UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE

HOUSE OF COMMONS

ORAL EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

MONDAY 25 OCTOBER 2010

ADAM AFRIYIE, STEVE BAKER, MR BRIAN BINLEY, PAUL FLYNN, JEREMY LEFROY, DR JULIAN LEWIS, MR MICHAEL MEACHER, NICKY MORGAN, MR JOHN REDWOOD AND STEVE ROTHERAM

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business Committee

on Monday 25 October 2010

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Philip Davies

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Adam Afriyie, Steve Baker, Mr Brian Binley, Paul Flynn, Jeremy Lefroy, Dr Julian Lewis, Mr Michael Meacher, Nicky Morgan, Mr John Redwood and Steve Rotheram gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. This is our second evidence sitting. I do not know whether any of you watched the first evidence sitting, or were indeed present at it, but we are after short, snappy bids for slots of time. Hopefully, the substance of the debate will be debated on the day itself, so we want to find out why your debate is topical and what exactly you are applying for. There is time for debate in Westminster Hall as well as in the Chamber. The next available slot is a six-hour slot. We do not usually get the full six hours, but the time available on the Floor of the House is up to six hours.

We also want to know whether the subject of debate has cross-party support. That is important to us, because we do not want to be seen as a forum that is just used to bash the Government. This is not an Opposition day; it is a Backbench day. We want to know what other avenues you have tried in which to raise the subject that you are bringing to our attention. Also, do you want to debate a motion for division or is the subject more suited to a general debate? Will you open up for us, John Redwood and Jeremy Lefroy?

Mr Redwood: My proposal is for a general debate on the topic of how we get a more persistent and higher rate of economic growth in the country. This meets all your criteria for an open-ended, five or six-hour debate, that is of interest to members of all parties and of none, and is of great topical interest. Such is the topical interest of this subject that the Prime Minister chose it for his main address today-perhaps he was listening to our discussions before this sitting. I do not think that that fact has exhausted the subject; it adds to its topicality. It follows naturally in sequence from the presentation of the CSR and the CSR debate that will be held on Thursday this week.

After you have dealt with public spending, you need to ask how rapid the private sector take-up of jobs and activity will be, and whether the whole strategy is credible. It will give the Government’s supporters the opportunity to say yes it is, and this is how it will happen, and it will give the Opposition a further chance to make out their case why they are sceptical-if they are sceptical-and to say why they are worried about the impact on growth in the private sector of the CSR.

Having talked to Adam Afriyie on the way into Committee, I hope that his hour could also be accommodated on the same day, as he has an extremely good cause, and the two topics might go well together. His subject might need a vote, but I do not think that the faster growth topic needs a vote. It could be tabled as a general motion in favour of the general proposition of faster growth-which is uncontentious-or it could be debated on the Adjournment of the House, but it would give people the opportunity to set out different views on how likely and how credible they find the various strategies that could be used.

Q2 Chair: Thank you very much. I am not entirely sure how happy I am about people talking outside the room, but it will be allowed for now. Do you have anything to add to that, Jeremy?

Jeremy Lefroy: I think that Mr Redwood has been very eloquent. I initiated a debate on finance for small business in September in Westminster Hall. It was very well attended, and a lot of things came out of it which need further debate and which go much wider than just finance. I was pleased to hear that the British Bankers Association announced a week and a half ago that it intends to set up an equity fund for medium-sized businesses, which is one of the things that we asked for in that debate. I am sure that the BBA was thinking about that anyway, but it shows that such debates can bring to the fore things that can eventually come to fruition; they are not just talking-shops.

In June, the Chancellor talked about the importance of developing growth points, and I believe that getting universities to work with the private sector in developing technologies for the benefit of employment is important.

Q3 Chair: You said that you held an Adjournment debate on the subject. Was there a cross-party presence?

Jeremy Lefroy: The Opposition spokesman, the former Minister with responsibility for small business, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), made a good input into the debate. He supported pretty much everything that we were saying. Yes, it was a cross-party debate, although most of the hon. Members who spoke were from the Conservative Benches.

Q4 Chair: We are looking at making sure that the subjects nominated for debate have strong cross-party support.

Jeremy Lefroy: I received e-mails from Labour Members who were very much in support of the debate, although they could not attend it. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) would have liked to attend, but could not do so.

Q5 Mr Bone: We can grant three-hour Westminster Hall debates. Would a three-hour debate in Westminster Hall be sufficient?

