UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 25 JANUARY 2011

RICHARD OTTAWAY

MRS ELEANOR LAING, SHEILA GILMORE, KATE GREEN, MARY MACLEOD and JO SWINSON

ANDREA LEADSOM, DAN BYLES, NIC DAKIN, CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS, DR JULIAN LEWIS and MR JOHN WHITTINGDALE

HEIDI ALEXANDER

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 25 January 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Richard Ottaway, Mrs Eleanor Laing, Sheila Gilmore, Kate Green, Mary Macleod, Jo Swinson, Andrea Leadsom, Chris Heaton-Harris, Nic Dakin, Mr John Whittingdale, Dr Julian Lewis, Dan Byles and Heidi Alexander made representations.

Q1 Chair: Richard Ottaway wrote to us as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee quite a while ago to make a bid for some time on the Floor of the House. Will you go through why you want the debate to be on the Floor of the House and how much time you are looking for, and give an outline of what you are looking for?

Richard Ottaway: I hope that the background to this has been sent to you in a letter, so that everyone understands what this is about. With the end of the Western European Union in Paris, there needs to be parliamentary and inter-parliamentary scrutiny of EU foreign, defence and security policy. An ad hoc Committee was formed of the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Defence Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, and that ad hoc Committee invited the Foreign Affairs Committee to produce a report, which we have done. It effectively proposes a committee of committees, which will be cheaper, simpler, and based in Brussels, meeting twice a year.

The outfit that has a grip on this to try to put it together on an EU basis is the Belgian Parliament. As there isn’t really a Belgian Government, it is quite a challenge, but the Parliament has asked for proposals, and it is felt appropriate that this House should put forward a proposal. What is needed is a motion of the House to adopt this report, which makes a proposal that happens to be identical to a House of Lords proposal; they are in identical terms-there was a degree of collaboration on this. I think the House of Lords will also produce a motion.

My proposal to you is that there should be a debate-I think an hour and a half should cover it-preferably sooner rather than later, because the report has to go into the consultation process going on in Belgium at the moment, with a suitably worded motion adopting it.

Q2 Chair: Do you have a copy of a motion?

Richard Ottaway: I don’t, but I’m told that the Overseas Office would be able to advise me quite quickly on one. It would be along the lines of, "This House proposes that this be the position of the House"-something like that. There is a Speaker’s Conference in April, at which the Speaker will present it. I am told that the letter that you were given has an inaccuracy. It says that that takes place in Budapest in early May; it is in Brussels in April.

Q3 Chair: I have one final question. You say you’d like the debate sooner rather than later; is April a deadline for you?

Richard Ottaway: I just think that we are more likely to influence the debate in Belgium-I say Belgium, rather than Brussels-if we get our pitch in quickly.

Q4 Mr Bone: Thank you, Mr Ottaway, for such a good presentation, and for providing us with information in advance, which was most helpful. I can understand why you want the debate in the Chamber––you want a decision of the House-but is it likely that if we allocated one and a half hours, there would be no debate at all, and that the matter would almost go through on the nod? Do you think that anyone will argue against it?

Richard Ottaway: Given that Bill Cash is a signatory to the evidence, and supports the proposal, one gets the flavour that even the Eurosceptics might get behind this, and it might go through quite quickly.

Q5 Mr Bone: Would it go through on the nod?

Richard Ottaway: Quite possibly.

Mr Mudie: With you in the House, Peter, is that likely?

Mr Bone: I am not here to discuss the merits of it.

Q6 Mr Mudie: This strikes me as Government business. Why aren’t the Government finding the time? You are asking Back Benchers to give up valuable time to do something that the Government should want to get through?

Richard Ottaway: My response to that is that there is a separation of powers between the Executive and legislature. We are the legislature, and it is Parliament’s scrutiny-the report says "parliamentary scrutiny" of EU foreign, defence and security policy-not Government scrutiny. If Parliament want to have scrutiny, Parliament must put forward a proposal for scrutiny.

Q7 Mr Mudie: How would the House of Lords get parliamentary approval for it?

Richard Ottaway: It has produced a report-

Q8 Mr Mudie: How are they taking it through?

Richard Ottaway: It will have a motion of the House.

Q9 Mr Mudie: In Government time, I presume.

Richard Ottaway: I don’t know.

Chair: We will have to look into that.

Richard Ottaway: It is a fair point. It arises out of an EU Council decision that Parliaments should be invited to put forward a proposal. Governments decided that Parliaments should make the proposal.

