intervention of this kind, the level of debt in this country is going to rise exponentially over the coming year.

Q14 Chair: That’s been a very comprehensive representation. Has anybody got any questions?

John Hemming: I think they have all been answered, actually. I think you’ve done the best presentation we’ve ever seen.

Q15 Chair: It’s Christmas all over again. Thank you very much.

We have Michael Meacher, Caroline Lucas and Sarah Wollaston. Thank you for coming back again, and for all your work since you last came to see us. This is to continue your representation for a debate on parliamentary reform. You have provided us with an updated motion, for which we are grateful.

Caroline Lucas: Thank you. The bar has been set very high by the last performance, but I shall try to follow it. I am very grateful for this opportunity to come before you again. As you know, I was here in December, when I first began a bid for a slot in the Chamber on the subject of parliamentary modernisation and reform. The Committee will recall that that initial bid followed the circulation of a report to all MPs and, of course, to party leaders and Mr Speaker.

Since we last met, I have discussed the issues further with the Speaker, the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, in his role as Chair of the Procedure Committee, and with the Clerk Assistant, Robert Rogers. The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton is here in support; he is, of course, the Chair of Parliament First. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Totnes, Sarah Wollaston, is also happy to support the initiative.

I want to make a bid for a whole day of debate in the Chamber. That length of debate is needed, as there are so many different issues that need to be discussed, and all of them are very complex and deserving of proper attention. For example, the issues that I would envisage being covered in such a debate include ways of increasing the accountability of the Executive to the legislature, electronic voting, the holding over of Divisions and a mechanism to record abstentions. There were lots of different proposals in my report, and I know that other Members all have a key issue that they would like to see when it comes to modernising this place and reforming the way in which we work. Needless to say, there is a great deal to cover.

By having a debate in the Chamber, I am hoping to put in train a process that is complementary to the work of the Procedure Committee, but recognises that there are inevitably constraints on its time and resources. It would allow for a wider debate on some of the issues relating to modernisation and reform.

Finally, a debate would be a really important opportunity for the House to be able to hear from the large intake of new Members, at a time when they still have recent experience from their previous careers outside the House to compare with their experience here. Obviously, a debate would allow new Members to hear the wisdom of long-serving Members who have visited some of the issues in the past, as I well know. I have no doubt that a whole day of debate would be full and lively and, I hope, enlightening and productive.

As well as my two supporters here, between 30 and 40 Members responded to my e-mail, when I first sent out my report, saying that they might not agree with everything in the report, but that they agree that a debate would be useful and helpful.

Q16 Chair: Thank you. Is there anything that either of you wants to add? Again, that was very comprehensive, Caroline.

Mr Meacher: Can I say something? As Caroline said, my interest is as Chair of Parliament First, which is a cross-party body set up specifically to promulgate parliamentary reform. I simply say that this is an issue that affects the standing of Parliament, which, after recent scandals, is extremely important. There is a realisation concerning accountability, in which I am particularly interested-a realisation that Parliament is now less effective in holding the Executive to account than it has been, probably, at any point in my lifetime.

At the end of the previous Session, we saw some important changes, not least the introduction of your Committee, Madam Chairman, which is doing a thoroughly good job. I am not just saying that to pander to you; I think it is.

Q17 Chair: It works, though.

Mr Meacher: There’s nothing like getting a commercial plug in.

There have also been changes to Select Committees, but a great deal more needs to be done. Every Member of Parliament knows this. With regard to existing legislative procedure, the handling of the Report stage of Bills is clearly deficient, there is lack of proper scrutiny at the Committee stage, and the access time for private Members’ Bills should be dealt with. In addition, several new measures of accountability need to be discussed, such as confirmation hearings, parliamentary commissions of inquiry, and Select Committees having access to the Floor of the House for the most important reports.

Q18 Chair: We are starting to get into-

Mr Meacher: Sure. I am trying to get across the fact that there are a whole range of further measures to take if Parliament is to do its job properly, and the public are looking to us to do that.

Q19 John Hemming: I am declaring all my various interests; I have been a member of the Modernisation Committee, and I am a current and past member of the Procedure Committee. Let me ask Caroline this, first. There is a vacancy on the Procedure Committee; have you not thought of applying for that?