Mr Redwood: No, I don’t think so. This is such a crucial topic-it is central to the politics of our country today and to our general economic and public spending prospects-that it deserves full attention on the Floor of the House. I can understand why the Government have only found time so far for a main debate on the public spending side of the argument, but I think that the whole presentation of the argument to the public by all parties rests on having exposure of the growth strategy and the private sector response as well. So, I don’t think Parliament would be doing its job if it did not make time available for such a big subject.

Q6 Jane Ellison: Obviously there will be a Government and an Opposition view, but do you see one of the strengths of this topic, perhaps, as giving the chance for a range of views? There is the "critical friend" role as well, which Back Benchers might provide.

Mr Redwood: I am sure that there will be as many views as there are Members participating. I hope that this will be a chance to get beyond the soundbites and the usual Whips’ responses, and, for those Members who think about the subject a little more seriously, to probe, to question, to set out their own stalls and, perhaps, even to engage Ministers in some thought on the subject. That would be very valuable, I think.

Q7 Chair: Thank you very much. We will now take the next round, but you are more than welcome to stay. After this public representation session has finished, we go into a private, deliberative session, so you will be told today whether the bid for 11 November has been successful.

Have we got Nicky Morgan, please?

Nicky Morgan: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am calling for a debate on sustainable communities, because the issue of HMOs has been raised several times in Prime Minister’s questions, and there has been a specific issue in my constituency relating to studentification, in which communities become imbalanced because of the number of students living in a community where there is the impact of a large university. However, the point also applies to other colleagues-a number of colleagues are definitely concerned. It also applies to colleagues who represent coastal areas or areas with a high proportion of overseas workers, such as London. One of our colleagues who asked a question in Prime Minister’s Question Time represents a Milton Keynes seat.

The subject is something of interest across the House. I have spoken to the chairman of the all-party group on balanced and sustainable communities, Roberta Blackman-Woods, who supports the call for a debate.

I appreciate that the Localism Bill is about to come before the House-I say "about to", but I am not quite sure when. At some point, there will be opportunity to discuss planning issues. However, MPs get asked about planning issues a lot-most of us, I suspect, refrain from talking about or commenting on local planning applications-but to be able to talk about the wider planning system, which sustainable communities is part of, would be welcome. From talking to colleagues, there is a lot that could be said.

I have applied for Westminster Hall or Adjournment debates-I know that Roberta said that she had done so in previous Parliaments-but I have not yet been successful. I take the point that, perhaps, rather than a six-hour debate on this, an opportunity to debate in Westminster Hall might be suitable. I would be very happy to be guided by the Committee on that.

Q8 John Hemming: When you say sustainable communities, are you referring to whether things turn into HMOs, whether they should be licensed and what the planning restraints are? Sustainable communities in the wider sense are more like the Total Place type of thing, but that is not what you are referring to.

Nicky Morgan: No, exactly, and that is part of the problem, isn’t it? What does it really mean? If you look on the Department for Communities and Local Government website, it has a particular definition-everyone has a different definition. It is really about balanced communities.

Q9 John Hemming: You are more interested in the balance of use-the planning aspects-rather than anything else?

Nicky Morgan: That’s right.

Q10 John Hemming: I am not sure whether that is what the sustainable communities group does-they probably look at the wider issues.

Nicky Morgan: I have only been to one meeting before, which was called because of the change in regulations relating to the conversion to HMOs. I think you are right that the group probably looks wider, but this has been a specific focus, because it has been working on getting the regulations in place for affected communities for a long time.

Q11 John Hemming: In essence, you want a debate on the issue of changing to and from houses in multiple occupation.

Nicky Morgan: It is not just that, because the issue is wider. It involves constituencies where there is an imbalance in communities because of a certain group of people and a growing influx, such as in coastal areas, as I have said, or in bed and breakfasts-we were just talking about accommodation for homeless people or for overseas workers. It is anywhere the balance of a community begins to change because, unwittingly, of what is happening-or not-in the planning system.

Q12 John Hemming: How many colleagues, and of which parties, do you think would come for the debate?

Nicky Morgan: As I have said, it has been raised twice in Prime Minister’s questions since I have been elected, by different colleagues, from different sides of the House-that is in only five months. I have talked to colleagues, obviously, from all three main parties in the sustainable communities APPG, so it is more than just a half-hour Westminster Hall debate, but more an hour and a half or, potentially, three hours.

Q13 John Hemming: A three-hour Westminster Hall debate.