Q10 Chair: Unless you wanted to add anything else, thank you for coming.

There seem to be a lot of international women’s day issues. Are you all co-ordinated together?

Mrs Laing: We were not previously co-ordinated, but in the last two or three minutes we have attempted a sort of informal co-ordination.

Q11 Chair: Fantastic. Thank you.

We received the first application from Eleanor Laing.

Mrs Laing: Thank you.

I have suggested that it would be appropriate to have a debate on general issues affecting women, on whatever day of the week is appropriate in the parliamentary timetable, closest to international women’s day, 8 March. I am not one to argue, in the new circumstances of Parliament and the new powers, which we all welcome, of the Backbench Business Committee, that because something has been done in the past it ought to be done again. However, I will use that part of the argument, and explain, for the benefit of people who have not been in Parliament until this Session, that for many years we have had a debate on issues affecting women on the Thursday closest to 8 March. It has normally been, and I think would be now, the only opportunity that Parliament has to debate issues affecting women and that women specifically want to raise, both nationally and internationally.

I therefore suggest to the Committee that it would be appropriate to continue the practice, which has been undertaken for many years, of having that debate. In recent years, it has been a full day’s debate, so may I put it to the Committee that it ought to be a full day’s debate on women’s matters?

Sheila Gilmore: This year is also the 100th year of international women’s day, and it does seem appropriate to mark this particularly, in relation to both the successes and changes that have taken place and the challenges that remain. The emphasis, on international women’s day, is very much on the international, and not just about Britain. It is about our role in the world and encouraging all sorts of developments for women, particularly in the developing countries but not exclusively, where there are still tremendous issues about health, education and economic growth for women. It would be a good opportunity to bring all of that together.

Mary Macleod: I agree with what has been said. I think it is a great opportunity for Parliament to show real leadership on leading the debate on women, especially when there is a centenary. The global United Nations theme for this year is "Equal access to education, training and science and technology: Pathway to decent work for women." If we have an open debate, people can of course speak about absolutely anything. However, there are many issues still out there that need to be addressed, and it would be great to do that in this way.

Kate Green: I have just two things to add to the substantive points made by Eleanor, Shelia and Mary. First, we also have support from the Liberal Democrats, because Jo Swinson supports the application. Secondly, we are particularly anxious that the debate should take place in the main Chamber. We feel, to mark the centenary, that it should be absolutely clear that Parliament takes the issue very seriously and gives it priority attention.

Q12 Chair: I know that you are a reasonably co-ordinated group. Have you all seen the motion that was proposed by Eleanor Laing? Is that an EDM? I am sorry; I thought it was a motion.

Mrs Laing: I do not think that any of us has produced a resolution yet.

Q13 Chair: In that case, if you are asking for a full day in the Chamber, would you be looking to hold the debate on a votable motion?

Mrs Laing: No, that would not be necessary.

Q14 Mr Hollobone: If you are not seeking a substantive motion, I struggle to understand why the debate needs to take place in the Chamber, because that will effectively deny someone else the opportunity to hold a debate on another subject on a substantive motion.

Mrs Laing: Simply because the debates that take place in the Chamber get far more attention and achieve a higher status than those that take place anywhere else. Given that 52% of the world’s population are women, this is one occasion on which we can bring all the issues together, especially by reflecting the work of the United Nations, for example, as Mary Macleod said. I think that the EDM before the Chair highlights the work of the new women’s agency of the United Nations. Other countries in the world take these issues seriously, and it is up to the United Kingdom to continue to be a leader in these areas.

Q15 Mr Hollobone: How many speakers do you think that you would get?

Mrs Laing: I can answer from the past, which others cannot. In every other international women’s day debate in which I have spoken-either from the Dispatch Box or the Back Benches-in the past 10 years, there has been no shortage of speakers and the debate has filled a full day.

Q16 Mr Hollobone: That is interesting because there were 12 Back-Bench speakers when the debate was held in the main Chamber in 2009, but there were 15 Back-Bench speakers when the debate was held in Westminster Hall in 2006.

Kate Green: It is important to recognise that we have a substantial intake of new women-particularly in the parliamentary Labour party-who are especially interested in and committed to the issue. There is widespread support for the debate among women in all the main political parties, even though we have not had a great deal of time to collaborate and prepare. Also, given that this is the centenary year, many parliamentarians will particularly want to be on the record this year.