Caroline Lucas: It’s funny you should mention that, because when I met with Greg Knight earlier, he made the same observation, so I am in discussions with him. But what I am trying to do is not just ensure that I am involved. I know, from talking to people such as Sarah and others, that lots of new Members would like an opportunity to debate these issues more widely in the House, and I want to find a way for them to do so.

Q20 John Hemming: There is a difference between having a debate, which does not necessarily have to happen in the Chamber, and a proposal to recreate the Modernisation Committee. One of those things needs to happen. We need a debate-there is no question about it-but is it so desperate that we must recreate the Modernisation Committee? Would it be sufficient to have a Westminster Hall debate, bearing in mind that there is a demand on main Chamber time? I agree that we need to look at modernising and improving Parliament, but the debate part can happen in Westminster Hall. Would you say that it is so important to recreate the Modernisation Committee that you would not want a debate in Westminster Hall?

Caroline Lucas: It is important to make sure that we have a mechanism to take this forward, whether that is through the recreation of the Modernisation Committee or not. From my discussions with members of the Procedure Committee, it is clear that you have got a lot of work on your plate-fantastic work, but there is not an awful lot of capacity in the Committee to deal with the urgency and the number of issues that are being raised. I want a procedure that allows us to have an ongoing process, which means a debate in the Chamber.

Q21 John Hemming: So you do not want a Westminster Hall debate?

Caroline Lucas: I do not.

Q22 John Hemming: So if the offer were a Westminster Hall debate, you would turn that down?

Caroline Lucas: Well, I hope that the Committee sees the point that we are not simply trying to have a debate and then close it down; we want a debate that would lead to a process in which some of the issues could be addressed in future. The point is not simply to air our views and then go back to business as usual.

Q23 Mr Hollobone: We heard in the previous presentation about a kind of road map for how issues can be advanced in Parliament under existing procedures. The phrase was, I think, that the idea was road-tested in Westminster Hall, and now they have come forward with a motion for the main Chamber. There is a lot of merit to that approach. With your motion, for example, I imagine there would be lots of people who recognise that procedures should be changed, but who would disagree about the best way to achieve that. Your idea about a cross-party commission is perfectly reasonable, but I imagine that there will be others with alternative ways forward. Given the time constraints given to the Committee-we do not decide the time that is given to us; all we can do is allocate it-it might be that the Committee takes the view that this is an important subject worthy of three hours’ debate in Westminster Hall, where all those things can be refined and the edges knocked off. Then, at a later stage, you could come back with a more finely tuned motion that could be substantially debated and voted on.

Caroline Lucas: That is a reasonable point. I would simply say that there was quite a bit of discussion and road-testing with, for example, the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the Clerks and others through the e-mail system when I sent out the original report. There has been quite a lot of interaction.

In terms of the resolution, it has been going through evolution. The original version of the resolution, which you may have seen, included specific examples of the kind of reforms that we want to see. We’ve taken stock again, and we think that, actually, that is probably not helpful, and that we should leave it broader than that. This version includes the proposal for a commissioner, but I would be very happy to talk to the Clerks of this Committee to see whether, instead of putting the commissioner as a firm proposal, we could simply talk about a mechanism that would enable such matters to be examined further. We had two options, and we weren’t sure which to put into the resolution, because there were different views. Some people said, "Go for a commission," and other people said, "Leave it as a more open process, so the Committee can decide what it would like."

Mr Meacher: There has been quite a lot of prior activity on this. We are not springing it anew. We had the Public Administration Committee under Tony Wright, which was extremely active on a range of issues. For example, a parliamentary commission of inquiry published a full report on that. Peter Bone had a debate in Westminster Hall on confirmation hearings. There have been numerous other changes, many of them made through Mr Speaker, such as the introduction of urgent questions. There have been a whole range of issues, but there is still a need for the whole House to talk about its own procedure. That is why I think Westminster Hall is not adequate for this purpose.

Q24 Mr Hollobone: The whole House can talk about such things in Westminster Hall.

Mr Meacher: They can, but as I am talking about the actual performance of the House of Commons on the Floor, it seems very odd that such a debate should take place elsewhere when there is the opportunity to hold it where such absolutely central activities and performances take place every day.

