CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL REPRESENTATIONS

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

MONDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2010

KAREN BRADLEY, DR THÉRÈSE COFFEY, GREG MULHOLLAND and DR EILIDH WHITEFORD

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Monday 22 November 2010

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Examination of Witnesses

Karen Bradley, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Greg Mulholland and Dr Eilidh Whiteford made representations.

John Hemming (in the Chair): I apologise for the circumstances. I’ve had greatness thrust upon me because the Chair is not here and we have only 27 minutes in which to take representations. [Interruption.] Now we don’t have only 27 minutes. That is good.

Q1 Chair: Thank you, John. I’m so sorry I’m late. Thank you all very much for coming. I’m relatively sure of what you’re after because you have written in. Shall we just go from one side to the other and work our way down? The format of the Committee is for you to tell us very briefly what you’re here for, to make us understand why you want the debate now-why it can’t wait-and what other avenues you have tried. Obviously, with fisheries, the situation is slightly different, but we want to know whether you’re asking for a debate in Westminster Hall or in the Chamber and whether you think that a vote should be attached to it-whether you want to debate a substantive motion. We’ll start with fisheries.

Greg Mulholland: Before we start, it would be very useful, because this is the first time I have done this, if you could tell us what options the Backbench Business Committee can offer.

Q2 Chair: Generally, we are allocated days in the Chamber and days in Westminster Hall. For Westminster Hall, we have pretty much every Thursday between now and Christmas to allocate, and it is a three-hour slot from 2.30 to 5.30 pm. I’ll explain the position with the Chamber. All the days are given to us by the Whips. The day originally allocated to us for next week has now changed, so they’re quite ad hoc, but the days that we are allocated tend to be six-hour days in the Chamber.

In terms of getting an actual Chamber day, we’ve allocated the business so far. We’re anticipating that we’ll get something before Christmas, certainly, in the Chamber, but we definitely have the three-hour slots in Westminster Hall available. On that basis, if you start, because you’ve been here before, then the others can-

Q3 John Hemming: One other point about the motion. If you’re in the Chamber, you can have a substantive motion, but if you want a substantive motion, we’d like to know what the words are.

Dr Whiteford: I don’t necessarily want to rehearse all the things I said last week about the importance of a fisheries debate. The key thing is that the fisheries are very much a politically managed industry in a way that other industries simply are not. They’re simply not subject to the same degree of political management. The annual fisheries debate that’s taken place in the past has happened ahead of the European talks at which fisheries policy is set, so it’s really the only opportunity that Members who represent fishing interests and fishing constituencies have to have a proper debate with Ministers about their stances in the talks.

From my point of view, obviously, I represent some of the larger fishing ports in the north-east of Scotland, but I know that Thérèse’s is a very different part of the industry. That’s perhaps why a general debate is important. The industry is diverse in the UK, and there are many different aspects to it. So that I do not just rehearse what I said before, I’ll let Thérèse say something.

Dr Coffey: I would agree, and, of course, we must remember what was said by Sir George in the Chamber on Thursday. He specifically said something along the lines that the fisheries debates, according to the Wright Committee recommendations, were now the remit of the Backbench Business Committee. I genuinely hope that we can get a debate. For me, timing is more important than whether it’s in the Chamber or not. Do you agree with that? I’d love for it to be in the Chamber, but the timing is critical.

Dr Whiteford: The timing is absolutely critical. I think my concern would be that if it’s not in the Chamber, that’s going to send a very negative signal to people in coastal communities, who already feel very remote from these debates and proceedings and feel that they’re badly represented by the process as it currently stands. In a sense, relegating the fisheries debate to Westminster Hall would send the wrong signal, certainly to my constituency. But I agree that the timing in advance of the annual talks is the primary thing.

Dr Coffey: Agreed.

Q4 Mr Hollobone: It’s certainly badly represented today. Despite the two of you, who have, admirably, given up your time to come along and make this case, other MPs with fisheries interests haven’t come here, and this is the second week. I think we have a duty to make sure that we can make the maximum use of the parliamentary time available to us. If you were to come to this Committee with a motion which could be put to a vote, that would mean that your bid for a Chamber slot would be that much more persuasive to this Committee, because you can have votes in the Chamber, but you can’t have votes in Westminster Hall.