Mary Macleod: I agree. From the point of view of the Conservatives, there has been a large increase in our number of female politicians since the past general election-many of us struggled long and hard for many years to get into Parliament-and I think that they will be positive about the debate and will want to contribute.

Q17 Mr Hollobone: That is good to hear because previous such debates have been dominated by female Labour MPs while Conservative women MPs have been very thin on the ground. You mentioned Jo Swinson. Interestingly, there was no female Liberal Democrat Back Bencher present at any time during last year’s debate.

Mrs Laing: May I point out that while what Mr Hollobone says is correct in general terms, Conservative female MPs were very thin on the ground? At one time, way back when we started these debates-that is a very different point-I moved between different seats in the Chamber to try to take up more space because there were so few of us. There are now not so few of us. There are many more Conservative women who wish to speak about these matters. In the past, some of us in this place each had to do the work of 20 women, but now at last we have enough women to measure up to the other parties in the House.

Q18 Mr Hollobone: That is encouraging to hear, but apart from Mary being good enough to come along today, there are no other Conservative Back-Bench-

Andrea Leadsom: Excuse me, Philip!

Q19 Mr Hollobone: And Andrea. How many Conservative Back-Bench MPs do you think would want to take part in this debate?

Mrs Laing: My guess is a very large number. In the past-

Q20 Mr Hollobone: What is "very large"?

Mrs Laing: I cannot give you a number, but we now have 49 Conservative women in Parliament, whereas until last year we had 17. That is a massive increase, and out of the 49 I would expect at least half to turn up for this debate.

Mary Macleod: As Kate Green said, Jo Swinson is fully behind this and will encourage the Lib Dem MPs to come along as well. I would also add that, even though this is a debate about international women’s day and women’s issues, I do encourage all the men to come and speak too, because they, I am sure, will have a very good point of view on the topic.

Q21 Mr Hollobone: Absolutely. It is obviously encouraging that Jo Swinson is expressing support, but in the last five years she has attended two of the five debates.

Chair: Can we move on, and then I am going to bring Peter Bone in?

Sheila Gilmore: One of the challenges that remains in this country is the participation of women in the whole political process. I think that makes it particularly important that we do have a Chamber debate, in order to further all the issues that interest women. Also, I am sure there will be some people who want to touch on these aspects of the political process and get more involved.

Chair: Let me bring Peter Bone in, and then I will ask you to wind up.

Q22 Mr Bone: One of the issues the Committee looks at is the number of MPs who are going to take part. There seems to be some sort of discrimination going on here: not a single male MP is supporting this. Considering that male MPs dominate the Chamber numerically, I am slightly concerned that we haven’t understood why male MPs aren’t here. Are we talking about discrimination because this is women’s day? Why wouldn’t the Chamber want to have a whole day set aside to men?

Kate Green: First, on your point about whether there are any men supporting this, it is notable that when this issue was raised in parliamentary business questions last week, both George Young and Hilary Benn spoke very strongly in support, so two senior men in Parliament have put their name behind it. I am sure that that would be an encouragement-were encouragement needed, and in the case of many of our male colleagues, I am sure it isn’t-for men across Parliament to participate.

On whether there should be a debate for men as well, there is a particular issue, as we know, about gender inequality and gender disadvantage across the world and in this country, which continues. It is a structural disadvantage relating to economic position, public position-as Sheila has just alluded to-educational participation, health issues and so on. We remain, despite being slightly more numerous now, in many ways the disadvantaged gender, suffering still some structural disadvantage. So I think it is appropriate for this Parliament to debate, and to be seen to be debating, this issue, both in this country and internationally.

Q23 Mr Bone: I just want to make one technical point. I heard what Eleanor Laing said, but one of the interesting powers that we have as a Backbench Business Committee is to guarantee three hours in Westminster Hall. We cannot guarantee a full day in the Chamber because of Government statements and urgent questions. I understand that you want to maximise the time, but one thing that we can do is to give a Westminster Hall debate now and, say, another one in six months’ time, so you get two goes at different times of the year and you’re guaranteed the three hours. As there is no substantive motion, I’m not sure what the disadvantage of being in Westminster Hall is.

Mrs Laing: Let’s clear up a few things here. First, it is a total red herring to talk about the number of women who would take part in this debate. It would be a debate in the Chamber that every Member of Parliament would be entitled to attend and speak in, and there are many men who speak eloquently and usefully on women’s issues. There is no question of this being a debate reserved for women. It is also nonsense to say that only women are interested in women’s issues, so actually, Mr Hollobone’s points are totally vacuous. [Interruption.] I might well, Mr Mudie, have lost one vote; it is a price I am willing to pay.