Q25 Philip Davies: I was on the Modernisation Committee with John. In my opinion, modernisation is a revolting prospect. I used to try to stop any modernisation, but I shall try to be helpful. Have you considered what might happen if your motion were voted down? I may be picking up the point that Philip Hollobone was making, but you might get some positive outcomes from a general debate. There are certain elements on which we can all agree-Parliament should be strengthened, for example-and you might make some headway. You might not make any headway on some other things, but at least you’ve made some headway. If you have a motion that is voted down, it gives the Government an excuse to make no headway on anything, because they’ve voted down the motion. As a result of that, I wonder whether having a motion is really so important. Which is more important, the motion or the debate?

Caroline Lucas: It is the ongoing process that is the most important. We have indeed considered the issue that, obviously, it would be a knock-back if it wasn’t supported, which is why we’ve gone for a much more generic set of wording. We’ve already taken out the specific examples. Essentially, the resolution is asking for some way of taking forward a process whereby modernisation of this House can be further considered. It is likely that there will be a majority who could at least agree with that, even if, when you start getting down to the nuts and bolts of particular aspects of modernisation, there are very big differences. So we have rewritten the resolution in that way, and, if necessary, we can take out the commission and leave the broader wording that I proposed for a process whereby these rules can be considered.

Dr Wollaston: I think this is the ideal timing for this debate, because one Member commented to me that if I wait a year, it will all make perfect sense. That is the danger here. You need to have a long enough period of time for new Members to understand what is happening, but, equally, not so long that they become so ingrained that it starts to make perfect sense. Coming from a professional background, a lot of it doesn’t make sense to me.

Q26 Chair: That is a very good point. I’ve never heard modernisation called "revolting". We’re quite clear about what you are saying, and you’ve been here before. I think the ongoing nature of this is very important, because the Backbench Business Committee certainly doesn’t want to be the cause of stopping any further debate on this. We’ll have a look at the motion, and we’ll keep talking to you as well. Thank you very much for coming back; we’re very grateful.

I call Yvonne Fovargue.

Yvonne Fovargue: Thank you very much. I’ve got apologies from Stephen Lloyd and Robert Buckland, who also support the proposal, so we have got cross-party support. The proposal has not got a motion; we want to aid an understanding of the issue and the consultation on the reform of civil legal aid. The reason I’ve asked for a debate on the Floor of the House is that we had a Westminster Hall debate on 14 December which was so well attended that at least six MPs couldn’t get into that debate at all. Last week there was the launch of the "Justice for All" campaign, which is lobbying on the proposals. There were 250 people who turned up, and we had to have two sessions in the Jubilee Room because there was so much public interest. They also lobbied their MPs. Some 1,300 people have signed up to the "Justice for All" proposals in four weeks, and there is a great amount of public interest.

I believe the subject needs to be aired on the Floor of the House to aid an understanding of the issue and the effects that the proposals would have on the most vulnerable. I say it is a cross-party issue because there are charities, advice-sector organisations and people from all parts of the country and all sectors who are interested. I’ve got a considerable amount of support. There are people here, and there are people who came to support Stella Creasy who had to go, who would like a debate. I think a three-hour debate on the Floor would be sufficient to air the proposals, as the subject will be coming back, but I believe the time is now, because we want to make sure that the Bill would help the vulnerable as much as possible, and there are concerns.

Chair: Thank you very much, Yvonne. Philip Hollobone would like to ask a question.

Q27 Mr Hollobone: There are a number of issues, obviously, that we have to consider when allocating time for debate. One of them is time. You made the point that you had a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate. A three-hour Westminster Hall debate would extend the time you had to debate this subject without it being on the Floor of the House. You haven’t proposed a motion. Would it be your intention to bring a motion forward, or do you just want a general debate?

Yvonne Fovargue: I think what the people who came to the "Justice for All" launch felt was that they would like to have their concerns aired on the Floor of the House. There have been a number of consultations on legal aid in past years, and people who’ve talked to me didn’t feel there was sufficient understanding of the issues when the proposals were brought forward.

