UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2011

PAUL BLOMFIELD

Representations heard in Public

Questions 1 - 15

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

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

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 22 March 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Paul Blomfield made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thanks very much for coming, Paul. Have you been to the Committee before?

Paul Blomfield: I haven’t, no.

Q2 Chair: I have received a note from Keith Vaz saying that he supports you, but is chairing a sitting of the Home Affairs Committee, so he cannot be here.

Paul Blomfield: He copied me in.

Q3 Chair: I understand that. You filled in the application form, so really all that we are after is a brief outline of the debate on student visas that you are asking for, how many hours it would last, and what cross-party support you have. You have quite a few names on the form, but we are looking for cross-party support too.

Paul Blomfield: I have a slightly updated version, with names that have been added since I sent the form off last night, reflecting greater cross-party support. Barry Gardiner, Adrian Bailey, David Ward from the Liberal Democrats, and Brian Binley, who is a Conservative and Vice-Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, have all added their names. I made the case in the note that I sent that the issue justifies a full day’s debate, but I would at least like to see a half-day debate on the Floor of the House, because of the strength of concern. Although the balance of supporting Members might reflect more support from my own colleagues, there is widespread concern in all parties-an Adjournment debate, for example, was secured by Richard Bacon-and I am sure there will be a huge appetite for that discussion.

I made a point in the supporting note about public concern. The fact that there were 31,000 submissions to the Government consultation, and that there is enormous concern in the higher education sector about this as one of a range of challenges that it faces in an uncertain terrain, strengthens the point. I am conscious that there is to be a ministerial statement on the subject this afternoon at 3.30 pm.

Q4 Chair: Yes, so your submission is timely.

Paul Blomfield: It is timely but, on the other hand, that might significantly change the amount of attention that we need to give to the issue, depending on what the Home Secretary has to say.

Chair: It would also give us an indication of what kind of cross-party support there is for having a debate.

Q5 Mr Hollobone: Will legislation about this be discussed on the Floor of the House?

Paul Blomfield: Not as I understand it, but I would be advised on that.

Q6 Mr Hollobone: Is it your intention to put a votable motion before the House?

Paul Blomfield: It is, and I took advice when I was submitting the application. The advice from the Clerk of the Committee was that I did not need to submit that at this stage; but were we to be granted time, I would seek to draft a motion-and I have said so to all the supporting Members-that would command the support of all of them as a framework for the discussion.

Q7 Mr Hollobone: Here’s the situation: the Backbench Business Committee can’t decide what days it has Backbench debates. That is decided by the Government, who allocate the Committee time. There is a slot at the moment in Westminster Hall on 31 March in which you and your colleagues could have three hours to debate student visas in intricate detail. That is available if the Committee so decided.

Looking further forward, the Committee doesn’t know what time is available to it, and that might be several months hence. There might be an opportunity for you to have this issue aired in parliamentary time for three hours at relatively short notice, especially after the statement today, or there may or may not be a potential slot in the future for time for a debate on a votable motion. If you were offered three hours in Westminster Hall at short order, compared with the possibility of time on the Floor of the House at an indefinite moment some time in the next couple of months-possibly but maybe not-what would your reaction be?

Paul Blomfield: I share your predicament. I think that there is some urgency to the issue, which will be clearer after this afternoon’s statement, and I would want to see a debate sooner rather than later. However, I think the strength of feeling on the issue and its importance for the higher education sector and more widely in the communities in which our universities operate would justify a debate on the Floor of the House. I appreciate that is not a fully helpful response.

Q8 Mr Bone: A more likely way of this matter being debated on the Floor of the House with a substantive motion is on an Opposition day. I think Mr Hollobone is right: there doesn’t seem to be any slot in the Chamber for a considerable amount of time. It does seem to me that this is the sort of thing that an Opposition party might pick up and table. Have you had any discussions relating to that?

Paul Blomfield: My thoughts were that an Opposition day debate wouldn’t be, in this instance, the best way forward because it shapes the discussion in a way which wouldn’t reflect the genuine cross-party feeling that there is on the issue.

Q9 Mr Hollobone: I appreciate that you do have non-Labour signatories to your bid, but it is overwhelmingly dominated by Labour Members of Parliament. That’s just a fact from your application form. Therefore, with reference to Mr Bone’s comments, it might be a subject that the Opposition decide they want to run with on one of their allotted days.

Paul Blomfield: Yes, I have to say, as a new-although it doesn’t feel quite so new these days-or relatively new Member, probably my network among my own party colleagues is deeper. Collecting the signatures in what was a short period of time-I started to collect the signatures on Thursday-I don’t think reflects the genuine cross-party concern. All the colleagues from other parties whom I approached readily signed up. So, as I say, I think a Backbench debate sets the right scene for the discussion, rather than an Opposition day debate.

Q10 John Hemming: The difficulty is one of timing, basically. I wonder if you might be able to approach the Opposition and suggest that they allow their time to be used for a cross-party motion, rather than do a standard Opposition motion, which is signed by the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy Leader-an alternative approach.

Chair: That is very interesting.

John Hemming: We haven’t got time for some time, have we? So it’s just a question of timing, really.

Q11 Ian Mearns: As a matter of interest, we expect a statement this afternoon, which may elicit a change in tack from the Government. Are you holding your breath on that?

Paul Blomfield: I would anticipate a change in tack, but the question is how far that will go to address the concerns that have been expressed in the four key areas.

Q12 Chair: May I make a suggestion? The statement may dramatically change your position, and it may address some of the issues about which you are concerned. The first available day we have is 31 March in Westminster Hall. Beyond that, everything is pretty uncertain. As for a Chamber day, we are looking almost two months ahead, and then it is very provisional. By that stage, we will have so many things backing up that, if we said to you or to anyone that we would allocate a Chamber day, we would have to make that allocation much closer to the time. Why don’t we see what happens in the statement this afternoon? We have another meeting next Tuesday, before 31 March, and we could discuss the Westminster Hall debate. Provisionally, we could look at that, but a lot will depend on what happens in the statement. The timing is coincidental.

Q13 Mr Hollobone: May I ask the witness whether, if he was offered 31 March, he would turn it down?

Paul Blomfield: If that was all that was on the table, no. However, as the Chair says, there is a lot hanging on the statement this afternoon. We could provisionally look at next Thursday, subject to the statement, but I would like to review that at next Tuesday’s Committee.

Q14 John Hemming: If you were offered 31 March or a substantive motion at a later stage, what would be your view-potentially; I am not saying definitely?

Paul Blomfield: To some degree-and I accept the Chair’s helpful observations-it depends on the statement this afternoon. Obviously, my submission was made without knowledge of the fact that it would be made today. The timeline is determined by what the Home Secretary has to say this afternoon, as well as the substance of the response.

Q15 Ian Mearns: I am interested in what you said, Paul, about starting to collect names last Thursday. We have received two separate submissions-one from Keith and one from you-and between them there are something like 35 different names. Would you suggest that that is an exhaustive list, or do you think that many more people are ready to come in?

Paul Blomfield: I think that many more people would be prepared to sign up, given the time. I might be criticised for not starting before last Thursday, but the fact that that number of people readily added their names to the proposal reflects the strength of feeling.

Chair: Thank you very much, Paul, for coming here and presenting your proposal. We will go into private session, and we have a few other bids as well. As we were saying, the Chamber days have been moved around, so we need to discuss that as well, but we will definitely let you know. I will certainly be in the Chamber for the statement at 3.30 pm, so I will listen with open ears.