The other issue is that it would not be appropriate for a slot in Westminster Hall to be given to this issue at this time. It is indeed the case, as Mr Hollobone pointed out, that way back in 2006 and before that, Westminster Hall was quite new, and Parliament was experimenting with having general debates of this kind. This debate did take place in Westminster Hall. The fact is that it is a subject that is worth more than that. It requires the status of being held in the Chamber. International women’s day is not some flag-waving minority group; it is a recognised day throughout the world. The United Nations has just set up a UN women’s agency to take forward serious work on behalf of women who are deprived and disadvantaged throughout the world. It is up to our Parliament to speak up for that.

Q24 Chair: May I suggest that you work on a motion along those lines and bring it back to us? The date of 8 March is not way off, but we still have some time to work on some things. If you want to come back next week with a substantive motion that will be very helpful, especially given the UN stuff that you were talking about.

Mrs Laing: Thank you.

Ian Mearns: In the words of Annie Lennox, sisters are doing it for themselves, and quite rightly. What we need to do is to offset Philip’s concerns by bringing back some weight of evidence of support for the debate. That is quite easy to do within the next week or so. I would have thought that a tide of paper will be coming our way. If I was not sitting here, I would be sitting behind you.

Q25 Chair: Thank you. Can we have Andrea Leadsom please? You came to us last week to make a bid for a debate on wind farms, and you have returned with many more people.

Andrea Leadsom: Yes. In fact, I have 26 signatures-all men you will note. It may not be a debate on women, but it is very close to their hearts.

Q26 Chair: Thank you for that balance.

Andrea Leadsom: Do you want me to fire away?

Q27 Chair: Yes, please.

Andrea Leadsom: Just to recap, then. There are various reasons for having a three-hour debate in the Chamber specifically on onshore wind farms. First, it is a massive issue for communities. At a time when we are discussing localism, the specific issue of wind farms is not being clarified in the Localism Bill, when it is very important. It is an issue that we get many letters about.

Secondly, there is a big issue on the taxpayer subsidy for onshore wind farms, and whether it should continue to be at the level that it is at, particularly when there is anecdotal evidence of wind farms going up in areas with very little usage. In other words, wind farms going up in not windy places against the wishes of local people, just because it is so lucrative for developers.

Thirdly, are onshore wind farms contributing to our energy security or reducing our carbon emissions? Specifically, this last December as well as the December before, at the coldest time of the year, wind farms dropped from producing 5% of our energy requirements to 0.2%. There is a very real question about how useful they are in doing what they set out to do. I think that it is worthy of a debate in the Chamber.

Q28 Chair: Does anyone want to add anything to that proposal, or is it just a show of support?

Dr Lewis: At a time when coalition politicians are threatening to sell off forests of trees, we should be particularly wary of attempts to put up forests of windmills. If it were not an unacceptable pun, I would say that we are in danger of taking a wrong turning.

Q29 Nic Dakin: I also think that there is an argument that needs to be put in favour of wind farms. Green technology is a great opportunity for UK plc. I support the need for a debate. I do not necessarily agree with everything that Andrea said, but there is a debate to be had.

Chair: Thank you. We like that; we like debate.

Mr Whittingdale: I strongly support Andrea because this is without doubt the biggest issue in my constituency and I know many other colleagues who are similarly affected. This is also very urgent. We understand that this will be covered in the Localism Bill although, as Andrea said, the precise extent to which it will be effective is unclear. However, I cannot wait that long. I have a planning application before the council, another at appeal and another at judicial review. The decisions will be taken in the next few weeks, so it would be hugely helpful if a Minister would set out the Government’s attitude now on the Floor of the House of Commons.

Q30 Chair: That is more a case for having a debate, which could be held in Westminster Hall, but aren’t you asking specifically for a votable motion on the Floor of the House?

Andrea Leadsom: No, I am asking for a general debate on the Floor of the House, and that is specifically because any motion would not enable a breadth of debate. Nic is keen to speak up in favour of onshore wind farms. After discussing this with the 26 signatories-six Labour Members and 20 Conservative Members-the general feeling is that a debate without a substantive motion would be better.

Q31 Mr Hollobone: What would be the title of your debate?

Andrea Leadsom: It would be a general debate on onshore wind.