Nicky Morgan: Yes. I think that would probably give people the opportunity to speak out. I suspect that there would be enough colleagues to have a view that would take up the debate.

Q14 Chair: I call Paul Flynn.

Paul Flynn: I seek a three-hour debate on international scares, on the waste and the damage that they do, from the millennium bug through to SARS, avian flu and, in particular, swine flu. The swine flu scare was based on bad science and a change of definition of phase 6 pandemics. The world was told to expect between four million and seven million deaths; there were 18,000. In Britain, we were told to expect between 3,000 and 750,000 deaths, with an average estimate of 65,000 deaths-that was what we planned for. The result was that 450 people died with swine flu, but only 150 died of swine flu. That compares with the normal seasonal flu, which kills between 2,000 and 12,000 people.

What makes this debate necessary is that the National Security Council has included a flu epidemic as one of the major threats that face this country. The swine flu epidemic of 1918 killed between 25 million and 40 million people. Since then, we have had epidemics in ’57, in ’68 and in ’77, which have killed relatively small numbers of people-only slightly more than seasonal flu. The result of the swine flu epidemic, in this country and throughout the world, was that people were greatly alarmed. There was great anxiety, particularly for people’s children, because it posed a greater threat to children-they were alarmed unnecessarily. The priorities of the health services of many countries were hopelessly distorted, because they concentrated on swine flu rather than their other priorities. Vast sums of money were wasted.

Chair: If we select your subject for debate, we will have another opportunity to hear all the details. I will hand over to Peter to ask you some more specific questions on the details of what kind of bid it is that you are making and why you are making it.

Q15 Mr Bone: I think, Mr Flynn, that you would make the argument that the Government would not schedule this debate, because they do not want to be criticised, and that the previous Government would not want to schedule it, because they would not want to be criticised either. You have got over that hurdle. You have said that a three-hour debate is adequate. Would you want this on a substantive motion, or would it be a debate about the issue? It sounds like it would be a debate about the issue.

Paul Flynn: Yes. A substantive motion would be that we have either a study or report on potential future scares, because we know that all Governments will defend their position. The Egyptian Government say that they escaped the swine flu because they slaughtered all their pigs. The Polish Government will say that they spent 7 zlotys, which they did-they made no preparations and bought no vaccines or other drugs.

Q16 Mr Bone: We are drifting into the debate, slightly. It appears that we have more opportunities for debate in Westminster Hall than we do on the Floor of the House, which is just the way that it has panned out at the moment. Would a Westminster Hall debate for three hours be good enough?

Paul Flynn: I think so. We must challenge what the Security Council is saying on flu epidemics. It is a deeply embedded myth that swine flu is a major threat to our security. There is no scientific basis for that.

Q17 Mr Bone: Would you have several Members speaking at this debate?

Paul Flynn: Yes, a number of Members would be interested. I made an independent report to the Council of Europe on this issue, and I have also given evidence to the World Health Organisation’s investigations into this issue. My report was approved unanimously by the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, including support from all the British parties. There are a number of Members of those parties who would support a debate.

Q18 Chair: I call Mr Michael Meacher.

Mr Meacher: I propose a debate on banking reform. Banks have been at the centre of the biggest global upheaval for almost a century. They have cost the taxpayer something to the order of £65 billion to £70 billion in the bail-out. There has, however, been no debate specifically on banking reform, which is absolutely essential to our financial and economic policy over the past three years. Other policies, such as poor regulation and an overly lax monetary policy, have contributed, I agree, but banks have been at the centre of this.

Several key issues have not been addressed. One is the derivatives market, which is now worth $65 trillion or about three times world GDP. Warren Buffett has referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction". The second is banking structure. The over-concentration of banks, which is widely recognised, leads to lack of competition. There is the problem of banks being too big to fail, which leads to an implicit taxpayer guarantee. That, of course, allows banks to be undercapitalised and encourages recklessness in the excessive payment of bonuses. There is the issue of the retail versus investment model-how do you control excessive and dangerous speculation if you retain the universal bank model? Basel III, which has just been announced, is generally reckoned to be inadequate in terms of capital ratios. Do you, therefore, need to split up the two parts of a bank?

Chair: Before you go into too much detail-I am going to hand over to Jane-could we focus on what kind of support you have got and so on? We are all clear about the specifics of what you want to debate.