I note what you say about Westminster Hall, but with respect, I think you’ve misunderstood what Westminster Hall is about. It’s not a downgrading of the importance of any topic; indeed, this Committee is allocated lots of Thursdays to look at the comprehensive spending review Department by Department. These are very serious issues, and they’ve generally been well attended. I would have thought that a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall would enable all those MPs with fisheries interests to come along and have their say.

What I’m looking for is a persuasive argument from you about why it should be in the Chamber. I note also that you say the timing is important. We’re probably better placed to allocate you time in Westminster Hall before the summit than we would be in the Chamber.

Dr Coffey: As I’ve already said, I think the timing is critical, as opposed to the location. I respect the views about the Chamber-of course it’s the primary place of Parliament-but for me, the timing and getting a debate ahead of the talks is more important.

Q5 Chair: For us, also, we have already allocated debates in the Chamber, because we have so few. The other thing is that I know you’re newer Members, but traditionally, the fish debate is allocated in the Chamber. This is a new way of doing things. Given that we don’t have the entire parliamentary timetable at our disposal, we will try to find a slot in Westminster Hall so that you have something before the summit, and then revisit it. We have heard the argument loud and clear; we understand that this happens every single year and that it is incredibly important to the fishing industry. Thank you for coming back.

Q6 Jane Ellison: In terms of timing, we generally have Thursday afternoons in Westminster Hall. We mentioned last time that it might be a challenge to attract a lot of colleagues for a Thursday afternoon debate.

Dr Whiteford: The challenge is that those of us who represent the more remote fishing constituencies on the coast have bigger logistical challenges in travelling. I suspect that Monday afternoon is also quite a difficult time for many colleagues who come from the far north or the far south. The same goes for Thursdays. However, if there is a fisheries debate, I am sure that those with fishing interests will attend. I normally would have difficulty in attending business on Thursday afternoons, but if we’re debating fishing I’m going to be there. That is less than ideal in some respects, but it’s not prohibitive.

Q7 Chair: Most of the time that we have available to us is unfortunately on Thursdays, and we are fighting to change that; but whether it’s in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall it would probably be a Thursday afternoon anyway. As nobody has anything to add, I thank you for coming here again.

Are the rest of you together?

Greg Mulholland: We all three are together.

Q8 Chair: Am I right that you’ve written to us about a Westminster Hall debate on pubs?

Greg Mulholland: I thought it would be helpful to send a letter laying out what the Save the Pub group stands for. We were formed about 18 months ago and our membership quickly grew to more than 80 members between the two Houses. We have a similar membership in this Parliament.

The plight of the British pub affects literally every constituency and literally every MP in the country, whether or not they visit pubs or support them, because their constituents clearly do. We have had Members applying individually for debates in the past, but an hour and a half is a very limited time for Members when many want to speak. The benefit of having a wider and longer debate is that not only would it allow more people to speak but it would allow them to go into more depth. Some Members would want to concentrate on certain aspects. Indeed, there is a debate about the particular issues that are closing pubs-the power of the pub companies, and the tie-that are being considered by the Select Committee.

The timing is very important, because we would ideally like to do this before Christmas, and if not certainly early in the new year. That is because of the timetable that the Select Committee has set and which the Government have adhered to, which is for a deadline in June next year. A lot of things need to happen in the first six months of next year to enable that to happen, and it would give us a good chance to debate those.

Equally, other people would want to talk about things such as duty, prices in supermarkets and below-cost selling, which is currently on the Government’s agenda. Some Members would want to raise the smoking ban and whether we should be looking to review that. There is a range of issues that could be debated only in that length of time. We certainly feel that it is something that would be of interest, and we would very much welcome the longer opportunity that you could give us to do that.

Karen Bradley: If the Backbench Business Committee put forward this topic for debate, it would show the public and the industry the importance that Members of Parliament place on the industry.

Greg Mulholland: Karen’s mum and dad run a pub, by the way.

Q9 Chair: That’s a declared interest?

Karen Bradley: I declare an interest.

Q10 Chair: Do you have anything to add?

Karen Bradley: No.