Q32 Mr Hollobone: My personal view is that you should go away and reconsider that, because I think that you could make it better than that and attract more interest. Do you have any Lib Dem support?

Dr Lewis: Yes and no.

Andrea Leadsom: It is yes and no, because I have had oral support, but when I sent an e-mail to all Back Benchers, no Lib Dems replied. However, when I have seen them, they have said, "Yes, a very good idea. We’re very keen to do that."

Q33 Mr Hollobone: Onshore wind farms provoke a series of issues, some of which are the responsibility of DCLG-the planning matters-and some of which are the responsibility of Energy and Climate Change. Are you able to identify one Department in particular, or would you envisage a Minister from each Department attending and responding to the debate?

Andrea Leadsom: When I discussed this with Ministers, they said that DECC would take the lead. If you recall, I proposed a motion last week that included looking at evidence of the effectiveness of onshore wind farms in meeting our energy needs and carbon emission targets, at the impact of renewables obligation certificates, at the impact on communities, and at clarifying the impact of the Localism Bill. Ministers told me that too much of that covered two different Departments and that as DECC would lead, we would not get the sort of answer that we were looking for. They suggested that a general debate would be better. Added to that, Members would then be able to speak freely without the prospect of being whipped to vote one way or another.

Q34 Mr Hollobone: As Peter said in reference to the previous item, this Committee cannot guarantee the length of a debate in the main Chamber, but we can guarantee the length of a Westminster Hall debate. Were you to have the last three hours in the main Chamber on a Thursday, the chances are that you would get that if there was no statement or urgent question, but if there was a statement or urgent question, that might be squeezed to two hours. If you had a Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall, however, you would be guaranteed from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm. The Leader of the House has made it clear that he is enthusiastic that Secretaries of State should respond to Westminster Hall debates, so would you choose a Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall with the Secretary of State to respond, or a debate in the main Chamber that might be truncated?

Andrea Leadsom: My personal preference is the main Chamber because it receives a lot more coverage and the debate gets a far higher profile. This is something that really matters to the public-it is not politicians talking to themselves-so they will want to see reports and photographs in their newspapers to show who has done what. I do not think that Westminster Hall would carry the same presence as the Chamber.

Q35 Mr Bone: Personally, I disagree with that. I think that you can get far more coverage out of Westminster Hall. The Westminster Hall debate on prison voting got an enormous amount of coverage.

You have given a superb presentation-well done to everyone-and you ticked all the boxes until you said that you did not want the debate on a substantive motion, because it then struck me that this was ideal for Westminster Hall. If you had come along and said that the Government should do something-of course, the Government may amend a motion-I would have given you as long as you wanted in the main Chamber. I am not sure that three hours will necessarily be enough, so I would have suggested giving the debate a full day. However, if we are without a substantive motion, we have the problem that we can give so few days in the Chamber that we would be robbing someone who wants some sort of action. I just throw that out.

Andrea Leadsom: I understand. After last week’s experience and hearing the comments of members of this Committee, I went away to speak to Ministers. I was very clearly warned against a specific call for action-

Mr Bone: I wonder why.

Andrea Leadsom: Politics is what it is. I was told that that would clearly lead us down the path of people being advised, "Don’t say that; don’t do this." I took part in last week’s Back-Bench debate on disadvantaged children, and I must say that my experience was that Members on both sides of the Chamber were positive and co-operative-albeit not necessarily agreeing-and tried to reach a positive conclusion. The Minister’s response was to take away points for action seriously, so I do not necessarily feel that there has to be a kind of "us v. the Government" debate to get points across.

Q36 Mr Mudie: If you were offered Westminster Hall, would you turn it down?

Andrea Leadsom: We have had a 90-minute Westminster Hall debate-

Chris Heaton-Harris: I had an Adjournment debate.

Andrea Leadsom: An Adjournment debate, sorry.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It was just 30 minutes because I could not get any more.

Andrea Leadsom: We also had a ten-minute rule Bill that Chris put forward.

Q37 Chair: How many people came to your Adjournment debate?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I took 15 interventions in my 15 minutes, and I could have taken a lot more.

Andrea Leadsom: I had a half-hour Westminster Hall debate two weeks ago and I took nine or 10 interventions in my 10-minute speech. You literally get one word out and then have to give way. A huge number of Members want to speak.

Q38 Mr Mudie: We still come back to yes or no.

Andrea Leadsom: The answer is that I would hold out for a Chamber debate because we have had a few Westminster Hall debates, as well as a ten-minute rule Bill.