Q19 Jane Ellison: We are especially interested in subjects that will sustain a good debate and attract interest from across the House, particularly if they will give Backbenchers a chance to show expertise. Can you talk a bit about that? Timing-wise, what would you think is the relationship between a debate on this subject, the reviews currently being undertaken and proposals that might be brought forward? Is this looking to inform that process?

Mr Meacher: I do not think there is any better debate for allowing Back Benchers to show particular expertise in an area that is absolutely critical for the future of this country. We have a huge and very important banking sector. In the light of what has happened, a debate on how it should be handled in order to prevent a further collapse but to encourage it in all the good things it does, is absolutely essential. I think that that would have enormous interest, and I am amazed that there has not been such a debate in the past three years. It merits a full six-hour debate on the Floor of the House.

Q20 Chair: Did you want to add something to that, Dr Lewis?

Dr Lewis: No. Could I just add my name to the list for later?

Chair: Yes, that is fine. I am sorry, I misunderstood.

Q21 Mr Hollobone: Would you be tabling a substantive motion or would it be a general debate?

Mr Meacher: I would prefer a substantive motion, but I entirely accept that its drafting needs to be extremely careful as to what degree of detail it goes into. It should concentrate on one or two central points, and not just be a shopping list. I do not think there should just be an open debate on the Adjournment.

Q22 Chair: Thank you. Next, we have Steve Baker on the reform of EDMs.

Steve Baker: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I bring up this subject with some trepidation in front of so many erudite and experienced colleagues, particularly Dr Lewis, who has used EDMs to some effect and thinks of them very positively. As a new Member of Parliament, and fairly new to politics, I have found the idea of parliamentary graffiti to be part of the problem of our democratic situation, rather than part of the answer. Sitting next to Dr Lewis, I am particularly aware that there are benefits to be had from early-day motions, so I would like to propose a general debate on the Floor of the House on a substantive motion for the reform of early-day motions.

I would like to see Backbench Members’ motions that would have a bar for the introduction of the motion before the House, time limits so that they expire within say a month, and a threshold that would allow such motions to be brought by the Backbench Business Committee to the House. This is an issue of general importance to Members. It could be made part of a broader debate on democratic renewal. I know that Members hold both points of view on the usefulness of EDMs. I suggest that the objective should be to capture the best of the current EDM system, but to change it from the current process, of which a parliamentary briefing states: "In parliamentary terms, the EDM virtually never has any direct consequence." To me, that seems a pity. I would like to see a system that has direct and relevant consequence on the Floor of the House.

Chair: I am going to hand over to Philip to ask some questions.

Q23 Mr Hollobone: Would you anticipate a full six-hour debate or would you require less time than that?

Steve Baker: I must admit that, as a new Member, I would very much value your opinion. I can see that we could probably deal with it in a couple of hours or three hours. If we were to widen the scope to a general debate on democratic renewal, leading to a Division on a substantive motion, perhaps six hours would be time well spent.

Q24 Mr Hollobone: Are there other parliamentary avenues that you have pursued to try to change the early-day motion system?

Steve Baker: I confess that I decided to come to this Committee first.

Chair: You have not tabled an EDM.

Steve Baker: I have not.

Q25 Mr Hollobone: Do you anticipate contributions from both sides of the House, with contributions from both sides, both ways?

Steve Baker: I would be surprised if that were not the case. Again, perhaps you have a deeper understanding of this than me, but I am on the list of those who would never sign EDMs, and I believe that that is not a partisan matter. I would expect to hear positions from both sides, from both sides of the House.

Q26John Hemming: I declare an interest as a member of the Procedure Committee, which tends to review changes to the House’s procedures before they are implemented. I am interested to know whether you have thought of suggesting that that issue be looked at by that Committee.

Steve Baker: I would be delighted to do so.

Q27 Chair: I call Adam Afriyie.

Adam Afriyie: You may be aware of my private Member’s Bill, which seeks to reduce the cost of Parliament by £4 million a year; to remove some of the bureaucracy of IPSA, while maintaining its independence; and to allow Members of Parliament to function more freely, with a new system of remuneration. The Bill goes a long way to forcing IPSA to fulfil its original mandate of being more cost-effective and efficient.

There comes a time in Parliament when you have to ask which issues should definitely be in the hands of Backbenchers, which should be in the hands of MPs and Parliament, and which should not be matters for party leaders or the Government. Payment of MPs, and the terms and conditions under which they work, should be tackled by Parliament and Back Benchers rather than those who are in the pay of the Government.