Q28 Mr Hollobone: The big difference between a Chamber day and a Westminster Hall day is that in the Chamber, you can table a motion which could be voted upon, which you can’t do in Westminster Hall. That’s another factor that we need to take into account. The other thing we need to consider is: will this issue come up in any other way? It could be a suitable debate for an Opposition day. I notice that on your list of supporting Members you’ve got a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative, but the rest are Labour. What are the chances, do you think, that the Opposition would actually raise this issue themselves?

Yvonne Fovargue: There may be an Opposition day debate as well, but I think it’s the timing that’s important, because the consultation is actually going on now. If we wait for an Opposition day debate, then it’s possible that the chance to inform the consultation will have passed by then. There are a number of Members from Opposition parties who attended the Westminster Hall debate and didn’t have a chance to speak who I’ve not managed to get hold of.

Q29 John Hemming: I noticed a number of people nodding earlier. Could people put their hands up if they’re here to support this? We’ve got eight. It’s just useful to know the numbers to compare the different proposals.

Yvonne Fovargue: A few had to go, as well.

Q30 John Hemming: Yes, I know, but there are eight people here supporting you at the moment. The other question, obviously, is this: when the proposals come to the House in a Bill, there will be a debate about the issues, won’t there?

Yvonne Fovargue: I think there is concern about what happens before it reaches the Bill stage. For example, comments were made about the availability of legal aid for employment tribunals. Well, there isn’t availability of legal aid for employment tribunals now, and I think it’s that understanding that the advice agencies are concerned about, and the people who, at the moment, get legal aid.

Chair: Thank you. Thanks for taking the time to fill in the form as well; that was very helpful. We have Liz Truss next. Welcome.

Elizabeth Truss: We are very keen to have a debate on the Floor of the House on the subject of the UK’s performance in the OECD PISA tables. The fact that we have fallen in the past few years to 16th in science, 25th in reading and 28th in mathematics is something that is mentioned quite frequently in education debates. Those numbers came out at the end of last year, so this is the first opportunity for Parliament to discuss them properly. Given the level of education reform that is taking place and the fact that an education Bill is to come to fruition shortly, it is really important that Parliament has an opportunity to analyse why that has happened and what steps should be taken. That is why it is important to have an overall debate. I feel very strongly that the level of ability in these subjects has a long-term impact on the UK’s economic performance. That affects people in every constituency. Certainly we have cross-party support from people who are interested in education in bringing forward this debate.

In education debates, there has been a focus on the financial aspects-whether it is on the EMA or on financial support-and the content of education has not been debated enough. It is important that we have a national view. What is interesting is the approach that other countries have taken in analysing their OECD PISA results. For example, Germany fell dramatically down the table a few years ago. It had a national debate, and it has started to change its school system. It is now making progress in the OECD PISA tables. It is very important that we have parliamentary debates that do not just look at what goes on in the UK but consider the international evidence. That is why we need three hours for the debate. Thérèse, do you want to add anything?

Dr Coffey: I will wait for the questions.

Q31 Chair: Have you provided us with a motion, or is this just an outlined proposal?

Elizabeth Truss: We have not provided a motion. We have a motion that could be put, but it is a debate that could be held as a general debate. What we are interested in are the discussions and the input from parliamentarians across parties in analysing the problem and proposing solutions.

Q32 Chair: Westminster Hall is another Chamber and is as serious as the main Chamber. There is not so much pressure on the time that we have available to us in Westminster Hall. Would you be desperately upset if we consider this debate for Westminster Hall, rather than the main Chamber?

Dr Coffey: What matters is the opportunity. As Government Back Benchers, we cannot use Opposition days. Having a broader debate is important.

Elizabeth Truss: I have certainly put in bids for Adjournment debates on specific subjects. For example, I recently put in one to discuss performance in mathematics, which was not successful; that is why I have asked for a broader debate.

Dr Coffey: I have tried to raise a debate on the science curriculum.

Q33 Ian Mearns: As a member of the Education Committee, may I ask whether you have spoken to any Select Committee members about doing something on this subject?

Dr Coffey: That is a good point. Personally, I have not had any discussions, apart from general smoking room discussions-not formally.