Mr Mudie: You’re stubborn.

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, that’s me.

Chair: I think that we are quite clear, and we do not want to be leading the witnesses. You have made a specific pitch for a three-hour general debate in the Chamber, so we will consider that. Thank you for taking the time to come and for bringing your supporters with you. Next it is Heidi Alexander.

Q39 Chair: Heidi, this is an opportunity for you to let us know what you want to debate, where you want it debated, whether you are interested in debating a votable motion, who your supporters are, and why there is an urgent need for the debate.

Heidi Alexander: As you will see from the paperwork, I am asking the Committee for a debate of at least half a day on the Floor of the House, ideally on a votable motion, on setting up an environmental audit Select Committee. As Members will know, we have the Environmental Audit Committee-

Q40 Chair: You are asking for a women and equalities audit Committee.

Heidi Alexander: Indeed. Did I get that wrong?

Chair: You asked for an environmental audit Select Committee.

Heidi Alexander: That would already exist-my apologies.

I want a debate on a women and equalities audit Select Committee. As with environmental issues, women and equalities issues are cross-cutting. I am talking about not just women’s issues, but points along the lines of race, ethnicity, age and disability. I have spoken to several Members from different parties, some of whom are named on the documentation that I have given you, including Margot James, Stephen Gilbert and a number of members of the PLP. They all feel that this is an important issue and that there is no parliamentary forum in which we can have a constructive cross-party investigation of these issues.

The debate would examine the possibility of setting up such a Select Committee. Obviously, the Government Equalities Office is being merged into the Home Office, and there have been a number of other big issues in the new Parliament, such as the Fawcett Society taking out a judicial review of the emergency Budget, and changes to policing and support to business. A cross-cutting Committee could do a good deal of positive work on such things.

Although I was not here myself, I am aware that there was a Speaker’s Conference in the previous Parliament on equalities issues. I am looking for a forum to take some of that work forward.

I heard the request for a debate on international women’s day. I initially thought that that would be a good peg for my debate-perhaps we could share some time, if that would help the Committee. We would benefit from having this debate relatively quickly, given the changes to the Government Equalities Office.

I started canvassing support for the debate only relatively recently, so my list of supporters might not be as lengthy as other people’s. I have spoken to a number of Members about their support, but I have not got their final sign-off for the document before you and I did not wish to include their names unless I had that clearance.

Chair: We also look for a debate, rather than everyone agreeing that something is a great idea. On that note, Philip Hollobone will ask you some questions.

Q41 Mr Hollobone: You have some impressive names on your list, but not many from the Government side. How many do you think that you would have from the Government side?

Heidi Alexander: I have spoken to some of the women who were here earlier, such as Mary Macleod. I have also spoken to Paul Uppal. Given the timing of this meeting, I have not got round to getting the final say-so to put people’s names on the application, so I cannot give you a definitive answer.

Q42 Mr Hollobone: You are looking to set up this Committee, but you also say that you want to talk about setting it up rather than necessarily deciding to do so. If our Committee offered you and the previous delegation shared time in a three-hour Westminster Hall debate on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of women’s day, in which your subject and wider women’s issues could be discussed, would you find that attractive?

Heidi Alexander: Yes, although I am not clear about the procedure. Would that mean that we would not be able to have a vote?

Chair: You would not have a vote.

Q43 Mr Bone: You have given an excellent presentation and got together all the things that we are looking for. This could run as a debate on your substantive motion to create a Select Committee in which all the people who want to talk about women’s issues and equalities could speak. At the end of the debate, the House could divide. That approach would give me more encouragement to put the women and equalities debate in the main Chamber. Of course, people would take different views in the debate, and they may or may not vote down the motion.

Heidi Alexander: From my perspective, I would be happy with that. My thinking before coming to this sitting was that by dealing with a women and equalities Select Committee, rather than focusing on women in particular, we would broaden the range of issues on which people could speak and the range of Members who might wish to participate. Although I can speak from my perspective, however, I am conscious that others might disagree and wish to have two debates.

Q44 Chair: If there are no other questions, thank you for taking the time to come.

Jo Swinson, are you here to support-

Jo Swinson: I am here to support Kate and Shelia’s request for a debate on international women’s day.

Q45 Chair: Okay. And Dan Byles?

Dan Byles: I am here to support Andrea Leadsom’s request for a debate on wind farms, but I think that I am late for the application.

Chair: Yes, but it was fantastic.

Unless any other Member wishes to make a request, we will finish this session.