It is a topical debate in that the media and the public are interested after the expenses scandals. Every Member of this House is interested because they know how painful it is to operate within the existing system.

I have spoken to some 300 MPs one-to-one, and I have spoken to or written to party leaders and to most of the powers that be, including the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House. My analysis is that the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament to whom I have spoken one to one fully recognise that something needs to change, that the system needs to be simplified, and that it would be a good idea if in that process the amount of money paid by taxpayers went down.

I am not necessarily proposing a six-hour debate, but I hope that this issue will be of interest, because it sits squarely in the domain of the Back Benches. I hope that we can have a one or two-hour debate on a substantive motion that asks the Government-it would have to be drafted very carefully-to stand to one side and allow Parliament to make these decisions. It is a great opportunity, which has not happened in the last century, for Parliament to make the decisions that it should be making rather than Government-the Executive-enforcing decisions due to their concerns about public perception.

I put the Bill forward as a private Member’s Bill on a Friday, and the Government objected. They were wise to do so, because by allowing it through, they would have, potentially, politicised the issue, which is not what I wanted to happen.

Chair: I will hand over to Philip.

Q28Philip Davies: You were comprehensive and you have covered all the necessary ground. I have one query: you said that you have spoken to people such as the Leader of the House and the party leaders, I wonder whether-without breaching any confidences-you would tell us if they suggested any alternative avenues that you might pursue as opposed to coming here.

Adam Afriyie: I’ve been working on this for some time. I was fairly optimistic in the beginning part of last week, but a little further into the week that optimism waned. My main observation is that if a party leader or a Government gets involved in any way, shape or form with MPs’ expenses or allowances, that will politicise the issue and make it far too hot to handle. That’s why I’m asking that we perhaps give an opportunity to party leaders and the Government to allow Parliament to debate this in Committee, and to look at it careful. They can then take a view, once we’ve got a step further.

Q29 Philip Davies: Do you think that to the wider public this is still a topical issue? Do you think that this might be seen as parliamentarians just talking to themselves?

Adam Afriyie: That’s a really good question. I would say that surely it is our duty as Members of Parliament, and particularly as Backbenchers, to look without fear or favour at the systems that are employed to support MPs-about the working conditions of MPs-to ensure that democracy has its voice and that MPs are able to go about their duties. Charles I was beheaded on issues to do with interference with Parliament, and there have been many other instances, so I suggest that it would be a very good idea if Backbenchers were able to get on with debating this. Actually, it is our duty not to be afraid of the media. It is our duty not to be afraid of the public, if there is something that we know, and I know that the majority of people here do know that this system is not working as it should.

Chair: I’m going to hand over to Peter and then to Phillip.

Q30 Mr Bone: Mr Afriyie, you’re volunteering to be beheaded by the media. I agree with your presentation, and you’ve spoken to 300 MPs, but how many of them will actually go into the Chamber and speak? We’re looking for a debate and we, as a Committee, need to know that there are a lot of people who will speak in public on this issue. If there aren’t, I don’t think that we can put the debate on. What is your estimate of the number of people who would actually speak in the debate?

Adam Afriyie: I am quite certain that about 80 MPs will be prepared to speak on this subject. The debate will be about the principle of whether the current system works, and whether it is value for taxpayers’ money when it’s costing between say £8 million and £12 million a year to administer it for very little benefit.

Q31 Mr Hollobone: You’re being very modest in saying that you’d only require one, or perhaps two, hours for this debate, but on the other hand, you say that there could be 80 people willing to speak. Isn’t this sounding more and more like a full-day’s event, especially when at the end of it you’d like a substantive motion, which could end up with someone losing their head?

Adam Afriyie: Yes. Probably me. But I would say two things. As I have said, I’ve spoken to 300 MPs, and if we all ask ourselves, "Do MPs believe that the current system is working to serve Parliament and to serve the people in democracy correctly?" the answer is pretty much unanimously no. If we were looking at this as a debate on the principles of where there should be change, it is well known that MPs are pretty comfortable with looking at changing the system. In terms of the number of people, I would say that I’m not sure that there are more than a few dozen points to be made about the existing system and about the need for change to a simpler system. Some very important topics have been raised here, and so I would be very happy if there were more time for other Backbench matters.

Q32 Mr Hollobone: You are being very modest and very generous about that, but if we actually stand back with a cold wet towel over our heads, a debate that runs for one to two hours is a bit like the old topical debates in which you could just about get into a subject. But you are asking us to have a substantive motion on an important topic, so aren’t we really looking here at a full-day’s debate?