Q34 Ian Mearns: The Education Committee was in the process of setting out its work programme, and I do not believe that this subject is in it. I don’t remember hearing any suggestions that this should be within the Education Committee work programme. It sounds like an interesting piece of work to be done, and it is probably more important than a Westminster Hall debate; it sounds like a research piece of work that would bring forward evidence to lead the Government.

Elizabeth Truss: That is an excellent idea about the Education Committee. In fact, some members of the Select Committee have backed this motion going forward, although I have not yet written them on the list. Actually, Craig Whittaker is on the Select Committee, isn’t he?

There is an issue of timeliness. It is about discussing the issue and the potential solutions to the issue. It is also about saying, on a national stage, that the content of our education system is important; Parliament needs to be seen to be discussing that. I would certainly like a wider debate among all hon. Members about what they would like to see, but I do not see any reason why that could not inform a Select Committee inquiry. I want to see something discussed urgently before the education Bill goes through. That would be an opportunity for the output of the debate to be fed into the legislative process.

Chair: That gives it quite a good deadline. I think we are clear on that, unless there is anything else that others want to add.

Q35 Philip Davies: You put on your form that you have applied for Adjournment debates, but have been unsuccessful. Obviously, this is not within our gift, but I am sure that if you were to keep going, you would be granted one at some point. By the law of averages, you are bound to get one at some point. Given that you have not been granted an Adjournment debate to test the water, how confident are you about how many people would turn up, and that it could actually last the full three hours? It is all very well having supporting Members, but we have had them on things before and they have not turned up to support the actual debate.

Dr Coffey: Oh dear. Not anything that I have backed before, Philip.

Elizabeth Truss: On the Adjournment debate point, we applied for much narrower topics. I applied for a debate on mathematics and Thérèse applied for a debate on science. Every education debate that I have attended in the House of Commons has been difficult to speak in. I have waited and not been called in two House of Commons debates on education. It is an extremely popular subject, and a lot of people want to talk about performance in the PISA tables, but the problem is that when the debate is on another subject, this issue does not get properly addressed by the Minister. We really need to draw attention to the issue, and I am absolutely convinced, Philip, that a tremendous number of people want to speak on it. That information was the cursory result of just a few e-mails. I am sure that we can drum up quite a lot of people.

Q36 Mr Hollobone: Elizabeth, you said that you had applied for a particular debate, and that Thérèse had applied for another one. One of the tricks with Adjournment debates is to get everyone on the list to apply for the same debate; then you increase the chances that your name will come up for a 90-minute slot. There are ways of influencing the system, which we should encourage hon. Members to use.

Dr Coffey: Thank you for that tip.

Q37 John Hemming: Is there somebody in the audience with you, or are there just the two of you? No, there are just the two of you.

Elizabeth Truss: We have names. We were not aware that we were meant to bring along people.

Q38 Chair: No, you are not supposed to. It is just that we like to see that you have cross-party support. We want to make sure of that for when we start scheduling debates. We have had one Westminster Hall debate where we were quite confident that there would be plenty of people, but there weren’t. We want to make sure that that never happens again. Thank you very much.

Finally, we have Andrea Leadsom. Is anyone else with you?

Andrea Leadsom: Only my researcher. I’m afraid I’m completely new to this. I do not know whether that will be held against me; perhaps it will.

Chair: It certainly will not.

Andrea Leadsom: I want to talk about wind farms. I shall run through quickly what has happened so far. There is a Lords-initiated Bill about distance from residential dwellings. A ten-minute rule Bill has been put forward by Chris Heaton-Harris, the hon. Member for Daventry, which I have signed, as have several other cross-party Back Benchers. I had a half-hour debate last week in Westminster Hall, and about 18 Back Benchers turned up to intervene. As I only had about 10 minutes, I would say, "And, Madam Chairman-" and then sit down again to give way. There was a huge amount of interest; I say that by way of background.

I shall explain the specific issues in respect of wind farms. Denmark, Europe’s leading onshore wind farm perpetrator, has now stopped building onshore wind farms, partly because their carbon footprint has not gone down and partly because of the outcry from local communities. France is also downturning its onshore wind farms. The problem is that wind farms that currently present about 5% of our wind supply produced, in the last cold snap, only about 0.2%, so when it is very cold and there is a peak demand, there is no supply.