Q11 Jane Ellison: I get lots of lobbying about this, so I am well aware of many of the issues, and we have spoken about some of them. My question is on the very wide range of issues that people might raise during the debate. Have you given any thought to whether there would be enough time for all of them? Would you try and steer people, or are you thinking that you would want to get lots of topics aired and on the record, and then follow up subsequently in different ways? There is also the question of which Minister would respond.

Greg Mulholland: That’s one of the problems. It’s very much a cross-departmental issue, and that’s where the departmental structure is not particularly helpful. It’s a problem that we’ve had in the past.

The idea would be to have a general debate on the future of the pub. We are six months into a new Government who have slightly changed policy. Unfortunately, they have dropped some of the pro-pub policies that were announced during the last few months of the last Government. Equally, they’ve got some other policies, some of which are very positive and there are others that people have concerns about. It is a very good time to discuss that, and it is important at this stage to let people express those concerns. Individually, Members would want to raise specific points, for example about the tie, through the normal Adjournment debate process. It is important to leave the debate about the future of the pub fairly open. We wouldn’t need a vote, but we would challenge the Government to take all those issues forward cross-departmentally.

The person who would have to respond to the debate would be Bob Neill, who has been designated as the community pubs Minister with cross-departmental responsibility. Bob would do that, and he would have to respond cross-departmentally to those issues. Again, that would be useful.

Q12 Chair: Have you had an Adjournment debate on this?

Greg Mulholland: Not in this Parliament and not officially through the Save the Pub group. I think it was Laurence Robertson who applied for a pub debate-I guess about 18 months ago. Occasionally, individual Members have raised the topic, but there has not been a general debate.

Q13 Chair: Was that well attended?

Greg Mulholland: Yes, it was.

Chair: Our consideration has to be that if we choose to allocate three hours, we have to be confident that those three hours will be filled.

Karen Bradley: Perhaps I can add that in addition to the Save the Pub all-party group, there is an all-party group on beer and on pubs. That has as many members as the Save the Pub group, if not more. There is a great deal of interest across the political parties and across the House on the issue.

Q14 Jane Ellison: I was going to say something similar to the point raised by the Chair. Before now, we have allocated time in Westminster Hall on a Thursday and although there has been a great expression of interest beforehand, the debate has not quite filled all the time available-not always, but occasionally. The challenge would be, if there is the time, to work quite hard; it would need a lot more work to ensure that lots of people are there to sustain the debate, ideally with all parties represented. Sometimes we have had slightly unbalanced debates in that respect, and we are keen to see debates sustained for the entire time period and have a good cross-section of opinion. It is less a question and more a challenge. It takes a bit of work in advance. On a Thursday afternoon, if people are on a one-line Whip, for example, sometimes it is difficult.

Greg Mulholland: You’re absolutely right, Jane. We would have the advantage of doing that through the group and presenting it as an APPG debate that we’ve secured, and therefore it would be an opportunity for the group’s members to raise an issue. Also, a few Members would raise specific issues. For example, Brian Binley is leading on the smoking review, and I am sure that he would take the full opportunity to raise that. Other people would want to raise specific things. You are absolutely right, and we would commit to do that. How much notice would we get? Would it be the usual sort of week and a half?

Chair: Yes. It might be a bit longer, but about that-definitely enough time to organise.

Q15 John Hemming: Obviously, as a member of the Save the Pub group I am quite sympathetic. I am pleased to hear you say that you would whip people in and make sure that they would all be there. That is a very good idea.

Dr Coffey: I think this is one of those issues that affects every community across the land. It is perhaps unlike fishing, but fishing draws a different passion from people. That is politically controlled. Let’s be honest, the debate on immigration petered out before the end of business the other day.

Q16 Jane Ellison: I think that was a misunderstanding because the person responding to the debate chose not to exercise his right to reply, and he’d been left time to do that. That was a slight misunderstanding.

Chair: We’re going to talk organisation after this.

Dr Coffey: I had planned to intervene on the last speaker, and nothing happened.

Jane Ellison: Through the Chair, that does illustrate the challenge. Even on a topic of great interest and import to people, sometimes such a debate can be a challenge on a Thursday afternoon.

Chair: Thank you.