Q33 John Hemming: Perhaps you would be looking for a substantive motion in Parliament to establish a task and finish Select Committee to look at this issue.

Adam Afriyie: Potentially. We would have to look closely at the words of that motion, but my main objective is to allow the Government and political parties to give Parliament the space so that the issue does not become politicised in the traditional sense.

Q34 Chair: Thank you, Adam. I call Steve Rotheram.

Steve Rotheram: First, I apologise for not giving greater notice of this issue. That is because just today in the Chamber, during DCMS oral questions, once again this issue was highlighted. I’m hoping to bring it to the attention of the Committee for general debate, and that is the issue of football governance. I’m not asking the Committee to compare it with some of the previous subjects raised, such as the economic future of the country, the sustainability of communities, pandemics, the banking crisis or even IPSA, but this is an issue of huge public interest. I can demonstrate that, because we had a one and a half hour debate in Westminster Hall and, apocryphally, it’s the best attended Westminster Hall debate in history, so it shows you that it was of huge interest. It also got support right across the political divide. Members from all parties-even the minor parties-attended that particular debate, so I think it should be considered by this Committee for a future debate in the Chamber.

Q35 Mr Hollobone: The debate in Westminster Hall was very well attended. But of course the big difference between Westminster Hall debates and debates on the Floor of the House is that on the Floor of the House you can actually table a substantive motion. My two questions are: How long would you anticipate the debate being on the Floor of the House and would it be your intention to table a substantive motion?

Steve Rotheram: If 80 people attended the previous debate, then, believe me, a lot more will attend a debate on football governance, so you possibly need upwards of four or five-maybe even six-hours to debate this issue fully. With regard to the substantive motion, I’m not absolutely sure of the vagaries of the House at the moment, so I’ll leave that open to the Committee to decide what it believes would be best.

Q36 Jane Ellison: I was delighted to hear your opening speech in Westminster Hall, and it was hugely well attended. If you were to have that long in the Chamber, what is the actual debate going to be on? Most of the contributions in Westminster Hall were from people pretty much violently agreeing with each other. I just wonder where you saw the debate being in terms of sustaining interest and a to and fro.

Steve Rotheram: There was huge debate. Although there was a lot of common ground, there were certainly people who vehemently disagreed with the direction in which you’d actually achieve the outcome. With regard to a full debate, I don’t think there will be any problem with people using the full allocation of time. The issue itself has moved on slightly from Westminster Hall. I have to declare an interest as a season ticket holder for Liverpool Football Club, and although my self-interest has now waned because our club has now been saved-hopefully-it’s still a huge issue. We’ve just seen what’s happened with Portsmouth Football Club. This is something that will resonate not just in here but right across the country.

Q37 Philip Davies: Obviously there is a lot of interest. You’ve certainly passed that threshold. If there were that many people in Westminster Hall, presumably lots of people who wanted to speak did not get the chance. Notwithstanding all that, what arguments and points would come out of a debate in the Chamber that have not already come out in a Westminster Hall debate, albeit for just an hour and a half?

Steve Rotheram: The main thrust of what people were in agreement with was that something needed to be done with regard to preventing what happened at Liverpool, Manchester United and Portsmouth, for example, happening again. There needs to be a tightening up of regulation. Just as four years ago people might have said, "You don’t need to do anything in regard to the financial sector", I’m not certain that you’d get the same feedback now if you asked the same question.

Q38 Philip Davies: But just for argument’s sake, if we were to have a three-hour debate, would it just be twice as many people saying the same things as were said in Westminster Hall? That’s the point I’m getting at-twice as many arguments advanced.

Steve Rotheram: Politicians repeating themselves-you could be right. I’ve sat through many debates where people get up and say the exact same thing as the previous speaker so that is something that Parliament needs to consider. The outcome, which is the most important bit, is about putting forward some sort of policy that everyone can agree with to tighten up some of the regulations which then perhaps could go on to form a Bill at a later date.

Q39 Philip Davies: Could I ask about timing? Obviously there is the delicacy of the bid for the World Cup. Would you envisage the debate waiting until after that decision had been made or do you not see a relationship between the two?

Steve Rotheram: I think there is a relationship and it feeds into the World Cup bid, because if we can prove better governance of our football institutions that can only be good for the bid.

Q40 Chair: Finally, we have got Julian Lewis. If there is anybody else, please put your hand up afterwards.