I tabled the first amendment to the Localism Bill last night. A debate in the Chamber on the subject is urgent because in that Bill, wind farms, onshore wind and all types of renewable generation are only really referred to by default. Neighbourhood plans include generation up to certain levels that are defined elsewhere in the Planning Act 2008. Onshore wind farms up to a megawatt capacity of 50 MW are included in those plans. Thereafter, they go straight to the Secretary of State. So there is a very big issue here right now, regarding whether local communities should be able to resist wind farms. Should they be able to determine a certain number of wind farms, but say where they should be? What constantly happens at the moment is that they go to the council, the council turns them down, and then they are approved on appeal. Is that going to change?

The more important debate at this time of rapidly rising fuel prices is: to what extent is onshore wind going to provide the answer to our 21st-century energy needs? As we all know, there are no storage facilities for onshore wind; they generate only when the wind is blowing, and that is a fundamental problem. They are costing us a fortune. The renewable obligation certificates are making it very attractive for developers to come in for a fast buck. We don’t produce any of the bits for wind farms, nor do we service them here, so it’s not a British industry, and it’s an opportunity lost. This whole subject needs very urgent and significant review, and there is a great deal of interest across parties.

Q39 Mr Hollobone: There is a great deal of interest in wind farms, and it’s one of those issues that fall between two stools, because there are the energy and climate change issues and the local government issues. You’ve got 15 people signed up to your amendment, and I’ll be surprised if it wasn’t debated during the passage of the Bill. You had 18 people turn up to your Westminster Hall debate. If all of you applied for a longer Westminster Hall debate, the chances are that you’d get something.

Andrea Leadsom: The issue, though, is that a review is required prior to the determination of the Localism Bill, because at the moment, a Westminster Hall debate will only raise the issues again. The issues have been raised a number of times, coming at it from the point of view of the rights of communities, the cost of fuel and so on. What actually is needed is a motion that will require the Government to look again specifically at onshore wind-the advantages, the cost, the rights of communities and so on.

Q40 Mr Hollobone: What you haven’t brought to us is a motion.

Andrea Leadsom: I did just sit there and try to write a motion, which I can go through if you’d like me to.

Q41 Chair: That’s fine. I think a lot of people who come here for the first time don’t realise that they have to bring a motion, so that doesn’t count against you. We can work with you on a motion, but if you read out the kind of thing that you wanted to do, that would be really helpful.

Andrea Leadsom: The motion would be "To urge the Government to: 1) review the evidence of the effectiveness of onshore wind farms in meeting i) Britain’s energy needs; ii) Britain’s carbon emission targets; 2) review the impact of renewable obligation certificates for onshore wind generation in creating competitive and effective markets in renewable energy generation; and 3) review the impact of onshore wind farms on communities and clarify the impact of the new Localism Bill on the rights of communities to have their say."

Q42 Mr Hollobone: That’s an excellent stab at a motion, but again we have these two Departments involved. Do we know whether the Energy and Climate Change Committee is undertaking an in-depth study on these issues? Is the Communities and Local Government Committee doing any work on them?

Andrea Leadsom: I had a meeting with Greg Barker on it, who has said that it’s a very good point, and it does need reviewing again. But there is this assumption of the need to have renewables, and that onshore is the same as any other renewable when clearly it isn’t. A ground source heat pump that is a box about this size in someone’s community is rather different to having 240-foot wind turbines, 10 of them, 400 feet from your house. It’s of a very different order, and as far as energy policy is concerned, they are all being treated as part of our 30% renewables target, to meet our big energy gap at the end of this decade, which is very real. I don’t take away from that, but at the same time we have to bear in mind that these things are irreversible once they’re up.

There’s also a big question over what happens after 25 years, when they reach the end of their life. There are 1,000 tonnes of concrete in a wind farm. What happens? Is it broken up? Who’s paying for that? The developers who are, at the moment, coming in to make a fast buck will scatter back to wherever they came from, and they won’t be paying. Those areas will become brownfield development sites.

Q43 John Hemming: I think the difficulty that you have, in a sense, is that the train called the Localism Bill has left the station, and it is now trundling through Bill Committee. If you have amendments that you want to make to the Localism Bill, it’s in Committee that you really need to address that, because when’s our next Chamber day? In a couple of weeks’ time, or something like that?