Dr Julian Lewis: Thank you very much. The idea for this debate was suggested by none other than the Prime Minister himself in a response last Tuesday on the Floor of the House, not directly to me but to Gisela Stuart, a Labour colleague, who was following on from a question I had asked about the decision to proceed with the next generation of the strategic nuclear deterrent. You will recall that the Prime Minister took some people by surprise by announcing that the decision to place the main orders for the next generation of the Trident deterrent would be postponed from this side of the general election to the far side. This is obviously of interest because it raises points to do with the way in which coalition politics work.

You could have a situation where the two main parties, as at the last election, went into the election firmly committed to a particular policy-namely the renewal of this very important system-and a much smaller party was opposed to doing so and yet, as a result of coalition bargaining, you end up with the decision being postponed. Therefore I was pressing the Prime Minister on this. Gisela Stuart from her side of the House also pressed him on the same thing and he responded that now we had the Backbench Business Committee, what could be more appropriate than to have a motion before the House on which we could vote?

My suggestion is therefore that we should have a motion which calls for a free vote on whether the main-gate decision to order the next generation of Trident should be taken in this Parliament, rather than in the next as has been put forward by the Prime Minister, despite the assurances given to Conservative MPs when we were asked to endorse the coalition that the Liberals would accept that Trident should go ahead. This raises a number of problems and issues, both about defence but also about democratic responsibility when a small, third party is able to derail the manifesto commitments of the two larger parties.

Q41 Chair: There are quite a lot of issues there, but it is quite important at this point to establish that just because the Prime Minister says something is Backbench business does not necessarily make it so. There is also the issue of whether this is strictly speaking about the postponement of the decision on Trident or about coalition politics. The two things are entwined. What you are asking for is quite complicated. I am assuming that you are asking just for a debate or a motion calling on the Government to bring forward that decision before the general election rather than after it. Is that right?

Dr Julian Lewis: Trident is by far the main issue to be taken in this debate, although it raises these subordinate issues. The draft motion that I have is that this House should have a free vote on whether the main-gate decision should be taken and the main contracts should be signed for the Trident nuclear deterrent successor system during the lifetime of this Parliament. That would be the topic and we would not actually debate what the outcome should be on the vote itself, but hon. Members should have a free vote, given that many of them will have given pledges to their constituents which they now find themselves in breach of because of coalition horse-trading.

Chair: I am going to ask Peter to come in.

Q42 Mr Bone: I am interested in this concept of a free vote. Of course, all votes in the House of Commons are free. It would be quite improper for anybody to try to tell a Member of Parliament how to vote. I understand what you are saying, Dr Lewis, but would it not be better just to have a motion saying that Parliament must make a decision on whether to proceed with Trident this Parliament? Would that not make it slightly easier?

Dr Julian Lewis: Yes, it would, but I fear a repeat of what happened when I put down an amendment to someone else’s motion, and for the first time we had a Division on business put forward by this Committee. The motion in effect said that this House believes that we should stay in Afghanistan until the job is done, so one had to be either for staying in or for coming out. I put down what I regarded as a very reasoned amendment and both main parties-dare I say it?-whipped people to vote against it. The result, of what was certainly not a free vote, was that about six people voted for my amendment.

If I now have discussions in Washington and Whitehall and people suddenly decide that my recommendations for strategy in Afghanistan have a lot to be said for them, we could come back in a year’s time and find that instead of six people voting in favour, only about six people vote against, because the tectonic plates have shifted. That is why I felt it might be an idea to retreat from a bare-knuckle, straightforward debate on the substantive Trident issue, and instead ask for Members to be allowed to express their personal views on the subject, without being influenced by these non-existent people called Whips.

Q43 Philip Davies: Am I right in thinking, Julian, that you are rather sneakily asking for two debates? It seems to me that you are asking to start with a debate on whether we should have a debate. Presumably, if you get support in the vote to have such a debate with a free vote, you will be coming back to ask, can we now have the debate? That appears to be a bid for two debates in one go.

Dr Julian Lewis: It is a bid for two debates but not for two debates at the goodwill and behest of this Committee. The first would be, but as for the second, if the House passed a motion calling for a free vote on a substantive debate on the issue, I would expect the Government to make the time available for that. It would be interesting to see if the Government whipped people to vote against the principle of a free vote on a subject that they had all committed themselves to one way, when they went into the last general election, but for various reasons that we perhaps should not touch upon because it is before the watershed on TV and it might upset the young and idealistic, we now find ourselves not doing. That is, not taking a decision on Trident in this Parliament, when both major parties were committed to doing so until last Tuesday.

Q44 Philip Davies: Do you not therefore think that what you are really saying is that you think this should be debated in Government time, rather than in Back Benchers’ time?

Dr Julian Lewis: But the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is not going to be debated in Government time. He is saying that my only route-he is using it as a bit of a fig leaf, if I dare put it that way-to get a vote of any sort on Trident at the moment is if your Committee gives hon. Members a chance to do that. I am then faced with the prospect that that vote will be whipped, certainly by the Government side, if not by both sides. Therefore, I am trying to finesse it a bit by asking for a debate on the principle of having a free vote on the matter, which would strengthen our hand to pressurise the Government to give us the time to have a debate in Government time.

Q45 Chair: We will seriously consider what you have said, but I repeat that it is important, especially at the outset of the Committee, that we establish that we are not here to give time for debates that Government won’t debate. This is about giving time to Backbenchers to debate what they want to debate. We will see your bid in that context-of not having the opportunity to debate it anywhere else.

Dr Julian Lewis: I am a little worried about my slightly light-hearted point about it being at the suggestion of the Prime Minister. It was only at the suggestion of the Prime Minister because he has made up his mind adamantly that he does not want this matter to happen. I would have thought that it is tailor-made for this Committee because, effectively, the Government are abrogating their responsibility, so I am coming to this Committee to see if it can fill in the gap.

Chair: Indeed. Very briefly, John.

Q46 John Hemming: Is there a deadline on when you would want to make the decision?

Dr Julian Lewis: I believe that the decision ought to be taken in the lifetime of this Parliament because both main parties-in fact, all three parties in their different ways-had made up their mind before the last general election. They went into the election, we got the result from the election and now the two main parties are, frankly, being jerked about by the third party-no reference to your good self, of course-in this respect. Therefore I believe that a pledge given by the main parties to the electorate before the last election should be honoured. That means the time to take this decision is in this Parliament and it should not be put off for tactical, political, horse-trading reasons beyond the next general election.

Q47 Philip Davies: Can I just ask something very quickly? If hypothetically this Committee said, "Well, we’re not so sure about the two-debate strategy, but there’s merit in having a debate on Trident," would you say, "That’s good enough" or would you say, "That’s not good enough?"

Dr Julian Lewis: No. I would say that that is amply good enough. I don’t want to talk myself out of an opportunity by being too clever by half.

Q48 Chair: Well, stop there then. Thank you very much. Brian Binley. Right at the start we had a representation from John Redwood and Jeremy Lefroy, but you would like to add to that.

Mr Binley: I am late. I apologise and I am sure you will smack my wrists later. Can I tell you very quickly and briefly why I support this request for a debate? It is because both Governments that we have seen over the last couple of years have talked glibly about getting money to SMEs and, quite frankly, they have failed to do so. Nothing of consequence has happened and, even though they welcome the thought, we have heard no details about how they might actually put the thing into effect.

I believe there are four reasons why-I am talking specifically from an SME point of view, as I very often do as you know. I don’t think they understand the urgency. The Federation of Small Businesses tells us that 125,000 businesses are on the cusp of going to the wall. Secondly, they don’t understand why the money is needed. Growth costs money-short-term money-that can’t be returned, other than by either getting a loan to finance it or by retained profit. That is the reason why more businesses go to the wall in an upturn than they do during a downturn.

Thirdly, they don’t understand that SMEs are the major growth engine, both for jobs and wealth. We were in the process of putting on 2 million jobs at the time that UK Plc was in the process of losing 1.5 million jobs. Finally, the Budget strategy depends upon that growth. Madam Chairman, I would simply say that you are right: this Committee is about what Back-Bench Members want to talk about. I am not sure that the Government want to talk about the details of this. I believe that the details are vital and that this is a massive mechanism for putting pressure on the Government to recognise that and winkle that information out of them.

Chair: We will add that representation to the first one we had. Would anyone else like to make a bid? If not, we will end. Thank you so much to everybody for coming. Thank you to those who wrote to us in advance and to those who did not. These meetings are so wide ranging. This is only the second one, but it was nothing like the first one we had. I am very grateful to you all. Thank you very much for taking the time to come and see us. We’re going to go into private session now and we will let you all know what the outcome is after that. It will also be on our website. I don’t know the web address, but you can get to it on the intranet. Thank you for your time.