Chair: It is not next week, but perhaps the week after.

John Hemming: So you really should be focusing on trying to get your Whips to put you on the Localism Bill.

Andrea Leadsom: Which I am doing.

Q44 John Hemming: Even if you don’t do that, get the amendments you are interested in tabled, talk to people who are on the Bill Committee and try to work through it that way. The difficulty is that when it comes back to the House, the chances are your amendment will not get voted on.

Andrea Leadsom: John, I have to contradict you completely there, because I have been an anorak, zipped up, over the Localism Bill, and wind farms are only referred to in it by extreme default. There is nothing in the Localism Bill that specifically deals with wind farms. It is subject, as a number of Labour Back Benchers were saying yesterday, to this situation where you can put it in your neighbourhood plan or not, but actually the Secretary of State will decide. So it’s subject to national policies that are as yet not defined, and those will be subject to a rewriting of the national policy framework, which isn’t part of the Localism Bill. So actually you can’t do it within the Localism Bill Committee.

Q45 John Hemming: So what you are saying is that it’s nothing to do with the Localism Bill? You see, I thought you were saying it had something to do with the Localism Bill.

Andrea Leadsom: What I’m saying is that our policy on wind farms needs to be clarified before the end of the Localism Bill, because otherwise there will be unintended consequences of the default reference to wind farms in the Bill.

Q46 John Hemming: Does the Localism Bill need to be amended?

Andrea Leadsom: I have put forward one amendment, which is simply to increase the megawatt capacity of onshore wind farms that are included in the neighbourhood plans. In line with offshore wind farms, if your wind turbines equal 50 MW, at the moment, they can come in your neighbourhood plan. I’m proposing to increase that to 100 MW, because otherwise the unintended consequence is that developers will simply apply for a 52 MW wind farm to circumvent the neighbourhood plans. That is the only reference to them, you see. The issue is that onshore wind itself is a very controversial subject that is not properly bottomed out in the Localism Bill and will be under the national policy framework, which will be in the next few months, but not yet.

Q47 Ian Mearns: To clarify things in my own mind, have you got an idea, at optimum output, how many wind turbines it would take to generate 50 MW?

Andrea Leadsom: There are roughly 3 MW per turbine, so at the moment it would be about 15 to 20 that would come outside the neighbourhood plan. But of course it’s a new technology. The output per turbine over the next five years will increase to 6 or 8 MW per turbine, so I’m planning to kind of future-proof the legislation.

Q48 Chair: The way I understand it is that sometimes having a Bill going through Parliament that vaguely has something to do with the issue with which you’re concerned isn’t necessarily helpful, because it doesn’t entirely capture what it is that concerns you. What you’re talking about is actually a completely separate debate on a very specific issue that touches on at least two different Departments.

Andrea Leadsom: Exactly right.

Q49 Chair: I think we’ve understood that. How many hours are you asking for? You talked about Westminster Hall debates and all the rest of it; you’re presumably asking for a votable motion in the Chamber, rather than a general further debate in Westminster Hall, of which we have had many thousands.

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, exactly. I assure you there would be huge interest.

Q50 Chair: Have you got an idea of how many hours?

Andrea Leadsom: I think three hours would be sufficient. I think there would be demand for a lot more than that, but I recognise it is a limited resource.

Q51 Mr Mudie: You had a debate-it sounds as though you had a half-hour debate-but has there been a long debate in Westminster Hall on it?

Andrea Leadsom: There was, actually, early on. There has been one that included wind farms, yes, but not in the last couple of months.

Q52 Chair: Thank you very much. If you want to talk to us further about that, you’re more than welcome to come back and talk to any of us in between, or talk to the Clerks.

Andrea Leadsom: May I ask you one question, Natascha? If I was successful on this, would it then be almost impossible to come back with another motion?

Chair: How do you mean?

Andrea Leadsom: I also want a debate on high-speed rail, but I feel this is much more urgent.

Chair: No, absolutely not.

Andrea Leadsom: So it doesn’t preclude you from being successful another time?

Chair: No, no; keep coming. Thank you very much for coming.